Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. FERVENTINO U. TANGO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 184621 2013-12-10	REPUBLIC v. MARIA FE ESPINOSA CANTOR BRION, J.
As held in De los Santos v. Rodriguez, et al.,[10] the fact that a decision has become final does not automatically negate the original action of the CA to issue certiorari, prohibition and mandamus in connection with orders or processes issued by the trial court. Certiorari may be availed of where a court has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and where the ordinary remedy of appeal is not available. Such a procedure finds support in the case of Republic v. Tango,[11] wherein we held that:This case presents an opportunity for us to settle the rule on appeal of judgments rendered in summary proceedings under the Family Code and accordingly, refine our previous decisions thereon.
	GR No. 182760 2013-04-10	REPUBLIC v. ROBERT P. NARCEDA SERENO, C.J.
As explained in Republic v. Tango,[27] the remedy of a losing party in a summary proceeding is not an ordinary appeal, but a petition for certiorari, to wit: By express provision of law, the judgment of the court in a summary proceeding shall be immediately final and executory. As a matter of course, it follows that no appeal can be had of the trial court's judgment in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse under Article 41 of the Family Code. It goes without saying, however, that an aggrieved party may file a petition for certiorari to question abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Such petition should be filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts. To be sure, even if the Court's original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the RTCs and the Court of Appeals in certain cases, such concurrence does not sanction an unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. From the decision of the Court of Appeals, the losing party may then file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the Supreme Court. This is because the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal.
	GR No. 187512 2012-06-13	REPUBLIC v. YOLANDA CADACIO GRANADA SERENO, J.
At any rate, four years after Jomoc, this Court settled the rule regarding appeal of judgments rendered in summary proceedings under the Family Code when it ruled in Republic v. Tango:[9]
	GR No. 176596 2011-03-23	JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES v. MANUEL E. GAITE PERALTA, J.
The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on the fundamental principle of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgment of courts and the award of quasi-judicial agencies must become final on some definite date fixed by law.[27] The only exceptions to the 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.[28] None of the exceptions is present to warrant a review.
	GR No. 182729 2010-09-29	KUKAN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. AMOR REYES VELASCO JR., J.
Republic v. Tango[16] expounded on the same principle and its exceptions: Deeply ingrained in our jurisprudence is the principle that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. As such, it may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. x x x
	GR NO. 147074-75 2005-08-15	SPS. RODRIGO PADERES AND SONIA PADERES v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Subsequently or in August 1983, MICC sold the lot[8] covered by TCT No. 61078, together with the house[9] thereon, to the petitioners in the first case, the Paderes spouses. And on January 9, 1984, MICC sold the house[10] built on the lot covered by TCT No. 61062 to the petitioners in the second case, the Bergado spouses. Neither sale was registered, however.[11]
	GR No. 147074 2005-07-15	SPS. RODRIGO PADERES AND SONIA PADERES v. CA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Subsequently or in August 1983, MICC sold the lot[8] covered by TCT No. 61078, together with the house[9] thereon, to the petitioners in the first case, the Paderes spouses. And on January 9, 1984, MICC sold the house[10] built on the lot covered by TCT No. 61062 to the petitioners in the second case, the Bergado spouses. Neither sale was registered, however.[11]