Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. CA

This case has been cited 9 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. 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. 171804 2015-08-05	REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL v. OSCAR ANGLO LEONEN, J.
In the Decision dated August 3, 1965, Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental ordered the registration of Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817 in favor of de Ocampo.[10] On October 1, 1965, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 576-N[11] covering both lots was issued in the name of de Ocampo.[12]
	GR No. 171804 2015-08-05	REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL v. OSCAR ANGLO LEONEN, J.
In the Decision dated August 3, 1965, Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental ordered the registration of Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817 in favor of de Ocampo.[10] On October 1, 1965, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 576-N[11] covering both lots was issued in the name of de Ocampo.[12]
	GR No. 171804 2015-08-05	REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL v. OSCAR ANGLO LEONEN, J.
On December 28, 1965, the Republic filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment with Preliminary Injunction Pending Proceeding before the Court of First Instance in San Carlos City[13] assailing the Decision dated August 3, 1965.[14]
	GR No. 171804 2015-08-05	REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL v. OSCAR ANGLO LEONEN, J.
The Republic's appeal before the Court of Appeals was likewise dismissed in the Resolution dated August 21, 1969.[21] The Republic filed an appeal by certiorari to this court.[22] The case was entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals.[23]
	GR No. 171804 2015-08-05	REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL v. OSCAR ANGLO LEONEN, J.
The Republic's appeal before the Court of Appeals was likewise dismissed in the Resolution dated August 21, 1969.[21] The Republic filed an appeal by certiorari to this court.[22] The case was entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals.[23]
	GR No. 171804 2015-08-05	REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL v. OSCAR ANGLO LEONEN, J.
In the Decision dated May 31, 1978, this court remanded the Republic's case back to the Court of Appeals to be decided on its merits.[29]
	GR No. 173375 2008-09-25	LEONCIO D. MANGAHAS v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It has been said time and again that the perfection of an appeal within the period fixed by the rules is mandatory and jurisdictional.[35] But it is always in the power of this Court to suspend its own rules, or to except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require it.[36] This Court is mindful of the policy of affording litigants the amplest opportunity for the determination of their cases on the merits[37] and of dispensing with technicalities whenever compelling reasons so warrant or when the purpose of justice requires it.[38]