This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-04-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In fact, as early as July 14, 1960, prior to Romeo's appointment as administrator of the estate of Luis, Paz L. Vda. de Pujalte (Paz), the mother of Luis, who was then appointed administratrix of the estate of the latter, in her Inventory and Appraisal[29] which was submitted to the estate court, already excluded the subject properties among those which comprise the estate of Luis. Subsequently, in the Project of Partition[30] of the residual estate of Luis, dated March 22, 1963, Paz again did not include the disputed lots as part of such residual estate. Hence, Romeo's sale of the subject lots to petitioners is invalid as it is settled that any unauthorized disposition of property under administration is null and void and title does not pass to the purchasers.[31] | |||||
|
2010-06-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| There is, therefore, no point in resolving the various issues raised by petitioners in this case, since it will effectively reopen G.R. No. 114951, on which a final judgment has already been decreed, rendering it closed. To do so would set a bad precedent, leaving the door wide open for dissatisfied parties to relitigate unfavorable decisions to no end.[31] Without a doubt, this is completely inimical to the orderly and efficient administration of justice.[32] | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The records show respondent Tuazon failed to faithfully perform her duties as cash clerk. The question now is: Can she be held administratively liable despite her failure to answer the charge against her? The Court rules in the affirmative. Respondent Tuazon was given the opportunity to refute the charge against her, but she failed to do so. The essence of due process is that a party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of his defense.[51] What the law proscribes is lack of opportunity to be heard.[52] Where the opportunity to be heard has been accorded, there is no denial of due process.[53] If it is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.[54] | |||||