Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HEIRS OF MANUEL A. ROXAS v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 218787 2015-12-08	LEO Y. QUERUBIN v. COMELEC EN BANC VELASCO JR., J.
SECTION 12. Procurement of Equipment and Materials. — To achieve the purpose of this Act, the Commission is authorized to procure, in accordance with existing laws, by purchase, lease, rent or other forms of acquisition, supplies, equipment, materials, software, facilities, and other services, from local or foreign sources free from taxes and import duties, subject to accounting and auditing rules and regulations. With respect to the May 10, 2010 elections and succeeding electoral exercises, the system procured must have demonstrated capability and been successfully used in a prior electoral exercise here or abroad.[126] (Emphasis supplied) ACCORDINGLY, for the reasons stated, I vote to DISMISS this Petition.
	GR No. 188456 2009-09-10	H. HARRY L. ROQUE v. COMELEC VELASCO JR., J.
In August 2008, Comelec managed to automate the regional polls in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao[9] (ARMM), using direct recording electronics (DRE) technology[10] in the province of Maguindanao; and the optical mark reader/recording (OMR) system, particularly the Central Count Optical Scan (CCOS),[11] in the rest of ARMM.[12] What scores hailed as successful automated ARMM 2008 elections paved the way for Comelec, with some prodding from senators,[13] to prepare for a nationwide computerized run for the 2010 national/local polls, with the many lessons learned from the ARMM experience influencing, according to the NCC, the technology selection for the 2010 automated elections.[14]
	GR No. 188456 2009-09-10	H. HARRY L. ROQUE v. COMELEC VELASCO JR., J.
In August 2008, Comelec managed to automate the regional polls in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao[9] (ARMM), using direct recording electronics (DRE) technology[10] in the province of Maguindanao; and the optical mark reader/recording (OMR) system, particularly the Central Count Optical Scan (CCOS),[11] in the rest of ARMM.[12] What scores hailed as successful automated ARMM 2008 elections paved the way for Comelec, with some prodding from senators,[13] to prepare for a nationwide computerized run for the 2010 national/local polls, with the many lessons learned from the ARMM experience influencing, according to the NCC, the technology selection for the 2010 automated elections.[14]
	GR No. 171762 2009-06-05	LYNN MAAGAD v. JUANITO MAAGAD PUNO, C.J.
In view of the foregoing, we hold that petitioner Lynn Maagad committed fraud and gross misrepresentation in his free patent application. Actual or positive fraud proceeds from an intentional deception practiced by means of misrepresentation of material facts,[27] which in this case was the conscious misrepresentation by petitioner that he was a fully qualified applicant possessing all the requirements provided by law. Moreover, failure and intentional omission of the petitioner-applicant to disclose the fact of actual physical possession by the respondent constitutes an allegation of actual fraud. It is likewise fraud to knowingly omit or conceal a fact, upon which benefit is obtained to the prejudice of a third person.[28]
	GR NO. 166281 2006-10-27	JESUS ANGELES v. REPUBLIC CALLEJO, SR., J.
The spouses Juan Sanga and their heirs had a cause of action for the quieting of title which is imprescriptible.[52] As such owners, they had the right to have the patents and titles declared as void on the ground of actual fraud perpetrated by petitioners.[53]
	GR No. 150629 2004-06-30	RENATO TICHANGCO v. ALFREDO ENRIQUEZ PANGANIBAN, J.
Actual fraud proceeds from an intentional deception perpetrated through the misrepresentation or the concealment of a material fact.[27] The fraud is extrinsic if it is employed to deprive parties of their day in court and thus prevent them from asserting their right to the property registered in the name of the applicant. The fraud is intrinsic if that which is alleged in the petition to set aside the decree is the fraud involved in the same proceedings in which the parties seeking relief have had ample opportunity to assert their right, to attack the document presented by the applicant for registration, and to cross-examine the witnesses who have testified thereon.[28] Inquiry into this latter kind of fraud is barred after the judgment of the land registration court has become final.
	GR No. 138660 2004-02-05	HEIRS OF TRINIDAD DE LEON VDA. DE ROXAS v. CA CARPIO, J.
Furthermore, as found by this Court in G.R. No. 118436, the Roxas family has been in possession of the property uninterruptedly through their caretaker, Jose Ramirez, who resided on the property.[18] Where the land sold is in the possession of a person other than the vendor, the purchaser must go beyond the certificates of title and make inquiries concerning the rights of the actual possessor.[19] Meycauayan therefore cannot invoke the right of a purchaser in good faith and could not have acquired a better right than its predecessor-in-interest. This Court has already rejected Meycauayan's claim that it was a purchaser in good faith when it ruled in G.R. No. 118436 that there had been no intervening rights of an innocent purchaser for value involving the lots in dispute. As held in Heirs of Pael v. Court of Appeals:[20]