This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-09-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The matter of payment of docket fees is not a mere triviality. These fees are necessary to defray court expenses in the handling of cases. Consequently, in order to avoid tremendous losses to the judiciary, and to the government as well, the payment of docket fees cannot be made dependent on the outcome of the case, except when the claimant is a pauper-litigant.[152] | |||||
|
2004-03-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It must be pointed out that while it was the spouses Jesus and Caridad Trocino who sold the properties to petitioners, their right to proceed against Jesus Trocino when he died was passed on to his heirs, which includes respondents and Caridad Trocino. Such transmission of right occurred by operation of law, more particularly by succession, which is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance of a person are transmitted.[30] When the process server personally served the summons on Caridad Trocino, the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over her person alone. Hence, the trial court's decision is valid and binding with regard to her, but only in proportion to Caridad Trocino's share. As aptly stated by the Court of Appeals: This Court's decision is therefore applicable to all the defendant heirs with the exception of defendant Caridad Trocino considering that it was the latter who entered into the alleged sale without the consent of her husband. She is therefore estopped from questioning her own authority to enter into the questioned sale. Moreover, Caridad Trocino was validly served with summons and was accorded due process.[31] WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 40067 is AFFIRMED. | |||||
|
2002-08-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.[15] Contrary to petitioner's contention, the fact that she repudiated the co-ownership between her and respondents did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the action for partition. In a complaint for partition, the plaintiff seeks, first, a | |||||