This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-07 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals, in its September 8, 2000 Resolution, dismissed Valte's Petition for Review due to several defects, such as incomplete certification of non-forum shopping, failure to attach registry receipts in the affidavit of service, and lack of certified true copies of the material portions of the record referred to in the Petition.[48] It also denied reconsideration, which prompted Valte to file a Petition for Certiorari before this court.[49] | |||||
|
2015-09-07 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| This court denied Valte's Petition due to late filing, lack of certification against forum shopping, and failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error. However, on reconsideration, this court reinstated Valte's Petition.[50] Respondents filed their Comment, and the parties filed their respective Memoranda. This court, in its Decision[51] dated June 29, 2004, remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for decision on the merits:Considering that the resolution of the controversy between the parties revolves admittedly on factual issues and that these issues involve the regularity and legality of the disposition under the Public Land Law of 7.2293 hectares of public land to petitioner, this Court relaxes the rule on certification on forum shopping and directs the remand of the case to the Court of Appeals for decision on the merits. | |||||