DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

A CIVIL CASE WAS FILED AGAINST PETITIONER FOR P4M PLUS. THEN RESPONDENT FILED A CRIMINAL BP 22 CASE AGAINST PETITIONER FOR BOUNCED CHECKS WITH FACE VALUE OF P1.2M. IN THE CIVIL CASE RESPONDENT MANIFESTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF P1.2M BE DEDUCTED FROM HIS CLAIM SINCE HE INTENDS TO RECOVER THE P1.2M IN THE BP 22 CASE. WAS THERE FORUM SHOPPING ON THE PART OF RESPONDENT?

NO BECAUSE THE COURT IN THE CIVIL CASE WAS INFORMED ABOUT THE FILING OF THE CRIMINAL CASE.

WHAT IS THE RULE ON LEGAL INTEREST?

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

RESPONDENTS WON IN A LABOR CASE. DECISION BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY. THEY LEVIED A PARCEL OF LAND. DMCI OPPOSED. AN ISSUE WAS RAISED AT LRA ON WHETHER THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENTS IS REGISTRABLE. LRA SAID YES AND DIRECTED REGISTER OF DEEDS TO ANNOTATE SUCH CLAIM. DMCI FAILED TO APPEAL ON TIME THE LRA CONSULTA. SUPREME COURT SAID THE CONSULTA OF LRA CANNOT BE ALTERRED. THE JUDGMENT OF NLRC WHICH BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY REMAINS AS SUCH AND CANNOT BE ALTERED.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

RODRIGUEZ DONATED PROPERTY TO REPUBLIC TO BE USED FOR BUILDING AND OPERATING MENTAL HOSPITAL. ONE CONDITION IS THAT THE REPUBLIC SHALL NOT CONVEY OR DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY TO ANY OTHER PERSON. THERE WERE SQUATTERS IN THE AREA. THE REPUBLIC FILED AN EJECTMENT CASE AGAINST THE SQUATTERS BUT FAILED TO EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT WITHIN THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR EXECUTION. IS SUCH ACT A DISPOSAL OF THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE DEED OF DONATION. SUPREME COURT SAID NO. THE PROPERTY IS COVERED BY THE TORRENS SYSTEM  AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE ACQUIRED BY THE SQUATTERS BY PRESCRIPTION OR ADVERSE POSSESSION.

THE PROPERTY DONATED CONSISTED OF 32 HECTARES. THE AREA UTILIZED WAS ONLY 5 HECTARES. THE DEED STATES THAT DONEE ERECT BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY. WAS THERE VIOLATION OF THE DEED OF DONATION. NO BECAUSE THE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT BUILDINGS BE ERECTED ON THE WHOLE AREA.

THERE IS A PROHIBITION IN THE DEED OF DONATION THAT THE REPUBLIC CANNOT LEASE, LET, CONVEY, DISPOSE OR ENCUMBER THE DONATED PROPERTY WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE DURATION OF THE RESTRICTION. IS THIS LEGAL? NO. THE PROHIBITION MAY BE VIEWED AS PERMANENT WHICH CONSTITUTES AN UNDUE RESTRICTION FOR AN UNREASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.