Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RACHEL C. CELESTIAL v. JESSE CACHOPERO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 160453 2012-11-12	REPUBLIC v. ARCADIO IVAN A. SANTOS III BERSAMIN, J.
Whether the dried-up river bed may be susceptible to acquisitive prescription or not was a question that the Court resolved in favor of the State in Celestial v. Cachopero,[29] a case involving the registration of land found to be part of a dried-up portion of the natural bed of a creek. There the Court held: As for petitioner's claim of ownership over the subject land, admittedly a dried-up bed of the Salunayan Creek, based on (1) her alleged long term adverse possession and that of her predecessor-in-interest, Marcelina Basadre, even prior to October 22, 1966, when she purchased the adjoining property from the latter, and (2) the right of accession under Art. 370 of the Spanish Civil Code of 1889 and/or Article 461 of the Civil Code, the same must fail.
	GR No. 146754 2012-03-21	SPS. JESSE CACHOPERO AND BEMA CACHOPERO v. RACHEL CELESTIAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Petitioner Jesse Cachopero, married to co-petitioner Bema Cachopero (spouses Cachopero), is the younger brother of respondent Rachel Celestial (Celestial). Celestial owned an old residential house (old house) situated on Lot No. 2586-G-28 (LRC) Psd-105462 (hereinafter, "Celestial's lot") at Poblacion 8, Midsayap, Cotabato, Philippines.[4] A major portion of this house stood on the eastern part of the 344-square meter-lot (subject land) immediately adjoining Celestial's lot. The subject land was formerly part of the Salunayan Creek that became dry as a result of the construction of an irrigation canal by the National Irrigation Administration.[5]
	GR No. 165993 2008-09-30	MERIDA WATER DISTRICT v. FRANCISCO BACARRO PUNO, C.J.
The non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion has been in cases when the patent illegality of the assailed act is clear, undisputed, and more importantly, evident outright.[24] In these cases, the assailed act did not require the consideration of the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances and their realtion to each other for the Court to conclude that the act was indeed patently illegal. In the case at bar, certain facts need to be resolved first, to determine whether petitioners' increase of the water rate is a patently illegal act.
	GR NO. 160652 2006-02-13	TOMAS N. JOSON III v. CA CARPIO, J.
The requirement of prior exhaustion of administrative remedies may likewise be dispensed with in the following instances: (1) when the claim involved is small; (2) when strong public interest is involved; and (3) in quo warranto proceedings.[15]
	GR No. 135925 2004-12-22	BATELEC II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC. v. ENERGY INDUSTRY ADMINISTRATION BUREAU CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies calls for resort first to the appropriate administrative authorities to accord them the prior opportunity to decide controversies within their competence before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review. It is presumed that an administrative agency, if afforded an opportunity to pass upon a matter, will decide the same correctly, or correct any previous error committed in its forum. Furthermore, reasons of law, comity and convenience prevent the courts from entertaining cases proper for determination by administrative agencies. Hence, premature resort to the courts necessarily becomes fatal to the cause of action of the petitioner.[28]