Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA v. EMELITA BERNARDO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 192896 2013-07-24	DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REYES, J.
On September 21, 1979, E.O. No. 561 abolished the PACLAP and created the COSLAP to be a more effective administrative body to provide a mechanism for the expeditious settlement of land problems among small settlers, landowners and members of the cultural minorities to avoid social unrest.[70] Paragraph 2, Section 3 of E.O No. 561 now specifically enumerates the instances when the COSLAP can exercise its adjudicatory functions: Sec. 3. Powers and Functions. The Commission shall have the following powers and functions:
	GR No. 192896 2013-07-24	DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REYES, J.
The Longino ruling has been consistently cited in subsequent COSLAP cases, among them Davao New Town Development Corp. v. COSLAP,[73] Barranco v. COSLAP,[74] NHA v. COSLAP,[75] Cayabyab v. de Aquino,[76] Ga, Jr. v. Tubungan,[77] Machado v. Gatdula,[78] and Vda. de Herrera v. Bernardo.[79]
	GR No. 171634 2011-08-17	LEONARDO S. UMALE v. ATTY. ALFREDO VILLAMOR PERALTA, J.
In his Reply,[9] respondent admitted the existence and genuineness of the Opposition (To Application for Preliminary/Mandatory Injunction/ Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)/Temporary Mandatory Injunction) and the Memorandum (Opposition to Application for TRO) filed in Civil Case No. 70251. Respondent also admitted the demand letter dated January 10, 2005 and respondent's Reply thereto dated January 11, 2005.