This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-04-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The requisites[64] for res judicata under the concept of bar by prior judgment are: (1) The former judgment or order must be final; | |||||
|
2014-06-30 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The Torrens system was intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the certificate of registration, but the system cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud against the real owner of the registered land. The system merely confirms ownership and does not create it. It cannot be used to divest lawful owners of their title for the purpose of transferring it to another one who has not acquired it by any of the modes allowed or recognized by law. Thus, the Torrens system cannot be used to protect a usurper from the true owner or to shield the commission of fraud or to enrich oneself at the expense of another.[19] | |||||
|
2013-03-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Besides, the RTC acted within its jurisdiction in considering the matter of the petitioner's transfer of rights, even if it had not been raised as an error. Under Section 18, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court,[36] the RTC is mandated to decide the appeal based on the entire record of the MTC proceedings and such pleadings submitted by the parties or required by the RTC. Nonetheless, even without this provision, an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case, or is closely related to an error properly assigned, or upon which the determination of the question raised by error properly assigned is dependent.[37] The matter of the petitioner's transfer of rights, which was in the records of the case, was the basis for the RTC's decision. | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is true that the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court.[7] In the present case, when respondents filed their Answer-in-Intervention they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of the court and the court, in turn, acquired jurisdiction over their persons. Respondents, thus, became parties to the action. Subsequently, however, respondents' Answer-in-Intervention was dismissed without prejudice. From then on, they ceased to be parties in the case so much so that they did not have the opportunity to present evidence to support their claims, much less participate in the compromise agreement entered into by and between herein petitioner and his co-heirs on one hand and the defendant in Civil Case No. 12887 on the other. Stated differently, when their Answer-in-Intervention was dismissed, herein respondents lost their standing in court and, consequently, became strangers to Civil Case No. 12887. It is basic that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court.[8] Thus, being strangers to Civil Case No. 12887, respondents are not bound by the judgment rendered therein. | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The trial court likewise did not err in admitting and giving weight to the testimony of Asuncion Casiano and SPO2 Nestor Huerno that Dasilio bartered the calculator which was identified as part of appellants' loot from the victims. Section 36,[17] Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides that where the proponent offers evidence deemed by counsel of the adverse party as inadmissible for any reason, the latter has the right to object. The failure to object, when there is an opportunity to speak, operates as a waiver of the objection. Here, appellants failed to timely object to the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution; hence, the same was validly admitted and considered by the trial court in arriving at its judgment.[18] | |||||
|
2008-12-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant posture is valid to a point. But despite the improper formal offer of AAA's testimony, the defense failed to make a timely objection to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. Accused-appellant in fact proceeded with the trial of the case and, as the CA noted, "even subjected the witness to a rigorous cross-examination."[19] The unyielding rule is that evidence not objected to may be deemed admitted and be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[20] In point is People v. Sanchez,[21] in which the prosecution called several persons to testify. No formal offer of testimonial evidence was made prior to or after their testimonies. The trial court, nonetheless, considered the testimonies owing to the adverse party's failure to object to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. The Court sustained the trial court, reproducing what it earlier said in People v. Java:x x x Section 36 [of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court[22]] requires that an objection in the course of the oral examination of a witness should be made as soon as the grounds [therefor] shall become reasonably apparent. Since no objection to the admissibility of evidence was made in the court below, an objection raised for the first time on appeal shall not be considered.[23] | |||||
|
2008-11-24 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant posture is valid to a point. But despite the improper formal offer of AAA's testimony, the defense failed to make a timely objection to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. Accused-appellant in fact proceeded with the trial of the case and, as the CA noted, "even subjected the witness to a rigorous cross-examination."[19] The unyielding rule is that evidence not objected to may be deemed admitted and be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.[20] In point is People v. Sanchez,[21] in which the prosecution called several persons to testify. No formal offer of testimonial evidence was made prior to or after their testimonies. The trial court, nonetheless, considered the testimonies owing to the adverse party's failure to object to the presentation of such testimonial evidence. The Court sustained the trial court, reproducing what it earlier said in People v. Java: | |||||
|
2008-09-22 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The requisites[15] for res judicata or bar by prior judgment are: (1) The former judgment or order must be final; | |||||