Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TERESITA S. BARRANCO v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 163598 2015-08-12	AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION v. FIL-ESTATE INC. JARDELEZA, J.
In Barranco, v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems,[75] we also had the occasion to relax the rule against forum shopping on the basis of a valid justification. Thus: The appellate court however correctly ruled that petitioner is guilty of torum shopping. Petitioner deliberately sought another forum, i.e.. the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, to grant her relief after this Court dismissed her petition questioning the jurisdiction of COSLAP. What petitioner should have done after COSLAP dismissed the motion to dismiss and after this Court dismissed the petition for certiorari for late filing, was to wait for the final verdict of COSLAP and to appeal therefrom, instead of seeking recourse from the trial court through a petition to enjoin the enforcement of COSLAP's writ of demolition and the order denying the repudiation of the amicable settlement.
	GR No. 156287 2010-02-16	FELICITAS M. MACHADO v. RICARDO L. GATDULA BRION, J.
Under these terms, the COSLAP has two different rules in acting on a land dispute or problem lodged before it, e.g., COSLAP can assume jurisdiction only if the matter is one of those enumerated in paragraph 2(a) to (e) of the law. Otherwise, it should refer the case to the agency having appropriate jurisdiction for settlement or resolution.[21] In resolving whether to assume jurisdiction over a case or to refer it to the particular agency concerned, the COSLAP considers: (a) the nature or classification of the land involved; (b) the parties to the case; (c) the nature of the questions raised; and (d) the need for immediate and urgent action thereon to prevent injury to persons and damage or destruction to property. The terms of the law clearly do not vest on the COSLAP the general power to assume jurisdiction over any land dispute or problem.[22] Thus, under EO 561, the instances when the COSLAP may resolve land disputes are limited only to those involving public lands or those covered by a specific license from the government, such as pasture lease agreements, timber concessions, or reservation grants.[23]
	GR No. 188360 2010-01-21	SPS. HEBER v. SPS. NORBERTO BRION, J.
But while we have so ruled, we recognize nonetheless that the right to appeal is an essential part of our system of judicial processes, and courts should proceed with caution in order not to deprive a party of the right to appeal. We invariably made this recognition due to our overriding concern that every party-litigant be given the amplest opportunity to ventilate and secure the resolution of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[29] This line of rulings is based, no less, on the Rules of Court which itself calls for a liberal construction of its provisions, with the objective of securing for the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.[30] In this line of rulings, we have repeatedly stressed that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. The law and jurisprudence grant to courts - in the exercise of their discretion along the lines laid down by this Court - the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.[31]
	GR No. 182185 2009-09-18	JOAQUIN GA v. SPS. ANTONIO TUBUNGAN AND ROSALINDA TUBUNGAN AND NORBERTO GA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Administrative agencies like COSLAP are tribunals of limited jurisdiction that can only wield powers which are specifically granted to it by its enabling statute. Under Section 3 of E.O. No. 561, COSLAP has two options in acting on a land dispute or problem lodged before it, to wit: (a) refer the matter to the agency having appropriate jurisdiction for settlement/resolution; or (b) assume jurisdiction if the matter is one of those enumerated in paragraph 2 (a) to (e) of the law, if such case is critical and explosive in nature, taking into account the large number of parties involved, the presence or emergence of social unrest, or other similar critical situations requiring immediate action. In resolving whether to assume jurisdiction over a case or to refer the same to the particular agency concerned, the COSLAP has to consider the nature or classification of the land involved, the parties to the case, the nature of the questions raised, and the need for immediate and urgent action thereon to prevent injuries to persons and damage or destruction to property. The law does not vest jurisdiction on the COSLAP over any land dispute or problem.[18]
	GR No. 183141 2009-09-18	EDGARDO H. CATINDIG v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Clearly from the foregoing, the dismissal of CA-G.R. SP No. 92474 was based on sheer technicality. Since no judgment on the merits was rendered after consideration of the evidence or stipulation submitted by the parties at the trial of the case, it falls short of one of the essential requisites of res judicata, that the judgment should be one on the merits.[36]
	GR No. 177456 2009-09-04	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. DOMINGO R. DANDO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.[29]
	GR No. 182267 2009-08-28	PAGAYANAN R. HADJI-SIRAD v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Rules of procedure are tools designed to promote efficiency and orderliness as well as to facilitate attainment of justice, such that strict adherence thereto is required.[18] However, technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded, for these prescribed procedures insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. However, it is equally true that litigation is not merely a game of technicalities. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to put an end to litigation speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard.[19]
	GR No. 172267 2008-08-20	NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. ILOILO CITY TINGA, J,
As a final note, a case involving the same defendants and cause of action, docketed as Civil Case No. 22090 before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 34, had already been previously dismissed for failure to comply with the deposit requirement deemed by the court to be a condition precedent for the filing of that suit.[9] This previous case, however, hardly counts for forum-shopping precisely because it is no longer pending. There is forum-shopping where a litigant sues the same party against whom another action or actions for the alleged violation of the same right and the enforcement of the same relief is/are still pending.[10] Furthermore, the order of dismissal was clearly based on a mere technicality. Since no judgment on the merits was rendered after consideration of the evidence or stipulation submitted by the parties at the trial of that case, it falls short of one of the essential requisites of res judicata that the judgment be one on the merits.[11]