Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SAMUEL ESTRIBILLO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 194818 2014-06-09	CHARLES BUMAGAT v. REGALADO ARRIBAY DEL CASTILLO, J.
When petitioners' titles were issued in 1986, these became indefeasible and incontrovertible. Certificates of title issued pursuant to emancipation patents acquire the same protection accorded to other titles, and become indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent. Lands so titled may no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding; nor can they be decreed to other individuals.[48] "The rule in this jurisdiction, regarding public land patents and the character of the certificate of title that may be issued by virtue thereof, is that where land is granted by the government to a private individual, the corresponding patent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title is issued to the grantee; thereafter, the land is automatically brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act, the title issued to the grantee becoming entitled to all the safeguards provided in Section 38 of the said Act. In other words, upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title shall become irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding."[49]
	GR No. 172624 2011-12-05	PABLO POLSOTIN v. DE GUIA ENTERPRISES DEL CASTILLO, J.
It bears stressing that "the dismissal of an employee's appeal on purely technical ground is inconsistent with the constitutional mandate on protection to labor." [25] The Court has often set aside the strict application of procedural technicalities to serve the broader interest of substantial justice. [26]
	GR No. 175049 2008-11-27	HEIRS OF SOFIA NANAMAN LONOY v. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Estribillo v. Department of Agrarian Reform,[40] the Court affirmed the long-settled doctrine that certificates of title issued in administrative proceedings are as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in judicial proceedings. In the case at bar, the DAR had already issued the corresponding OCTs after granting EPs to the tenant-beneficiaries in compliance with Presidential Decree No. 27 and Section 105[41] of Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise known as the Property Registration Decree. Hence, the OCTs issued to petitioners pursuant to their EPs have already acquired the same protection accorded to other certificates of title issued judicially or administratively.
	GR No. 162886 2008-08-11	HEIRS OF DECEASED SPS. VICENTE S. ARCILLA AND JOSEFA ASUNCION ARCILLA v. MA. LOURDES A. TEODORO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Gabionza v. Court of Appeals,[18] this Court has held that Circular No. 28-91 was designed to serve as an instrument to promote and facilitate the orderly administration of justice and should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its own ultimate and legitimate objective or the goal of all rules of procedure - which is to achieve substantial justice as expeditiously as possible.[19] The same guideline still applies in interpreting what is now Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[20]
	GR No. 176667 2007-11-22	ERICSSON TELECOMMUNICATIONS v. CITY OF PASIG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Time and again, the Court, under special circumstances and for compelling reasons, sanctioned substantial compliance with the rule on the submission of verification and certification against non-forum shopping.[8]