Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROSALIA P. SALVA v. CA GOVERNOR JOSEPHINE R. SATO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR Nos. 177105-06 2010-08-12	JOSE REYES Y VACIO v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
Due to its finality, the decision in AC-G.R. CV No. 02883 became immutable, and could no longer be modified in any respect, whether the modification was to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law, whether made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.[34] The reason for such immutability is that a litigation must end sometime, and an effective and efficient administration of justice requires that the winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict once a judgment becomes final.[35]
	GR Nos. 162335 & 162605 2008-12-18	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE TINGA, J.
There is no doubt that the Court of Appeals does not have original jurisdiction to annul Torrens titles or to otherwise adjudicate questions over ownership of property. Its exclusive original jurisdiction is determined by law, particularly by Batas Pambansa (B.P. 129). Section 9 of that law restricts the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to special civil actions and to actions for annulment of judgments of the regional trial court.[39] Still, the Court of Appeals did acquire jurisdiction over the Barques' and the Manotoks' petitions, albeit in the exercise of its exclusive appellate jurisdiction[40] over the ruling of the LRA, also pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended. Thus, for the appellate court to be able to direct the cancellation of a Torrens title in the course of reviewing a decision of the LRA, the LRA itself must have statutory authority to cancel a Torrens title in the first place.
	GR NO. 142664 2005-10-05	LEONCIO HO v. PEDRO S. LACSA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A petition for certiorari cannot be a substitute for an appeal (or a petition for review in ejectment case) from a lower court decision. As such, the perfection of appeals in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional, and that the failure to perfect an appeal renders the final order of the trial court final and executory.[16] Hence, for all intents and purposes, the RTC Order dated June 9, 1998, which reinstated the RTC Decision dated June 21, 1995, is already final and executory. As such, it becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect except only to correct clerical errors or mistakes.[17]
	GR NO. 145022 2005-09-23	ARMAND NOCUM v. LUCIO TAN
It is settled that jurisdiction is conferred by law based on the facts alleged in the complaint since the latter comprises a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's causes of action.[11] In the case at bar, after examining the original complaint, we find that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the case when the case was filed before it. From the allegations thereof, respondent's cause of action is for damages arising from libel, the jurisdiction of which is vested with the RTC. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code provides that it is a Court of First Instance[12] that is specifically designated to try a libel case.[13]
	GR No. 128967 2004-05-20	PAULINO SACDALAN v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The reason for this is that litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result and must frown upon any attempt to prolong the controversies.[40]
	GR No. 140799 2002-09-10	TOMAS T. TEODORO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.[22] WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED.