Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. PLACIDO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 205492 2015-03-11	REPUBLIC v. SPS. DANTE AND LOLITA BENIGNO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Consequently, the December 9, 2005 Decision of the Calamba RTC is rendered null and void. The trial court had no basis in fact and law to grant respondents' application for registration as there was no proof of alienability adduced. As such, it "has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. Such judgment or order may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored. x x x Accordingly, a void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect."[56]
	GR No. 198139 2014-09-08	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. FELICISIMO TARCELO DEL CASTILLO, J.
The failure of NPC to include a notice of hearing in its Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court's September 24, 2009 Order has been rendered irrelevant considering our pronouncement that the said Order is null and void on the matter covering the Notice of Garnishment. "A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. Such judgment or order may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored."[50]
	GR No. 191015 2014-08-06	PEOPLE v. JOSE C. GO DEL CASTILLO, J.
As a result of the Court's declaration of nullity of the assailed Orders of the trial court, any dissection of the truly questionable actions of Prosecutor Campanilla which should merit appropriate disciplinary action for they reveal a patent ignorance of procedure, if not indolence or a deliberate intention to bungle his own case becomes unnecessary. It is conceded that the lack of Campanilla's approval and/or conformé to PDIC's Motion for Reconsideration should have rendered the trial court's assailed Orders final and executory were it not for the fact that they were inherently null and void; Campanilla's irresponsible actions almost cost the People its day in court and their right to exact justice and retribution, not to mention that they could have caused immeasurable damage to the banking industry. Just the same, "[a] void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. Such judgment or order may be resisted in any action or proceeding whenever it is involved. It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored."[72] More appropriately, the following must be cited: x x x Clearly, the assailed Order of Judge Santiago was issued in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. A void order is no order at all. It cannot confer any right or be the source of any relief. This Court is not merely a court of law; it is likewise a court of justice.
	GR No. 177374 2014-07-02	MARIANO JOSE v. ERNESTO M. NOVIDA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Thus, since certificates of title have been issued in the respective names of the respondents as early as in 1990,[39] the DAR Region I Director had no jurisdiction to cancel their titles; the same is true with respect to the DAR Secretary. Thus, their respective January 30, 1991 and August 22, 1995 Orders are null and void; consequently, respondents' EPs and titles subsist, contrary to petitioners' claim that they have been cancelled. Void judgments or orders have no legal and binding effect, force, or efficacy for any purpose; in contemplation of law, they are non-existent.[40]
	GR No. 194169 2013-12-04	ROMEO R. ARAULLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Since the Writ of Execution was issued in contravention of the law, it is irregular and defective, and there was no need to further hear Club Filipino's motion to quash the writ; Arbiter Anni's issuance of the August 12, 2008 Order quashing the writ ahead of the scheduled August 20, 2008 hearing is therefore not improper. "A void judgment or order has no legal and binding effect, force or efficacy for any purpose. In contemplation of law, it is non-existent. x x x It is not even necessary to take any steps to vacate or avoid a void judgment or final order; it may simply be ignored."[44]