This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-02-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, the Court shall exercise liberality and consider the instant petition as one filed under Rule 45. In Artistica Ceramica, Inc. v. Ciudad Del Carmen Homeowner's Association, Inc.,[14] citing Republic v. Court of Appeals,[15] the Court noted that it has the discretion to determine whether a petition was filed under Rule 45 or 65 of the Rules of Court: Admittedly, this Court, in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of justice, has the discretion to treat a petition for certiorari as having been filed under Rule 45, especially if filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review. | |||||
|
2004-12-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| After the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period to appeal,[17] an order becomes executory, and it goes beyond the jurisdiction of the court that rendered it to further amend or revoke.[18] The subsequent filing of a Motion for Reconsideration cannot disturb the finality of a judgment, nor restore jurisdiction that had already been lost.[19] A final and executory judgment or order cannot be modified in any respect, even if the modification sought is to correct an erroneous conclusion by the court that rendered it.[20] | |||||
|
2001-11-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On a final procedural note, the Court of Appeals erred in giving due course to the special civil action for certiorari. A basic requisite for such action to lie is that there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari is a remedy of last recourse and is a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction. Certiorari cannot be used as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal. Respondent lost that remedy by his failure to appeal.[12] | |||||
|
2001-10-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Hence, the Court of Appeals did not err when it dismissed the petition for certiorari and mandamus, on the ground that the proper remedy was to appeal within fifteen (15) days. The lapse of the reglementary period was of no moment. A basic requisite for the special civil action of certiorari to lie is that there be no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Certiorari is a remedy of last recourse and is a limited form of review. Its principal function is to keep inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction. It cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal. It is not intended to correct errors of procedure or mistakes in the judge's findings or conclusions.[12] | |||||
|
2001-10-03 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The fact that the Court did not annul the sale of the land to an alien did not validate the transaction, for it was still contrary to the constitutional proscription against aliens acquiring lands of the public or private domain. However, the proper party to assail the illegality of the transaction was not the parties to the transaction.[29] "In sales of real estate to aliens incapable of holding title thereto by virtue of the provisions of the Constitution both the vendor and the vendee are deemed to have committed the constitutional violation and being thus in pari delicto the courts will not afford protection to either party."[30] The proper party to assail the sale is the Solicitor General. This was what was done in this case when the Solicitor General initiated an action for annulment of judgment of reconstitution of title. While it took the Republic more than sixty years to assert itself, it is not barred from initiating such action. Prescription never lies against the State.[31] | |||||