Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AGNES GAPACAN v. MARIA GAPACAN OMIPET

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 159660 2006-02-20	SPS. ANTONIO AND SOLIDAD DIVINAGRACIA v. LEONIDISA N. COMETA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case under consideration, petitioners maintain that although they do not have legal, i.e., registered,[10] title over the subject parcels of land, they have equitable or beneficial ownership having obtained these properties from the parties to the 1928 partition and/or from third persons who acquired from these parties.
	GR NO. 155236 2005-08-08	DR. TERESITO v. ORBETA TINGA, J.
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48943.[27] Yet the Court of Appeals also adequately discussed, in disputing the claim that respondent had committed forum-shopping, why there was no identity in rights or causes of action in the petition for annulment of judgment and in the special civil action for certiorari. Its conclusion is in concurrence with our earlier discussion on this point in relation to res judicata. Accordingly, owing to the segregate identity in rights and causes of action and the fact that respondent was not a party to the certiorari petition, there was no indubitable need for him to mention CA-G.R. SP No. 48943 in the certification of non-forum shopping. In fact, there really is no cause to definitively presume that he was aware of the said case considering that he was not a party to its antecedent civil case.
	GR No. 155236 2005-07-08	DR. TERESITO V. ORBETA v. PAUL B. SENDIONG TINGA, J.
The certification of non-forum shopping in the petition for annulment did not mention any other pending case or claim, notwithstanding the fact that there was a pending motion for reconsideration lodged before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48943.[27] Yet the Court of Appeals also adequately discussed, in disputing the claim that respondent had committed forum-shopping, why there was no identity in rights or causes of action in the petition for annulment of judgment and in the special civil action for certiorari. Its conclusion is in concurrence with our earlier discussion on this point in relation to res judicata. Accordingly, owing to the segregate identity in rights and causes of action and the fact that respondent was not a party to the certiorari petition, there was no indubitable need for him to mention CA-G.R. SP No. 48943 in the certification of non-forum shopping. In fact, there really is no cause to definitively presume that he was aware of the said case considering that he was not a party to its antecedent civil case.