Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DAVAO NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 156287 2010-02-16	FELICITAS M. MACHADO v. RICARDO L. GATDULA BRION, J.
1. To investigate, coordinate, and resolve expeditiously land disputes, streamline administrative proceedings, and, in general, to adopt bold and decisive measures to solve problems involving public lands and lands of the public domain.[19] [emphasis supplied] Thereafter, Presidential Decree No. 832 (PD 832)[20] was issued on November 27, 1975 reorganizing the PACLAP and enlarging its functions and duties. The decree also granted PACLAP quasi-judicial functions. Section 2 of PD 832 states: Section 2. Functions and duties of the PACLAP. - The PACLAP shall have the following functions and duties:
	GR No. 182185 2009-09-18	JOAQUIN GA v. SPS. ANTONIO TUBUNGAN AND ROSALINDA TUBUNGAN AND NORBERTO GA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Moreover, the appellate court held that COSLAP had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint filed by petitioners. Citing Davao New Town Development Corporation v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems,[12] it held that COSLAP's jurisdiction over land disputes is limited only to those involving public lands or those covered by a specific license or grant from the government. In this case, the records do not show that the parcel of land subject of petitioners' complaint is public land. Thus, the determination of which party was entitled to ownership and possession of said lot belonged to the regular courts and not the COSLAP.[13]
	GR No. 174290 2009-01-20	ST. MARY OF WOODS SCHOOL v. OFFICE OF REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The general rule that the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration before resort to certiorari will lie is intended to afford the public respondent an opportunity to correct any factual or fancied error attributed to it by way of re-examination of the legal and factual aspects of the case.[47] This rule, however, is subject to certain recognized exceptions, to wit: (1) where the order or a resolution, is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question, and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a Motion for Reconsideration would be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings were ex parte or were such that the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.[48]
	GR No. 159974 2007-09-05	JESUS CAYABYAB v. ROSEMARIE GOMEZ DE AQUINO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Third. COSLAP exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the reinstatement of the government's title over the Cuison property. Well-settled is the rule that a torrens title, as a rule, is conclusive and indefeasible. Proceeding from this, P.D. No. 1529, Sec. 48 provides that a certificate of title shall not be subject to collateral attack and cannot be altered, modified, or canceled except in a direct proceeding.[19] (Emphasis ours) It is clear that the jurisdiction of COSLAP does not extend to disputes involving the ownership of private lands, or those already covered by a certificate of title, as these fall exactly within the jurisdiction of the courts and other administrative agencies. In addition, COSLAP's powers do not include the review of decisions of quasi-judicial or judicial agencies. Since the issuance of a certificate of title proceeds from a decision of a quasi-judicial or judicial agency, it is not reviewable by COSLAP, though it may be questioned in a separate judicial proceeding directly instituted for that purpose.
	GR NO. 156542 2007-06-26	CANDELARIA Q. DAYOT v. SHELL CHEMICAL COMPANY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the first assigned error, it is true that as a rule while certiorari as a remedy may not be used as a substitute for an appeal, especially for a lost appeal, this rule should not be strictly enforced if the petition is genuinely meritorious.[18] It has been held that where the rigid application of the rules would frustrate substantial justice, or bar the vindication of a legitimate grievance, the courts are justified in exempting a particular case from the operation of the rules.[19] The Court has given due course to petitions for certiorari although appeal is the proper remedy where the equities of the case warranted such action, mindful that dismissals based on technicalities are looked upon with disfavor.[20]
	GR NO. 168990 2006-06-16	TERESITA S. BARRANCO v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
COSLAP was created on September 21, 1979 by virtue of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 561. Its forerunner, the PACLAP, was created on July 31, 1970, pursuant to E.O. No. 251. As originally conceived, the committee was tasked to expedite and coordinate the investigation and resolution of land disputes, streamline and shorten administrative procedures, adopt bold and decisive measures to solve land problems, and/or recommend other solutions. It was given the power to issue subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum and to call upon any department, office, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government owned or controlled corporations, and local government units, for assistance in the performance of its functions.[19]