Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANOTOK REALTY v. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 183446 2012-11-13	REPUBLIC v. ESTATE OF HANS MENZI PEREZ, J.
Even more fundamentally, the award of the proceeds of TDC Nos. 162828 and 162829 sought by the Republic would be tantamount to an alteration of the decisions rendered by the Sandiganbayan and this Court, which have already attained finality. Except for clerical errors and in cases of void judgments and nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party,[67] nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable.[68] It cannot, therefore, be gainsaid that such a judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.[69] The reason is grounded on the fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgments or orders of courts must be final at some definite date fixed by law.[70] "Otherwise, there will be no end to litigations, thus negating the main role of courts of justice to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality."[71]
	GR No. 167000 2011-06-08	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (GMC) LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality. [83]
	GR No. 167391 2011-06-08	PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT v. MAXIMO BONIFACIO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Supreme Court sustained said decisions in the case of Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corporation[47] promulgated on November 29, 2005. In said case, the Court declared void the titles of the Manotoks and Aranetas which were derived from OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917 consistent with its ruling in MWSS and Gonzaga. The Court disregarded the DOJ and Senate reports on the alleged anomalies surrounding the titling of the Maysilo Estate.
	GR No. 151240 2009-03-31	ANGELINE CATORES v. MARY D. AFIDCHAO NACHURA, J.
Verily, as enunciated in Lorenzana[22] and Misa,[23] it may be reiterated that under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, our jurisdiction over cases brought to us from the CA is limited to reviewing and correcting errors of law committed by said court. This Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, it is not our function to review factual issues and to examine, evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties. We are not bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[24] Necessarily, the jurisprudential doctrine that findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when they coincide with the factual findings of the trial court must remain undisturbed.[25]
	GR No. 174042 2008-07-09	CITY OF NAGA v. ELVI JOHN S. ASUNCION QUISUMBING, J.
Thus, on February 12, 2004, respondent filed a Complaint[17] for unlawful detainer against petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Naga City, Branch 1. In a Decision[18] dated February 14, 2005 of the MTC in Civil Case No. 12334, the MTC dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the city's claim of ownership over the lots posed an issue not cognizable in an unlawful detainer case.
	GR NO. 146930 2006-09-11	ROMMEL B. BEARNEZA v. NLRC CORONA, J.
(4) NOTE WITHOUT ACTION [Bearneza's] motion for leave to file opposition to the [manning agency's] motion for damages. (emphasis supplied) Once a judgment attains finality it becomes immutable and unalterable.[6] It may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land.[7]