Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IN RE: MOTION TO CORRECT ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. P-672 COVERING LOT NO. 4569 CAUAYAN CAD. FRANCISCA SOTO v. MARINA S. JARENO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 209331 2015-08-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
On the other hand, under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party may seek intervention from the court, he or she should have already exhausted all the remedies in the administrative level.[145] If there is still a remedy available within the administrative machinery, "then such remedy should be exhausted first before [the] court's judicial power can be sought."[146] The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies presupposes that both the courts and the administrative agency have concurrent jurisdiction. This is because non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the court's jurisdiction.[147] In Soto v. Jareno,[148] this court ruled:Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line of decisions. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can then take cognizance of the case and try it.[149] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 209331 2015-04-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
On the other hand, under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, before a party may seek intervention from the court, he or she should have already exhausted all the remedies in the administrative level.[145] If there is still a remedy available within the administrative machinery, "then such remedy should be exhausted first before [the] court's judicial power can be sought."[146] The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies presupposes that both the courts and the administrative agency have concurrent jurisdiction. This is because non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the court's jurisdiction.[147] In Soto v. Jareno,[148] this court ruled:Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line of decisions. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can then take cognizance of the case and try it.[149] (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 172585 2008-06-26	CRISTITA BUSTON-ARENDAIN v. ANTONIA GIL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, an administrative decision must first be appealed to the administrative superiors at the highest level before it may be elevated to a court of justice for review. [23] This Court has consistently held that before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-condition that he should have availed himself of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of the court's intervention is fatal to one's cause of action. Accordingly, absent any finding of waiver or estoppel, the case is susceptible of dismissal for lack of cause of action.[24]
	GR No. 172585 2008-06-26	CRISTITA BUSTON-ARENDAIN v. ANTONIA GIL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Based on the ninth exception stated in the preceding paragraph, the doctrine requiring the prior exhaustion of administrative remedies before recourse to the courts can be had is confined to land cases involving public lands; it is inapplicable to cases in which the subject matter is private lands. Upon registration, the homestead granted to Antonia and Miguel Gil ceased to have the character of public land and so was removed from the operation of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.[27]
	GR No. 137359 2004-09-13	EDWIN N. TRIBIANA v. LOURDES M. TRIBIANA CARPIO, J.
In addition, the failure of a party to comply with a condition precedent is not a jurisdictional defect.[6] Such defect does not place the controversy beyond the court's power to resolve. If a party fails to raise such defect in a motion to dismiss, such defect is deemed waived.[7] Such defect is curable by amendment as a matter of right without leave of court, if made before the filing of a responsive pleading.[8] A motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading.[9] More importantly, an amendment alleging compliance with a condition precedent is not a jurisdictional matter. Neither does it alter the cause of action of a petition for habeas corpus. We have held that in cases where the defect consists of the failure to state compliance with a condition precedent, the trial court should order the amendment of the complaint.[10] Courts should be liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid multiplicity of suits and to present the real controversies between the parties.[11]