Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. LOURDES ABIERA NILLAS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 177392 2012-11-26	PAZ DEL ROSARIO v. FELIX H. LIMCAOCO ABAD, J.
The trial court also held that the fact that no decree has as yet been issued cannot divest the Rojases of their title to and ownership of the land in question. There is nothing in the law that limits the period within which the court may issue a decree. The reason is that the judgment is merely declaratory in character and does not need to be enforced against the adverse party.[16] The Court does not find any cogent reason to deviate from the rulings of the Tagaytay RTC.
	GR No. 157644 2010-11-17	SPS. ERNESTO v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BRION, J.
Subsequently, the Court, in Republic v. Nillas,[53] affirmed the dictum in Sta. Ana and clarified that "Rule 39 x x x applies only to ordinary civil actions, not to other or extraordinary proceedings not expressly governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure but by some other specific law or legal modality," viz: Rule 39, as invoked by the Republic, applies only to ordinary civil actions, not to other or extraordinary proceedings not expressly governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure but by some other specific law or legal modality such as land registration cases. Unlike in ordinary civil actions governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, the intent of land registration proceedings is to establish ownership by a person of a parcel of land, consistent with the purpose of such extraordinary proceedings to declare by judicial fiat a status, condition or fact. Hence, upon the finality of a decision adjudicating such ownership, no further step is required to effectuate the decision and a ministerial duty exists alike on the part of the land registration court to order the issuance of, and the LRA to issue, the decree of registration.
	GR No. 167622 2010-06-29	GREGORIO V. TONGKO v. MANUFACTURERS LIFE INSURANCE CO. BRION, J.
On the other hand, the Civil Code defines an agent as a "person [who] binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter."[16] While this is a very broad definition that on its face may even encompass an employment relationship, the distinctions between agency and employment are sufficiently established by law and jurisprudence.
	GR No. 168848 2009-06-30	HEIRS OF LATE JOSE DE LUZURIAGA v. REPUBLIC THRU OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL VELASCO JR., J.
As has been consistently held, neither prescription nor laches may render inefficacious a decision in a land registration case. [33] In line with this doctrine of the inapplicability of prescription and laches on registration cases, the Court has ruled that "the failure on the part of the administrative authorities to do their part in the issuance of the decree of registration cannot oust the prevailing party from ownership of the land."[34] Following these doctrinal pronouncements, petitioners argue that they can rightfully bank on Decree No. 22752 to defeat the claim of DAALCO.
	GR No. 123346 2009-03-31	MANOTOK REALTY v. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TINGA, J.
So viewed the general rule proscribing the application of laches or the statute of limitations in land registration cases,[[30]] as well as Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in relation to its provisions on revival of judgment applies only to ordinary civil actions and not to other or extraordinary proceedings such as land registration cases, is clearly not applicable in the present case. The legal consequences of laches as committed by DIMSON and their failure to observe the provisions of Rule 39 should, therefore, find application in this case and thus, the confirmation of DIMSON's title, if any, should fail.