This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-06-19 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Mercado v. Mercado[33] and Gabriel v. Jamias,[34] the Court has ruled that the mere issuance of an EP does not put the ownership of ARBs beyond attack and scrutiny. EPs issued to such beneficiaries may be corrected and canceled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. In fact, DAR AO No. 02, Series of 1994, lists and defines the grounds for cancellation of registered EPs or Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA). Among these are: Grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs or CLOAs may include but not be limited to the following: | |||||
|
2013-06-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We cannot blame Ernesto for insisting that the PARAD decision can no longer be altered. The doctrine of immutability of final judgments, grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice, is well settled. Indeed, once a decision has attained finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect,[41] whether the modification is to be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land.[42] The doctrine holds true even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law.[43] The judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must, on some definite date fixed by law, become final even at the risk of occasional errors.[44] The only accepted exceptions to this general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable.[45] | |||||
|
2009-10-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We do not adhere to petitioners' view. This Court has already ruled that the mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny.[13] Emancipation patents issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. In fact, DAR Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1994, which was issued in March 1994, enumerates the grounds for cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents or Certificates of Landownership Award: Grounds for the cancellation of registered EPs [Emancipation Patents] or CLOAs [Certificates of Landownership Award] may include but not be limited to the following: | |||||
|
2007-11-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the appeal is hereby granted. The Decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint below is DISMISSED. No pronouncements as to costs.[16] On appeal, the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78672 reversed the Decision rendered by the Olongapo RTC and reinstated the Judgment rendered by the Olongapo MTCC. The appellate court adjudged that the respondent adequately proved that he possessed the property in the concept of an owner, and that the petitioner failed to refute this by contrary proof. Moreover, it stated that the DENR's Decision to affirm the decision of the Bureau of Lands granting the respondent's Miscellaneous Sales Application was conclusive upon the courts as to who should be granted the subject property, which was formerly a public lot. It further ruled that petitioner occupied the subject property merely as the respondent's lessee. Since the petitioner continually refused to pay rent, she should be ejected from the property and pay rentals in arrears. However, it clarified the Judgment rendered by the MTCC by setting the monthly rental payable to respondent at P1,000.00. The appellate court, in its Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 78672, declared that: | |||||