tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7286991260778765965.post5439117538672234808..comments2023-07-26T17:20:58.285+08:00Comments on Pinoy Law Student: Robberies and fortuitous eventsP.L.S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17876556986824622594noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7286991260778765965.post-4139489306552875802022-03-14T19:35:58.240+08:002022-03-14T19:35:58.240+08:00Thank you. It's very helpful. The same questio...Thank you. It's very helpful. The same question Judge Tess asked during our class. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07826941790142447357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7286991260778765965.post-5016845411619454702015-09-18T12:59:29.999+08:002015-09-18T12:59:29.999+08:00pawnshops are imbued with public interest. Robbery...pawnshops are imbued with public interest. Robbery per se can be forseeable and inevitable in the case sicam v. jorgeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7286991260778765965.post-82675205402595185892015-09-18T12:52:00.246+08:002015-09-18T12:52:00.246+08:00Carnapping per se cannot be considered as a fortui...Carnapping per se cannot be considered as a fortuitous event. The fact that a thing was unlawfully and forcefully taken from another·s rightful possession, as in cases of carnapping, does no automatically give rise to a fortuitous event. To be considered as such, carnapping entails morethan the mere forceful taking of another·s property. It must be proved and established that the event was an act of God or was done solely by third parties and that neither the claimant nor the person alleged to be negligent has any participation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7286991260778765965.post-14337778962445435772008-04-21T23:15:00.000+08:002008-04-21T23:15:00.000+08:00Thanks for the comment. It's good to know that som...Thanks for the comment. It's good to know that someone actually reads my blog. <BR/><BR/>In Sicam, the four requisites were not complied with. That's why it was said there that carnapping is not per se a fortuitous event. But the case does not say that carnapping or robbery can never be a fortuitous event.P.L.S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17876556986824622594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7286991260778765965.post-65590732668599966412008-04-21T22:28:00.000+08:002008-04-21T22:28:00.000+08:00I don't agree..and so does the Supreme Court. Robb...I don't agree..and so does the Supreme Court. Robbery is not a fortuitous event. Read Sicam v. Jorge that you have just cited.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com