Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. SOFRONIO SANTOS AND NATIVIDAD SANTOS v. HEIRS OF DOMINGA LUSTRE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 173186 2015-09-16	ANICETO UY v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
In Santos v. Heirs of Dominga Lustre,[58] the complaint alleged that the deed of sale was simulated by forging the signature of the original registered owner. We ruled in favor of imprescribility applying the doctrine that the action for reconveyance on the ground that the certificate of title was obtained by means of a fictitious deed of sale is virtually an action for the declaration of its nul1ity, which does not prescribe.
	GR No. 204641 2015-06-29	CAMARINES SUR IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. EXPEDITA L. AQUINO MENDOZA, J.
There is no dispute that the RTC of Naga City had jurisdiction over the first case. Its December 22, 2003 Order dismissing the case for failure to state a cause of action had become final and executory as affirmed by the Court in its September 23, 2008 Decision in G.R. No. 167691. Although the parties in this case are not strictly alike, jurisprudence does not dictate absolute identity but only substantial identity.[29] There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case.[30] Thus, there is identity of parties between the first and second cases. In fact, it can be said that there are identical subject matter and causes of action between the two cases.
	GR No. 167050 2011-06-01	SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION v. RIZAL POULTRY PEREZ, J.
The parties in SSC and NLRC cases are not strictly identical. Rizal Poultry was impleaded as additional respondent in the SSC case. Jurisprudence however does not dictate absolute identity but only substantial identity.[19] There is substantial identity of parties when there is a community of interest between a party in the first case and a party in the second case, even if the latter was not impleaded in the first case.[20]
	GR No. 152092 2010-08-04	PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. RADIOMARINE NETWORK LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Forum shopping exists when the elements of litis pendentia are present or when a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.[65] There is res judicata when (1) there is a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the judgment or order is on the merits; and (4) there is between the two cases identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. For litis pendentia to exist, there must be (1) identity of the parties or at least such as representing the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief founded on the same facts; and (3) identity of the two cases such that judgment in one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res judicata in the other.[66]
	GR No. 159131 2009-07-27	HEIRS OF TORIBIO WAGA v. ISABELO SACABIN CARPIO, J.
An action for reconveyance of property based on an implied or constructive trust is the proper remedy of an aggrieved party whose property had been erroneously registered in another's name.[11] The prescriptive period for the reconveyance of registered property is ten years, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title. However, the ten-year prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance is not applicable where the complainant is in possession of the land to be reconveyed and the registered owner was never in possession of the disputed property.[12] In such a case, the action for reconveyance filed by the complainant who is in possession of the disputed property would be in the nature of an action to quiet title which is imprescriptible. [13]