This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-12-18 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Seventh, and most important of all, equity jurisdiction can never be used to violate the law. Equity jurisdiction aims to attain complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to render judgment to meet the special circumstances of a case because of the limitations of its statutory jurisdiction.[120] However, equity follows the law, and courts exercising equity jurisdiction must still apply the law and have no discretion to disregard the law.[121] Where the law prescribes a particular remedy with fixed and limited boundaries, the court cannot, by exercising equity jurisdiction, extend the boundaries further than the law allows.[122] Thus, this Court has ruled:As for equity, which has been aptly described as `a justice outside legality,' this is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or, as in this case, judicial rules of procedure. Aequetas nunquam contravenit legis. The pertinent positive rules being present here, they should pre-empt and prevail over all abstract arguments based only on equity.[123] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2005-12-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Equity jurisdiction aims to attain complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to render judgment to meet the special circumstances of a case because of the limitations of its statutory jurisdiction.[54] However, equity follows the law, and courts exercising equity jurisdiction must still apply the law and have no discretion to disregard the law.[55] Where the law prescribes a particular remedy with fixed and limited boundaries, the court cannot, by exercising equity jurisdiction, extend the boundaries further than the law allows.[56] Thus, the Court ruled:As for equity, which has been aptly described as "a justice outside legality," this is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or, as in this case, judicial rules of procedure. Aequetas nunguam contravenit legis. The pertinent positive rules being present here, they should pre-empt and prevail over all abstract arguments based only on equity.[57] (Emphasis supplied) Hence, the Court of Appeals may not extend jurisdiction to the LRA where the law has not granted such jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals may not also allow a collateral attack on a Torrens title, either before the LRA or before itself, in gross violation of Section 48 of PD 1529. The present cases involve a vast tract of land in a prime district. The property in question contains an area of 342,945 square meters. At a conservative estimate of P5,000 per square meter, the value of the property amounts to P1,714,725,000. The documents submitted by the parties are conflicting. The parties question the authenticity of each other's documents. Manotok, et al. claim that they and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the property since 1919 while the Heirs of Barque allegedly have never set foot on the property. | |||||