This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| A judgment should be implemented according to the terms of its dispositive portion is a long and well-established rule.[41] As such, where the writ of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the writ has pro tanto no validity.[42] | |||||
|
2015-02-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites must concur: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.[9] | |||||
|
2013-10-14 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the action filed by the petitioners is essentially one for quieting of title. An action to quiet title is a common law remedy designed for the removal of any cloud upon, or doubt, or uncertainty affecting title to real property.[28] The pleadings filed in this case show that both the petitioners and respondent have title over the same property, albeit the petitioners' title covers 448 sq m, while that of the respondent's covers a 344-sq m portion thereof. It likewise appears from the records that both parties are in possession of their respective portions of the property. In an action for quieting of title, the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the complainant and the other claimants, not only to place things in their proper places, and make the claimant, who has no rights to the immovable, respect and not disturb the one so entitled, but also for the benefit of both, so that whoever has the right will see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce any desired improvements, as well as use, and even abuse the property.[29] | |||||
|
2007-03-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In the petition of petitioner, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 83296, she questioned the denial of her prayer for backwages.[17] Upon the other hand, in the petition of respondent ETSI, et al., docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 83205, they questioned the finding of illegal dismissal, the grant of separation pay, and the imputation of liability to Geisert and Remudaro.[18] | |||||
|
2007-03-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In the petition of petitioner, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 83296, she questioned the denial of her prayer for backwages.[17] Upon the other hand, in the petition of respondent ETSI, et al., docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 83205, they questioned the finding of illegal dismissal, the grant of separation pay, and the imputation of liability to Geisert and Remudaro.[18] | |||||
|
2007-03-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As the Court of Appeals noted, petitioner, in her closing statement - "Anyway, to those parents who would like to bring their Kids in Megamall there will be Trick or Treating at Mc Donalds x x x tomorrow and let's not spoil the fun for our kids"[32] " even invited her co-workers to join a trick or treating activity at another venue during office hours[33] (10:00 AM), October 31, 2001 being a Wednesday and there is no showing that it was declared a holiday, encouraging them to ignore Geisert's authority. | |||||
|
2007-03-09 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Given the reasonableness of Geisert's decision that provoked petitioner to send the second e-mail message, the observations of the Court of Appeals that "the message x x x resounds of subversion and undermines the authority and credibility of management"[37] and that petitioner "displayed a tendency to act without management's approval, and even against management's will" are well taken.[38] | |||||