This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-10-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Since PDB's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and for New Trial was filed late and the 15-day period within which to appeal expired without PDB filing the requisite notice of appeal, it follows that its right to appeal has been foreclosed; it may no longer question the trial court's Decision in any other manner. "Settled is the rule that a party is barred from assailing the correctness of a judgment not appealed from by him."[34] The "presumption that a party who did not interject an appeal is satisfied with the adjudication made by the lower court"[35] applies to it. There being no appeal taken by PDB from the adverse judgment of the trial court, its Decision has become final and can no longer be reviewed, much less reversed, by this Court. "Finality of a judgment or order becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal if no appeal is perfected, and is conclusive as to the issues actually determined and to every matter which the parties might have litigated and have x x x decided as incident to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation, and every matter coming within the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect to matters of claim and of defense."[36] And "[i]n this jurisdiction, the rule is that when a judgment becomes final and executory, it is the ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of execution to enforce the judgment;"[37] "execution will issue as a matter of right x x x (a) when the judgment has become final and executory; (b) when the judgment debtor has renounced or waived his right of appeal; [or] (c) when the period for appeal has lapsed without an appeal having been filed x x x."[38] | |||||
|
2012-08-29 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is settled that what really defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in its description, but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and indicating its limits.[44] We have held, however, that in controversial cases where there appears to be an overlapping of boundaries, the actual size of the property gains importance.[45] | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| More importantly, there exists a serious doubt as to the identity of the property, which respondent claims as owned and possessed by her. An area delimited by boundaries properly identifies a parcel of land.[35] In this case, the respective titles of the Bank of Commerce and respondent bear the following boundaries: Technical | |||||
|
2002-01-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Admittedly, neither petitioners nor their predecessor had any title to the land in question. The most that petitioners could claim was that the Director of Lands issued a sales patent in the name of Tomas N. Alonso. The sales patent, however, and even the corresponding deed of sale were not registered with the Register of Deeds and no title was ever issued in the name of the latter. This is because there were basic requirements not complied with, the most important of which was that the deed of sale executed by the Director of Lands was not approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Hence, the deed of sale was void.[28] "Approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce is indispensable for the validity of the sale."[29] Moreover, Cebu Country Club, Inc. was in possession of the land since 1931, and had been paying the real estate taxes thereon based on tax declarations in its name with the title number indicated thereon. Tax receipts and declarations of ownership for taxation purposes are strong evidence of ownership.[30] This Court has ruled that although tax declarations or realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in his right mind will be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.[31] | |||||