Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ESTATE OF J. AMADO ARANETA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 180804 2012-11-12	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. ROKAYA AND SULAIMAN BONA PEREZ, J.
The same interpretation was arrived at in the subsequent decisions in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao;[44] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz;[45] LBP v. J. L. Jocson and Sons;[46] in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ferrer;[47] and more recently in the Land Bank of the Philippines v. Araneta.[48]
	GR No. 174007 2012-06-27	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MANOLO V. GODUCO PEREZ, J.
The same interpretation was arrived at in the subsequent decisions in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Eleuterio Cruz;[36] in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ferrer;[37] and more recently in the Land Bank of the Philippines v. Araneta.[38]
	GR NO. 142961 2006-08-04	RHODA REGINA REYES-RARA v. BRENDA CHAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the instant case, there was no directive from the Secretary of Justice to request for a suspension of the proceedings before the trial court. Neither were petitioners denied due process as they were given ample opportunity to file a counter affidavit before the Prosecutor's Office but failed to submit the same on time through their own fault. In any case, their contentions in their counter affidavit were passed upon by the Court of Appeals in the petition for review of the January 3, 2000 resolution of the Secretary of Justice in Reyes-Rara v. Tuquero, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 61796.[31] Unfortunately, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and categorically held that petitioners were not denied due process and that the arguments advanced in the counter affidavit are matters of defense that should be properly ventilated at the trial. Said decision is now final and executory since no motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed by petitioners despite receipt of notice thereof on August 31, 2001.[32] It is thus clear that the circumstances obtaining in this case are different from the factual back drop of Dimatulac v. Villon, considering that there was no irregularity in the proceedings at the prosecutorial stage which could be the basis of respondent Judge's suspension of the arraignment.