This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-08-07 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| On 5 November 1993, the NHA filed a complaint for nullity of OCT No. (804) 53839 issued in the names of Pedro and Nicanora. The case was raffled to the RTC of Caloocan City, Branch 128 (RTC Branch 128) and docketed as Civil Case No. C-16399. In a Resolution dated 17 October 1995, the RTC Branch 128 dismissed the complaint on grounds of estoppel and res judicata and because the issue on the legal nature and ownership of the property covered by OCT No. (804) 53839 was already barred by a final judgment in LRC Case No. 520. The NHA appealed to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 51592. In a Decision dated 26 January 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC Branch 128. Again, the NHA went to this Court to assail the decision of the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 143230. In a Decision[5] promulgated on 20 August 2004, this Court denied the NHA's petition for lack of merit. The Court ruled that NHA's action was barred by the decision of the CFI of Rizal in LRC Case No. 520. This Court held that the NHA was already barred from assailing the validity of OCT No. (804) 53839 and its derivative titles based on judicial estoppel. | |||||
|
2012-12-03 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| On September 21, 1951, Pedro T. Baello (Baello) and his sister, Nicanora Baello-Rodrgiuez (Rodriguez), filed an application for registration of their property in Caloocan City with the then Court of First Instance of Rizal consisting of 147,972 square meters. On November 2, 1953, the land was successfully registered under their names under Original Certificate of Title No. (OCT) (804) 53839.[4] On July 27, 1971, the lot was subdivided into Lot A covering 98,648 square meters in favor of Baello and Lot B covering 49,324 square meters in favor of Rodriguez.[5] On December 3, 1971, Baello died intestate leaving thirty two (32) surviving heirs while Rodriguez died intestate on August 22, 1975 without issue.[6] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The rules of admissibility must be applied uniformly. The same rule holds true when the Government is one of the parties. The Government, when it comes to court to litigate with one of its citizens, must submit to the rules of procedure and its rights and privileges at every stage of the proceedings are substantially in every respect the same as those of its citizens; it cannot have a superior advantage. This is so because when a sovereignty submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court and participates therein, its claims and rights are justiciable by every other principle and rule applicable to the claims and rights of the private parties under similar circumstances.[36] Failure to abide by the rules on admissibility renders the L.C. Map submitted by respondent inadmissible as proof to show that the subject lot is part of the forest reserve. | |||||