This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-05-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, we hold that the deed of assignment between Eusebio and respondent is null and void for being contrary to public policy. Under PHHC rules, preference for the purchase of residential lots from the PHHC was accorded to bona fide occupants of such lots.[23] This policy was supported by the PHHC charter given that one of the purposes of the PHHC was:to acquire, develop, improve, subdivide, lease and sell lands and construct, lease and sell buildings or any interest therein in the cities and populous towns in the Philippines with the object of providing decent housing for those who may be found unable otherwise to provide themselves therewith.[24] (emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2002-09-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 are two separate and distinct remedies. Under Rule 45, a petition brings up for review errors of judgment while a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 concerns errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[44] Grave abuse of discretion is not an allowable ground under Rule 45.[45] However, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may be considered as one for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, where it is alleged that the respondents have abused their discretion in their questioned actions,[46] as in this case. Generally, it is the Office of the Solicitor General who can bring actions on behalf of the state in criminal proceedings, before the Supreme Court and/or the Court of Appeals.[47] In People vs. Santiago, 174 SCRA 143 (1989), however, we said the action | |||||