Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ESTRELLA TIONGCO YARED SUBSTITUTED BY ONE OF HER HEIRS v. RICARDO M. ILARDE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 168655 2010-07-02	J. CASIM CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES v. REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS PERALTA, J.
Lis pendens î º which literally means pending suit î º refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over the property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment.[24] Founded upon public policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent alienation.[25] Its notice is an announcement to the whole world that a particular property is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk, or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over said property.[26]
	GR No. 171465 2007-06-08	AAA v. ANTONIO A. CARBONELL YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, we must point out the procedural error committed by petitioner in directly filing the instant petition before this Court instead of the Court of Appeals, thereby violating the principle of judicial hierarchy of courts. It is well-settled that although the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Courts have concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum.[19] In this case, however, the gravity of the offense charged and the length of time that has passed since the filing of the complaint for rape, compel us to resolve the present controversy in order to avoid further delay.[20]
	GR NO. 143797 2006-05-04	CARLITO L. MONTES v. CA
The Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction is not exclusive. It is shared by this Court with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction however should not be taken to mean that the parties have an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to which they will file their application or petition. There is an ordained sequence of recourse to courts vested with concurrent jurisdiction, beginning from the lowest, on to the next highest, and ultimately to the highest. This hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and is likewise determinative of the proper forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. A direct invocation of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefore, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is established policy. It is a policy that is necessary to prevent inordinate demands upon the Court's time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent the further clogging of the Court's docket.[34]
	GR NO. 142406 2005-05-16	SPS. CONRADO AND MA. CORONA ROMERO v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Lis pendens, which literally means pending suit, refers to the jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over property involved in a suit, pending the continuance of the action, and until final judgment.[20] Founded upon public policy and necessity, lis pendens is intended to keep the properties in litigation within the power of the court until the litigation is terminated, and to prevent the defeat of the judgment or decree by subsequent alienation.[21] Its notice is an announcement to the whole world that a particular property is in litigation and serves as a warning that one who acquires an interest over said property does so at his own risk or that he gambles on the result of the litigation over said property.[22]
	GR No. 159118 2004-06-28	VICTOR B. CUÑADA v. RAY ALAN T. DRILON AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC TINGA, J.
Petitioners also violated the doctrine of judicial hierarchy in filing the petition before this Court. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari is not exclusive, as it is shared with the Regional Trial Courts and the Court of Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction does not mean, however, that litigants have free reign as to the choice of court to which the petition for certiorari may be filed. Petitions for the issuance of a writ of certiorari against a first level court should be filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, before the Court of Appeals. A direct resort to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the writ is allowed only when there are special and important reasons therefor, clearly and specifically set out in the petition.[6] In the petition before us, there are no exceptional and compelling circumstances which would justify a disregard of this rule.