This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-10-10 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The requirements under Sections 12 and 13 do not apply to petitions for reconstitution based on Section 2(a). In Puzon, the Court held that, "the requirements under Sections 12 and 13 do not apply to all petitions for judicial reconstitution, but only to those based on any of the sources specified in Section 12; that is, 'sources enumerated in Section 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and/or 3(f) of this Act.'"[18] In Angat v. Republic,[19] the Court held that, "Sections 12 and 13 of Republic Act No. 26 x x x are actually irrelevant to the Petition for Reconstitution considering that these provisions apply particularly to petitions for reconstitution from sources enumerated under Sections 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), and/or 3(f) of Republic Act No. 26."[20] | |||||
|
2010-02-12 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Once again, courts must be cautious against hasty and reckless grant of petitions for reconstitution, especially when they involve vast properties as in this case.[22] | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| On the propriety of reopening this case, the Court is well aware of the fact that the Decision dated 6 February 2007 of the Third Division already became final and executory with the entry of judgment on 16 May 2008.[23] Public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of courts should become final at some definite date fixed by law. When judgments gain finality, they become inviolable and impervious to modification. They may no longer be reviewed or in any way modified directly or indirectly, even by this Court.[24] | |||||