This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-01-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is admitted by both parties that the subject matter of controversy is foreshore land, which is defined as that strip of land that lies between the high and low water marks and is alternatively wet and dry according to the flow of the tides. It is that part of the land adjacent to the sea, which is alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of tides. It is part of the alienable land of the public domain and may be disposed of only by lease and not otherwise. Foreshore land remains part of the public domain and is outside the commerce of man. It is not capable of private appropriation.[22] | |||||
|
2007-10-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Collado v. Court of Appeals,[18] the government, represented by the Solicitor General pursuant to Section 9(2) of BP Blg. 129, filed a petition for annulment of judgment with the CA. Similarly in the case of Republic v. Court of Appeals,[19] the Solicitor General correctly filed the annulment of judgment with the said appellate court. | |||||
|
2007-06-22 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| The magnitude of the non-representation by the OSG is nowhere more apparent than in the case at bar. Instead of having been represented by an "official learned in the law" who will "promote and protect the public weal" taking into consideration the "vast concerns of the sovereign which it is committed to serve," respondent state college was instead represented by a private lawyer who made no move to protect its interests except to file a motion to dismiss the complaint filed against the state college, which was eventually denied by the trial court. No answer to the complaint was filed notwithstanding due receipt of the order directing its filing, as a consequence of which the state college was declared in default. The order of default itself was not reconsidered, no move whatsoever having been made in that direction. The plaintiff was allowed to present its evidence ex-parte. When the decision was rendered adjudging the state college and its co-defendant, Julian A. Alvarez, liable to the plaintiff, no effort was made to appeal the decision notwithstanding due receipt of a copy thereof by Atty. Aggabao on March 6, 2001. Thus, a writ of execution was issued against the properties of the state college, which by this time remained as the sole defendant, Julian A. Alvarez having died during the pendency of the case and no proper substitution of parties having been made at the instance of Atty. Aggabao. Clear, therefore, was the utter failure of justice insofar as respondent state college is concerned. It was as if it was not represented by counsel at all. While it may be argued that the officials of respondent state college should have informed the OSG of the suit filed against the state college, and that it was their fault or negligence that the OSG was not informed in the first place, it is settled, however, that the principle of estoppel does not operate against the government for the act of its agents or their inaction.[31] The State has to protect its interests and cannot be bound by, or estopped by the mistakes or negligent acts of its officials or agents, much more, non-suited as a result thereof.[32] The legality of legal representation can be raised and questioned at any stage of the proceedings.[33] | |||||