Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MELINA P. MACAHILIG v. HEIRS OF GRACE M. MAGALIT

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 198994 2016-02-03	IRIS MORALES v. ANA MARIA OLONDRIZ BRION, J.
Finally, there is no merit in the petitioner's argument that the previous order setting the case for probate barred the RTC from ordering the case to proceed intestate. The disputed order is merely interlocutory and can never become final and executory in the same manner that a final judgment does.[13] An interlocutory order does not result in res judicata.[14] It remains under the control of the court and can be modified or rescinded at any time before final judgment.[15]
	GR No. 189434 2014-03-12	FERDINAND R. MARCOS v. REPUBLIC SERENO, C.J.
Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective. In the latter condition, the property, though at all times within the potential power of the court, may not be in the actual custody of said court.[9]
	GR Nos. 177857-58 2012-01-24	PHILIPPINE COCONUT v. REPUBLIC VELASCO JR., J.
The ensuing excerpts from Macahilig v. Heirs of Magalit[80] are instructive: We cannot allow her to attack its jurisdiction simply because it rendered a Decision prejudicial to her position. Participation in all stages of a case before a trial court effectively estops a party from challenging its jurisdiction. One cannot belatedly reject or repudiate its decision after voluntarily submitting to its jurisdiction, just to secure affirmative relief against one's opponent or after failing to obtain such relief. If, by deed or conduct, a party has induced another to act in a particular manner, estoppel effectively bars the former from adopting an inconsistent position, attitude or course of conduct that thereby causes loss or injury to the latter.
	GR No. 164041 2005-07-29	ROSENDO ALBA v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of the court is recognized and made effective.[26] The service of summons or notice to the defendant is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process requirements.[27]
	GR No. 138490 2004-11-24	DESIREE L. PAGE-TENORIO v. WILFREDO C. TENORIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We find pertinent the ruling of this Court in the case of Macahilig v. Heirs of Grace M. Magalit:[23]
	GR No. 152145 2004-03-30	SALUD D. LOPEZ v. ROBERT P. DAVID JR. PANGANIBAN, J.
"The doctrine of laches or of 'stale demands' is based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted."[29] We have applied this doctrine to succeeding cases by denying allegations of lack of jurisdiction if the question was not raised at an earlier stage, but brought up only after an adverse decision.[30] We have also stressed, however, that this doctrine is merely an exception to the general rule and time-honored principle that jurisdiction is not lost by waiver or by estoppel.[31]