Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOAQUIN GA v. SPS. ANTONIO TUBUNGAN AND ROSALINDA TUBUNGAN AND NORBERTO GA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 199595 2014-04-02	PHILIPPINE WOMAN’S CHRISTIAN TEMPERANCE UNION v. TEODORO R. YANGCO 2ND REYES, J.
The RTC, acting as a land registration court, should have dismissed the land registration case or re-docketed the same as an ordinary civil action and thereafter ordered compliance with stricter jurisdictional requirements. Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the action for revocation of donation disguised as a land registration case, the judgment in LRC Case No. Q-18126(04) is null and void. Being void, it cannot be the source of any right or the creator of any obligation. It can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is likewise void.[48] It may even be considered as a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.[49]
	GR Nos. 197592 & 202623 2013-11-27	PROVINCE OF AKLAN v. JODY KING CONSTRUCTION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Since a judgment rendered by a body or tribunal that has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case is no judgment at all, it cannot be the source of any right or the creator of any obligation.[34] All acts pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect and the void judgment can never be final and any writ of execution based on it is likewise void.[35]
	GR No. 192896 2013-07-24	DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REYES, J.
The Longino ruling has been consistently cited in subsequent COSLAP cases, among them Davao New Town Development Corp. v. COSLAP,[73] Barranco v. COSLAP,[74] NHA v. COSLAP,[75] Cayabyab v. de Aquino,[76] Ga, Jr. v. Tubungan,[77] Machado v. Gatdula,[78] and Vda. de Herrera v. Bernardo.[79]
	GR No. 199612 2013-01-22	RENATOM. FEDERICO v. COMELEC MENDOZA, J.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with the OSG that Resolution No. 8889 was void as it was in contravention of the guidelines set forth under Resolution No. 8678. With respect to Federico, it cannot be regarded as a valid source of any right, like the right to be voted for public office. Indeed, a void judgment can never be final and executory and may be assailed at any time.[36]
	GR No. 170251 2011-06-01	CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA v. EMELITA BERNARDO PERALTA, J.
Administrative agencies, like the COSLAP, are tribunals of limited jurisdiction that can only wield powers which are specifically granted to it by its enabling statute.[8] Under Section 3 of E.O. No. 561, the COSLAP has two options in acting on a land dispute or problem lodged before it, to wit: (a) refer the matter to the agency having appropriate jurisdiction for settlement/resolution; or (b) assume jurisdiction if the matter is one of those enumerated in paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of the law, if such case is critical and explosive in nature, taking into account the large number of parties involved, the presence or emergence of social unrest, or other similar critical situations requiring immediate action. In resolving whether to assume jurisdiction over a case or to refer the same to the particular agency concerned, the COSLAP has to consider the nature or classification of the land involved, the parties to the case, the nature of the questions raised, and the need for immediate and urgent action thereon to prevent injuries to persons and damage or destruction to property. The law does not vest jurisdiction on the COSLAP over any land dispute or problem.[9]