Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ALFREDO V. DE OCAMPO v. REPUBLIC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 171804 2015-08-05	REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL v. OSCAR ANGLO LEONEN, J.
On June 29, 1960, Alfredo V. de Ocampo (de Ocampo) filed an application before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental[2] to register two parcels of prime sugar land,[3] Lot No. 2509[4] of the cadastral survey of Escalante and Lot No. 817[5] of the cadastral survey of Sagay. The registration was contested by the Republic of the Philippines Bureau of Education (the Republic).[6] According to the Republic, the lots de Ocampo sought to register were bequeathed to the Bureau of Education by the late Esteban Jalandoni on September 21, 1926.[7] Due to the donation, the Bureau of Education owned the lots as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 6014.[8]
	GR No. 169345 2010-08-25	DEE PING WEE v. LEE HIONG WEE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The RTC Decisions in Civil Case Nos. Q-04-091, Q-04-092 and Q-04-093 are final orders that disposed of the whole subject matter or terminated the particular proceedings or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined.[62] As the RTC was unquestionably acting within its jurisdiction, all errors that it might have committed in the exercise of such jurisdiction are errors of judgment, which are reviewable by a timely appeal.
	GR NO. 168088 2007-04-04	SAN FERNANDO RURAL BANK v. PAMPANGA OMNIBUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The CA erred in holding that the Order of the RTC granting the petition for a writ of possession was merely interlocutory. Interlocutory orders are those that determine incidental matters and which do not touch on the merits of the case or put an end to the proceedings. A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy to question an improvident interlocutory order.[60] On the other hand, a final order is one that disposes of the whole matter or terminates the particular proceedings or action leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined. It is one that finally disposes of the pending action so that nothing more can be done with it in the lower court.[61] The remedy to question a final order is appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.