This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-11-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| With the above provision of law and preceding discussions, in tandem with the Court's pronouncements in numerous cases, i.e., Director of Forestry v. Muñoz;[20] Antonio v. Barroga;[21] Republic v. Court of Appeals.;[22] National Power Corporation v. Court of Appeals;[23] Carabot v. Court of Appeals;[24] Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court;[25] Widows and Orphans Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals;[26] Director of Lands v. Heirs of Isabel Tesalona;[27] and Intestate Estate of Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban v. Court of Appeals,[28] it is quite evident that the RTC committed no reversible error in taking heed of our final, and executory, decisions those decisions considered to have attained the status of judicial precedents in so far as the use of Spanish titles to evidence ownership are concerned. For it is the better practice that when a court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same.[29] | |||||
|
2006-09-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In the present case, there is no question that respondents did not submit the original of the tracing cloth plan of Lots 1711, Pls-488-D and Psu-05-006497-D. Applying the exception, the CA ruled that the same may be dispensed with as there are on record the blueprint copies of the properties and "other evidences," which sufficiently establish the nature, identity, location and extent of the subject properties. The CA also ruled that the case of Director of Lands v. Tesalona,[13] cited by petitioner, does not apply in this case since there is no discrepancy in the area of the land as stated in the application and in the blue print. | |||||