Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PATROCINIO E. MARGOLLES v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 127022 2000-06-28	FIRESTONE CERAMICS v. CA PURISIMA, J.
The fact alone that the property involved covers an area of 99 hectares does not provide a cogent reason to elevate the cases to the Court en banc. Nowhere in the extent guidelines for referral to the Court en banc is the value of the property subject of the case relevant to determine whether the division should refer a matter to the Court en banc. Moreover, the validity of OCT No. 4216, which petitioner Republic raised as a principal issue in the instant petition, had already been long settled by final judgments of this Court in three (3) cases.[2]
	GR No. 111715 2000-06-08	MANUEL SILVESTRE BERNARDO and the HEIRS OF JOSE P. BERNARDO namely v. SANTOS GONZAGA-REYES, J.
Civil Case No. Q-92-12645 should be considered as one of quieting of title which can proceed notwithstanding the nullity of the reconstitution proceedings before the Pasig RTC. Even if the reconstitution proceedings had not been instituted, the Bernardos are not precluded from establishing by other evidence, such as the certificate of sale[63] allegedly issued to Tomas Bernardo, the requisite proof of validity of TCT No. 12658.[64]
	GR No. 112905 2000-02-03	HEIRS OF PEDRO LOPEZ v. HONESTO C. DE CASTRO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In land registration proceedings, all interested parties are obliged to take care of their interests and to zealously pursue their objective of registration on account of the rule that whoever first acquires title to a piece of land shall prevail. To illustrate, where more than one certificate of title is issued over the land, the person holding a prior certificate is entitled to the land as against a person who relies on a subsequent certificate.[36] It should be stressed that said rule refers to the date of the certificate of title and not to the date of filing of the application for registration of title. Hence, even though an applicant precedes another, he may not be deemed to have priority of right to register title. As such, while his application is being processed, an applicant is duty-bound to observe vigilance and to take care that his right or interest is duly protected.