Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEVORAH E. BARDILLON v. BARANGAY MASILI OF CALAMBA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 110478 2007-10-15	FERMIN MANAPAT v. CA NACHURA, J.
justiciable question.[55] However, when the power is exercised by the Legislature, the question of necessity is essentially a political question.[56] Thus, in City of Manila v. Chinese Community,[57] we held:The legislature, in providing for the exercise of the power of eminent domain, may directly determine the necessity for appropriating private property for a particular improvement for public use, and it may select the exact location of the improvement. In such a case, it is well-settled that the utility of the proposed improvement, the extent of the public necessity for its construction, the expediency of constructing it, the suitableness of the location selected and the consequent necessity of taking the land selected for its site, are all questions exclusively for the legislature to determine, and the courts have no power to interfere, or to substitute their own views for those of the representatives of the people.
	AM No. MTJ-02-1404 2004-12-14	EXEC. JUDGE HENRY B. BASILLA v. JUDGE AMADO L. BECAMON GARCIA, J.
Under the said doctrine, a matter that has been adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction must be deemed to have been finally and conclusively settled if it arises in any subsequent litigation between the same parties and for the same cause.[3] It provides that [a] final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies; and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.[4] Res judicata is based on the ground that the party to be affected, or some other with whom he is in privity, has litigated the same matter in the former action in a court of competent jurisdiction, and should not be permitted to litigate it again.[5]
	GR No. 154614 2004-11-25	CITY OF ILOILO v. JUDGE EMILIO LEGASPI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The requisites for authorizing immediate entry are as follows: (1) the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance; and (2) the deposit of the amount equivalent to fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property to be expropriated based on its current tax declaration.[31] Upon compliance with these requirements, the issuance of a writ of possession becomes ministerial.[32]