Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELICITAS M. MACHADO v. RICARDO L. GATDULA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 181284 2015-10-20	LOLOY UNDURAN v. RAMON ABERASTURI PERALTA, J.
d. Where the Council of Elders/Leaders refuse to issue the necessary certification without justifiable reasons.[18]
	GR No. 181284 2015-10-20	LOLOY UNDURAN v. RAMON ABERASTURI PERALTA, J.
Under Section 54, the NCIP may, upon the written request of ICCs/IPs, review existing claims and after notice and hearing, cancel CADTs and CALTs that were fraudulently acquired by any person or community.[40]
	GR No. 201286 2014-07-18	INOCENCIA TAGALOG v. MARIA LIM VDA. DE GONZALEZ CARPIO, J.
However, in this case, the unlawful withholding of possession of the land before the filing of the complaint with the RTC lasted only for more or less three months. Also, neither of the parties brought forth the issue of ownership which was the reason given by the RTC for taking cognizance of the action. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and any judgment, order or resolution issued without it is void and cannot be given any effect.[17] This rule applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was raised for the first time on appeal or even after final judgment.[18] In this case, Tagalog raised the issue of jurisdiction in her Answer.
	GR No. 167484 2013-09-09	HERNANDO BORRA v. CA SECOND PERALTA, J.
It is settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and it is not within the courts, let alone the parties, to themselves determine or conveniently set aside.[18]
	GR No. 192896 2013-07-24	DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REYES, J.
On July 31, 1970, President Marcos issued E.O. No. 251 creating the Presidential Action Committee on Land Problems (PACLAP) to expedite and coordinate the investigation and resolution of all kinds of land disputes between settlers, streamline and shorten administrative procedures, adopt bold and decisive measures to solve land problems, or recommend other solutions.[67] E.O. No. 305, issued on March 19, 1971, reconstituted the PACLAP and gave it exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving public lands and other lands of the public domain,[68] as well as adjudicatory powers phrased in broad terms: "To investigate, coordinate, and resolve expeditiously land disputes, streamline administrative proceedings, and, in general, to adopt bold and decisive measures to solve problems involving public lands and lands of the public domain."[69]
	GR No. 192896 2013-07-24	DREAM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. BASES CONVERSION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REYES, J.
The Longino ruling has been consistently cited in subsequent COSLAP cases, among them Davao New Town Development Corp. v. COSLAP,[73] Barranco v. COSLAP,[74] NHA v. COSLAP,[75] Cayabyab v. de Aquino,[76] Ga, Jr. v. Tubungan,[77] Machado v. Gatdula,[78] and Vda. de Herrera v. Bernardo.[79]
	GR No. 184622 2013-07-03	PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION v. VICTOR AFRICA BERSAMIN, J.
Conformably with Republic Act No. 8799, and with the ensuing resolutions of the Court on the implementation of the transfer of jurisdiction to the Regional Trial Court, the RTC (Branch 138) in Makati had the authority to hear and decide the election contest between the parties herein. There should be no disagreement that jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action, being conferred by law, could neither be altered nor conveniently set aside by the courts and the parties.[137]
	GR No. 170251 2011-06-01	CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA v. EMELITA BERNARDO PERALTA, J.
Since the COSLAP has no jurisdiction over the action, all the proceedings therein, including the decision rendered, are null and void.[14] A judgment issued by a quasi-judicial body without jurisdiction is void. It cannot be the source of any right or create any obligation.[15] All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect.[16] Having no legal effect, the situation is the same as it would be as if there was no judgment at all. It leaves the parties in the position they were before the proceedings.[17]
	GR No. 171542 2011-04-06	ANGELITO P. MAGNO v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
There is no rule in procedural law as basic as the precept that jurisdiction is conferred by law,[41] and any judgment, order or resolution issued without it is void[42] and cannot be given any effect.[43] This rule applies even if the issue on jurisdiction was raised for the first time on appeal or even after final judgment.[44]