Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. MAXIMO I. PLANES

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 193874 2013-07-24	REPUBLIC v. RICORDITO N. DE ASIS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Consequently, the thirty-day period that precedes the scheduled hearing should be reckoned from the time of the actual circulation or release of the last issue of the Official Gazette, and not on the date of its issue as reflected on its front cover. To interpret it otherwise, as the CA had erroneously done in this case, would render nugatory the purposes of publication in reconstitution proceedings, which are to safeguard against spurious and unfounded land ownership claims, to apprise all interested parties of the existence of such action, and to give them enough time to intervene.[34] Otherwise, unscrupulous parties would merely invoke compliance with the requirement of two-time publication in the Official Gazette, without regard to the date of its actual release, as a convenient excuse for their failure to observe the mandatory prerequisite of publication.
	GR No. 162772 2008-03-14	MERLIZA A. MUÑOZ v. PEOPLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner did not even show substantial compliance with the requirement of service of pleading.[25] Although she served copy of her Petition for Review on Assistant City Prosecutor Catalino C. Serrano, the latter was no longer counsel of the adverse party when the case was brought to the CA, nor was he specifically deputized or designated by the Solicitor General to represent him or receive notices for him.[26] Hence, service on the Assistant City Prosecutor did not amount to service on the Solicitor General.[27]
	GR NO. 149190 2006-12-19	FELICISIMO L. OPRIASA v. CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY CARPIO, J.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law. In all cases where the authority to proceed is conferred by a statute and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory, the same must be complied with, or the proceedings will be void.[14]
	GR NO. 147212 2006-03-24	GOVERNMENT OF PHILIPPINES v. VICTORIANO ABALLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Substantial compliance with the jurisdictional requirements laid down in Sections 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26 is not enough; the trial court's acquisition of jurisdiction over the reconstitution case is hinged on a strict compliance with the requirements of the law.[22] It must be stressed that the purposes of the stringent and mandatory character of the legal requirements of publication, posting and mailing are to safeguard against spurious and unfounded land ownership claims, to apprise all interested parties of the existence of such action, and to give them enough time to intervene in the proceeding.[23]
	GR No. 160560 2005-07-29	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. REPUBLIC CALLEJO, SR., J.
[That] at the hearing, petitioner submits proof of publication, posting and service of the notice as directed by the court.[20] Jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. In all cases where the authority to proceed is conferred by a statute and the manner of obtaining jurisdiction is mandatory, the same must be complied with, or the proceedings will be utterly void.[21] It cannot be acquired, waived, enlarged or diminished by any act or omission of the parties or acquiescence by the courts.[22] Failure to comply with the jurisdictional requirements renders the decision approving the reconstitution and all proceedings therein null and void.[23]