Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SOLEDAD CHANLIONGCO RAMOS v. TERESITA D. RAMOS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176951 2009-12-21	LEAGUE OF CITIES OF PHILIPPINES v. COMELEC VELASCO JR., J.
During the 11th Congress,[21] fifty-seven (57) cityhood bills were filed before the House of Representatives.[22] Of the fifty-seven (57), thirty-three (33) eventually became laws. The twenty-four (24) other bills were not acted upon.
	GR NO. 145379 2005-12-09	DAMIANA INTO v. MARIO VALLE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
SEC. 3. Representative Parties.- A trustee of an express trust, a guardian, executor or administrator, or a party authorized by statute, may sue or be sued without joining the party for whose benefit the action is presented or defended; but the court may, at any stage of the proceedings, order such beneficiary to be made a party. An agent acting in his own name and for the benefit of an undisclosed principal may sue or be sued without joining the principal except when the contract involves things belonging to the principal. Accordingly, in Ramos vs. Ramos,[22] the Court held that the heirs of a decedent have no standing in court with respect to actions over a property of the estate, if the latter is represented by an executor or administrator.
	GR No. 164041 2005-07-29	ROSENDO ALBA v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Whether or not the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and her minor child depends on the nature of private respondent's action, that is, in personam, in rem or quasi in rem. An action in personam is lodged against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is directed against the thing itself instead of the person; while an action quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to subject that person's interest in a property to a corresponding lien or obligation.[20]
	GR No. 128967 2004-05-20	PAULINO SACDALAN v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The only exceptions to the general rule are the correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tunc entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments,[41] and whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable.[42] Since the present case does not fall under any of the recognized exceptions, it is clear that petitioners are bound by the finality of the CA decision in CA-G.R. SP. No. 14783 which they themselves instituted.