Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 152445 2008-07-04	CAMBRIDGE REALTY v. ERIDANUS DEVELOPMENT YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
An example lies precisely in the area of land boundary disputes. The first step in the resolution of such cases is for the court to direct the proper government agency concerned (the Land Registration Authority,[89] or LRA, or the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, or DENR) to conduct a verification or relocation survey and submit a report to the court,[90] or constitute a panel of commissioners for the purpose.[91]
	GR NO. 165665 2007-01-31	ALBERTO ROMULO v. JUDGE EDUARDO B. PERALTA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J
In Cayetano v. Cayetano,[7] we held that actual knowledge of a decision cannot be attributed to the addressee of a registered matter where there is no showing that the registry notice itself contains any indication that the registered matter is a copy of the decision or that the registry notice refers to the case being ventilated. Then, in Sapida v. Villanueva,[8] citing Cayetano, we ruled that we could not justly attribute to respondents "actual knowledge of the order of denial of their motion for new trial through registered mail… because there is no showing that the registry notice itself or the envelope or the return card for that matter contained any indication or annotation that the registered matter was indeed and in fact a copy of the said order."