Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EMILIANA M. GARCIA v. JUDGE FLORENCIO P. BUESER

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 175177 2012-10-04	REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA JARALVE SUBSTITUTED BY ALAN JESS JARALVE DOCUMENTO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the June 28, 2006 Decision[2] and October 27, 2006 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 78633, which affirmed the November 15, 2002 Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Cebu City, in Land Registration Case No. 1421-N/LRA Rec. No. N-67272.
	GR No. 175177 2012-10-04	REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES v. GLORIA JARALVE SUBSTITUTED BY ALAN JESS JARALVE DOCUMENTO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On October 22, 1996, Gloria Jaralve,[5] Edgardo Jaralve, Serafin Uy, Jr., Shella Uy, Nimfa Lagnada, Pantaleon Saya-Ang, Starglad International and Development Corporation, Annie Tan, Teotimo Cabarrubias, Jessica Daclan, and Ma. Emma Ramas filed an Application[6] with Branch 20 of the RTC of Cebu City, for the registration in their names of Lot Sgs-07-000307 (subject property), under Presidential Decree No. 1529. On November 29, 1996 and November 7, 1997, they filed their Amended[7] and Second Amended[8] Applications, respectively, to conform to the procedural requirements of the law, as per Order[9] of the RTC, and to join Danilo Deen and Eric Anthony Deen as applicants[10] (for brevity, we will refer to all the foregoing applicants as respondents). This was docketed as LRC Case No. 1421-N/LRA Rec. No. N-67272.
	GR No. 159230 2010-10-18	B.E. SAN DIEGO v. CA BRION, J.
B. E. San Diego also alleges that Matias is estopped from alleging that the property she is occupying is different from the property covered by its TCT No. T-134756. Matias previously moved to dismiss its complaint for recovery of possession of the subject property (accion publiciana), raising res judicata as ground.[15] She alleged that the accion publiciana[16] is barred by the judgment in an earlier ejectment case,[17] as both involved the same parties, the same subject matter, and the same cause of action. The ejectment case involved a parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-134756, located at Hernandez Street, Barrio Catmon, Malabon; Matias never questioned the identity and location of the property in that case.[18] B. E. San Diego thus contends that Matias, by raising the ground of res judicata, has impliedly admitted there is no difference in the subject matter of the two actions and, thus, could no longer question the identity and location of the subject property.