Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HERMINIA ESTRELLA v. GREGORIO ROBLES

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 184079 2013-04-17	SPS. ARMANDO SILVERIO v. SPS. RICARDO AND EVELYN MARCELO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Factual considerations relating to lands of the public domain properly rest within the administrative competence of the Director of Lands and the DENR. Findings of administrative agencies, which have acquired expertise because of their jurisdiction, are confined to specific matters and are accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts. Even if they are not binding to civil courts exercising jurisdiction over ejectment cases, such factual findings deserve great consideration and are accorded much weight.[54]
	GR No. 184079 2013-04-17	SPS. ARMANDO SILVERIO v. SPS. RICARDO AND EVELYN MARCELO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration[21] which the CA denied in a Resolution[22] dated August 12, 2008.
	GR No. 156439 2010-09-29	CLEMENCIA P. CALARA v. TERESITA FRANCISCO PEREZ, J.
Finally, it bears emphasizing that more than 33 years have already elapsed from the time that petitioners and respondents agreed on the sale of Lot 23 of the Lophcal (Calara) Subdivision sometime in 1976. In the intervening period, the parties have not only filed their respective complaints before the HLURB and the MTC but had already performed acts and acquired rights, the myriad consequences of which could not possibly be squarely addressed in the case for unlawful detainer where possession is unlawfully witliheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession under any contract, express or implied.[67] As the sole regulatory body for housing and land development,[68] the HLURB has jurisdiction over petitioners' cause against respondents and is clearly the best forum for the determination of all the issues relevant thereto.
	GR No. 172574 2009-07-31	NOLI LIM v. ANGELITO DELOS SANTOS NOW HIS HEIRS PUNO, C.J.
Moreover, as to the alleged merit of his case claimed by petitioner, we are not convinced. Both the Regional Executive Director and the DENR Secretary are in agreement that Angelito delos Santos' preferential right over the land in question had been recognized by the RTC whose decision has long been final. Well settled is the rule that findings of administrative agencies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts.[31]
	GR No. 158877 2009-06-16	JOVEN DE GRANO v. GREGORIO LACABA NACHURA, J.
Tax declarations and realty tax payments are not conclusive proof of possession.[33] They are merely good indicia of possession in the concept of owner based on the presumption that no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.[34] It bears emphasizing that the word "possession," as used in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, means nothing more than physical possession, not legal possession in the sense contemplated in civil law.[35] When the law speaks of possession, the reference is to prior physical possession or possession de facto, as contra-distinguished from possession de jure.[36] Only prior physical possession, not title, is the issue.[37] Issues as to the right of possession or ownership are not involved in the action; evidence thereon is not admissible, except only for the purpose of determining the issue of possession.[38]