Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ARTURO MEJIA v. FILOMENA GABAYAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 171469 2008-08-11	V.C. PONCE COMPANY v. RODOLFO REYES CORONA, J.
The Pasay City RTC was well within its powers when it issued the January 23, 2003 order. It is the ministerial duty of the court to order the execution of its final judgment. It has the inherent power to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial offices, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a case before it, in every manner appertaining thereto.[11]
	GR NO. 153456 2007-03-02	ROBERTO PADUA v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Padua insists, however, that his status in relation to Lot No. 90 was no longer that of a mere potential agrarian reform farmer-beneficiary but a civil law vendor dealing directly with the LBP in the payment of amortizations on the property.[36] That view is incorrect. The statutory mechanism for the acquisition of land through agrarian reform requires full payment of amortization before a farmer-beneficiary may be issued a CLOA or EP, which, in turn, can become the basis for issuance in his name of an original or a transfer certificate of title.[37] As Padua himself admitted that he is still paying amortization on Lot No. 90 to LBP, his status in relation to said property remains that of a mere potential farmer-beneficiary whose eligibilities DAR may either confirm or reject. In fact, under Section 2 (d) of Administrative Order No. 06-00, DAR has authority to issue, recall, or cancel a CLT, CBC, EP, or CLOA issued to potential farmer-beneficiaries but not yet registered with the Register of Deeds.[38]
	GR NO. 169372 2006-12-06	NARCISO GUIANG v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
In their comment on the petition, respondents averred that, based on the allegations of the amended complaint, the DARAB, not the RTC, has exclusive jurisdiction over petitioner's action below. They point out that a tenancy relationship existed between them and petitioner. Moreover, as shown by the transfer certificates of title which were, in turn, based on the emancipation patents issued in their names, they had already acquired title over the property under P.D. No. 27. Respondents insist that Mejia v. Gabayan[39] had overruled the Court's rulings in Alita and Patricio.