Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 196271 2011-10-18	DATU MICHAEL ABAS KIDA v. SENATE OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
As mentioned, the early challenge to RA No. 10153 came through a petition filed with this Court - G.R. No. 196271[3] - assailing the constitutionality of both HB No. 4146 and SB No. 2756, and challenging the validity of RA No. 9333 as well for non-compliance with the constitutional plebiscite requirement. Thereafter, petitioner Basari Mapupuno in G.R. No. 196305 filed another petition[4] also assailing the validity of RA No. 9333.
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
An obiter dictum has been defined as an opinion expressed by a court upon some question of law which is not necessary to the decision of the case before it. It is a remark made, or opinion expressed, by a judge, in his decision upon a cause, "by the way," that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question before him, or upon a point not necessarily involved in the determination of the cause, or introduced by way of illustration, or analogy or argument. Such are not binding as precedent.[63]
	GR No. 179987 2009-04-29	HEIRS OF MARIO MALABANAN v. REPUBLIC TINGA, J.
On 23 February 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision[8] reversing the RTC and dismissing the application of Malabanan. The appellate court held that under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree any period of possession prior to the classification of the lots as alienable and disposable was inconsequential and should be excluded from the computation of the period of possession. Thus, the appellate court noted that since the CENRO-DENR certification had verified that the property was declared alienable and disposable only on 15 March 1982, the Velazcos' possession prior to that date could not be factored in the computation of the period of possession. This interpretation of the Court of Appeals of Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree was based on the Court's ruling in Republic v. Herbieto.[9]
	GR No. 144444 2008-04-04	STATE INVESTMENT TRUST v. DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
Petitioner contends that by not nullifying the Decision of the RTC and the subsequent proceedings it conducted, the CA[18] and this Court[19] affirmed the validity of the March 11, 1987 Order of Execution. It contends that Delta is thus barred from questioning the subsequent RTC Orders, which merely emanated from the allegedly valid Order granting execution.
	GR No. 144444 2003-04-03	STATE INVESTMENT TRUST v. DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION PANGANIBAN, J.
Petitioner contends that by not nullifying the Decision of the RTC and the subsequent proceedings it conducted, the CA[18] and this Court[19] affirmed the validity of the March 11, 1987 Order of Execution. It contends that Delta is thus barred from questioning the subsequent RTC Orders, which merely emanated from the allegedly valid Order granting execution.