Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARLOS T. GO v. LUIS T. RAMOS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 191810 2015-06-22	JIMMY T. GO v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION PERALTA, J.
Meanwhile, the Court resolved G.R. Nos. 167569 and 167570 when Go, Sr. v. Ramos[22] was promulgated on September 4, 2009. The decision sustained the October 25, 2004 Decision and February 16, 2005 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 85143.
	GR No. 191810 2015-06-22	JIMMY T. GO v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION PERALTA, J.
We find no cogent reason to overturn the above findings of the appellate tribunal. The question of whether substantial evidence had been presented to allow immediate recourse to the regular courts is a question of fact which is beyond this Court's power of review for it is not a trier of facts. None of the exceptions in which this Court may resolve factual issues has been shown to exist in this case. Even if we evaluate their arguments and the evidence they presented once again, the same conclusion will still be reached.[28] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 191810 2015-06-22	JIMMY T. GO v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION PERALTA, J.
The denial of this petition ought not to bar petitioner from pursuing a legal action before a court of law to prove his citizenship pursuant to the Court's decision in Go, Sr. vs. Ramos.[48]
	GR No. 183133 2010-07-26	BALGAMELO CABILING MA v. COMMISSIONER ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ PEREZ, J.
We reiterated the above ruling in Go, Sr. v. Ramos,[45] a case in which we adopted the findings of the appellate court that the father of the petitioner, whose citizenship was in question, failed to elect Philippine citizenship within the reasonable period of three (3) years upon reaching the age of majority; and that "the belated submission to the local civil registry of the affidavit of election and oath of allegiance x x x was defective because the affidavit of election was executed after the oath of allegiance, and the delay of several years before their filing with the proper office was not satisfactorily explained."[46]
	GR No. 182497 2010-06-29	NURHIDA JUHURI AMPATUAN v. JUDGE VIRGILIO V. MACARAIG PEREZ, J.
The objective of the writ is to determine whether the confinement or detention is valid or lawful. If it is, the writ cannot be issued. What is to be inquired into is the legality of a person's detention as of, at the earliest, the filing of the application for the writ of habeas corpus, for even if the detention is at its inception illegal, it may, by reason of some supervening events, such as the instances mentioned in Section 4 of Rule 102, be no longer illegal at the time of the filing of the application.[16]
	GR No. 169958 2010-03-05	DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALEZ v. MICHAEL ALFIO PENNISI CARPIO, J.
We agree with petitioners that the issuance of certificate of recognition to respondent has not attained finality. In Go v. Ramos,[14] the Court ruled that citizenship proceedings are a class of its own and can be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. Res judicata may be applied in cases of citizenship only if the following concur: a person's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party;