This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-11-23 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Anent the petitioners' cross-claim, this was dismissed by the CA with the recommendation for the petitioners to file an independent action against Crisostomo instead of pursuing their claims in this case. Given that it was uncontroverted that Crisostomo contracted loans from Allied Bank and in furtherance of the judicial policy to avoid multiplicity of suits, the Court reinstates the cross-claim before the RTC for further proceedings. The reinstatement of the cross-claim with the RTC is in order since the Court is not a trier of facts and is not in the position to resolve the cross-claim based on the records.[35] | |||||
|
2015-03-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| However, while petitioner, through the Office of the Solicitor General, was admittedly ornery in the prosecution of its case, it is nonetheless true that "[a]s a matter of doctrine, illegal acts of government agents do not bind the State," and "the Government is never estopped from questioning the acts of its officials, more so if they are erroneous, let alone irregular."[47] This principle applies in land registration cases.[48] Certainly, the State will not be allowed to abdicate its authority over lands of the public domain just because its agents and officers have been negligent in the performance of their duties. Under the Regalian doctrine, "all lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and charged with the conservation of such patrimony."[49] | |||||
|
2013-01-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Finally, as regards AFP-RSBS' rights, the Court sustains the petitioner's view that "[a]ny title issued covering non-disposable lots even in the hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for value shall be cancelled."[37] We deem this case worthy of such principle. Besides, we cannot ignore the basic principle that a spring cannot rise higher than its source; as successor-in-interest, AFP-RSBS cannot acquire a better title than its predecessor, the herein respondents-intervenors.[38] Having acquired no title to the property in question, there is no other recourse but for AFP-RSBS to surrender to the rightful ownership of the State. | |||||