Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ESTATE OF LATE JESUS S. YUJUICO v. REPUBLIC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 172720 2015-09-14	ELISEO MALTOS v. HEIRS OF EUSEBIO BORROMEO LEONEN, J.
The purpose of reversion is "to restore public land fraudulently awarded and disposed of to private individuals or corporations to the mass of public domain."[126]
	GR No. 168973 2011-08-24	CITY OF DUMAGUETE v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As to whether or not the subject property is indeed foreshore land is a factual issue which the RTC should resolve in the exercise of its jurisdiction, after giving both parties the opportunity to present their respective evidence at a full-blown trial. As we have explained in the Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic[37]: The plain import of Municipality of Antipolo is that a land registration court, the RTC at present, has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the application which respondent Republic claims is public land. This ruling needs elucidation.
	GR No. 170375 2010-07-07	REPUBLIC v. MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
[135] G.R. No. 168661, October 26, 2007, 537 SCRA 513.
	GR No. 183965 2009-09-18	JOANIE SURPOSA UY v. JOSE NGO CHUA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For res judicata, to serve as an absolute bar to a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (1) there must be a final judgment or order; (2) the court rendering it must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits; and (4) there must be, between the two cases, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action.[17]
	GR No. 177181 2009-07-07	RABAJA RANCH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. AFP RETIREMENT NACHURA, J.
In Estate of the Late Jesus S. Yujuico v. Republic,[36] citing Republic v. Court of Appeals,[37] this Court stressed the fact that it was never proven that private respondent St. Jude was a party to the fraud that led to the increase in the area of the property after it was sub-divided. In the same case, citing Republic v. Umali,[38] we held that, in a reversion case, even if the original grantee of a patent and title has obtained the same through fraud, reversion will no longer prosper as the land had become private land and the fraudulent acquisition cannot affect the titles of innocent purchasers for value.