Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. SPS. RICARDO B. ENRIQUEZ AND ELIZA M. ENRIQUEZ

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 141019 2011-11-23	JOSE TEOFILO MERCADO v. VALLEY MOUNTAIN MINES EXPLORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Again, there is no showing that the above recommendation was duly considered and acted upon by the trial court. It also did not wait for the submission of reports requested by the LRA from the aforementioned agencies concerning the status of Lot 4831-B, whether it is covered by any kind of public land application/land patent, is a portion of or identical to any parcel of land covered by previously approved isolated survey, and is inside the alienable and disposable land of the public domain.[94]It should be stressed that a person who seeks registration of title to a piece of land must prove the claim by clear and convincing evidence, and is duty bound to identify sufficiently and satisfactorily the property. Otherwise stated, all facts must indicate that no other person, including the government, will be prejudiced by the adjudication of the land to the applicant.[95]Indeed, a land registration court has no jurisdiction to order the registration of land already decreed in the name of another in an earlier land registration case. A second decree for the same land would be null and void.[96]
	GR No. 159284 2009-01-27	HEIRS OF BERNARDO ULEP NAMELY: DOLORES ULEP v. SPS. CRISTOBAL DUCAT AND FLORA KIONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The issue is mainly factual and, as a general rule, questions of fact cannot be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. However, as held in Republic v. Enriquez,[18] to wit: The general rule is that questions of fact are beyond the province of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Said rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, to wit:
	GR No. 151910 2007-10-15	REPUBLIC v. LUDOLFO V. MUÑOZ AZCUNA, J.
x x x.[23] Moreover, if the survey plan is approved by the Director of Lands and its correctness has not been overcome by clear, strong and convincing evidence, the presentation of the tracing cloth plan may be dispensed with.[24] All the evidence on record sufficiently identified the property as the one applied for by respondent, and containing the corresponding metes and bounds as well as area. Consequently, the original tracing cloth plan need not be presented in evidence.[25]