Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. YATCO AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 196707 2015-06-17	SPS. NILO AND ERLINDA MERCADO v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
In the recent cases of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises,[42] Land Bank of the Philippines v. Peralta,[43] and Department of Agrarian Reform v. Spouses Diosdado Sta. Romana and Resurreccion O. Ramos,[44] the Court has made declarations as to the determination of just compensation.
	GR No. 212381 2015-04-22	REYNALDO M. JACOMILLE v. JOSEPH EMILIO A. ABAYA MENDOZA, J.
As to whether the responsible public officials should be held accountable for the irregularities in the procurement process of MVPSP, the Court deems that it is not the proper forum to resolve the issue as it is not a trier of facts and it cannot receive new evidence from the parties to aid it in the prompt resolution of the issue.[46]
	GR No. 201427 2015-03-18	TEOFILO B. ADOLFO v. FE. T. ADOLFO DEL CASTILLO, J.
In rendering summary judgment, the trial court relied on respondent's failure to reply to petitioner's request for admission, her admission in Civil Case No. MAN-2683, as well as its May 15, 2002 Decision declaring that the subject property is a conjugal asset. It took judicial notice of the proceedings in said case. While there is nothing irregular with this as courts may "take judicial notice of a decision or the facts prevailing in another case sitting in the same court if (1) the parties present them in evidence, absent any opposition from the other party; or (2) the court, in its discretion, resolves to do so"[49] the trial court however disregarded the fact that its decision was then the subject of a pending appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 78971. It should have known that until the appeal is resolved by the appellate court, it would be premature to render judgment on petitioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings; that it would be presumptuous to assume that its own decision would be affirmed on appeal. One of the issues raised in the appeal is precisely whether the subject property is conjugal, or a paraphernal asset of the respondent. Thus, instead of resolving petitioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court should have denied it or held it in abeyance. It should have guided petitioner to this end, instead of aiding in the hasty resolution of his case. In the first place, Civil Case No. MAN-4821 was transferred to it from Branch 56 precisely for the reason that it was the court which tried the closely related Civil Case No. MAN-2683.
	GR No. 171127 2015-03-11	NOEL CASUMPANG v. NELSON CORTEJO BRION, J.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[32]