This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The first phase is concerned with the determination of the Government’s authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit. The court declares that the Government has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint.[375] | |||||
|
2012-07-25 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, we proceed to the contention of petitioners against the RTC's dismissal of their Rule 65 Petition. In this regard, we stress that it is basic in our jurisdiction that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a mode of appeal.[14] The remedy, which is narrow in scope,[15] only corrects errors of jurisdiction.[16] Thus, if the issue involves an error of judgment, the error is correctible by an appeal via a Rule 45 petition, and not by a writ of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[17] | |||||