Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 40 views

    CASE

    Uploaded by

    Alex Velasco
    The Court ruled that: 1. Meycauayan may not seek reconveyance of the lands as res judicata applies from the previous case that invalidated Maguesun's registration. 2. Meycauayan's acts of continually filing pleadings to prevent execution of the previous decision and urging the trial court to ignore the appellate court orders constitute indirect contempt. 3. While Meycauayan claims it was not a party to the previous case, the decision is binding as it invalidated Maguesun's registration, under which Meycauayan claims its rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CASE

    Uploaded by

    Alex Velasco
    40 views4 pages
    The Court ruled that: 1. Meycauayan may not seek reconveyance of the lands as res judicata applies from the previous case that invalidated Maguesun's registration. 2. Meycauayan's acts of continually filing pleadings to prevent execution of the previous decision and urging the trial court to ignore the appellate court orders constitute indirect contempt. 3. While Meycauayan claims it was not a party to the previous case, the decision is binding as it invalidated Maguesun's registration, under which Meycauayan claims its rights.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court ruled that: 1. Meycauayan may not seek reconveyance of the lands as res judicata applies from the previous case that invalidated Maguesun's registration. 2. Meycauayan's acts of continually filing pleadings to prevent execution of the previous decision and urging the trial court to ignore the appellate court orders constitute indirect contempt. 3. While Meycauayan claims it was not a party to the previous case, the decision is binding as it invalidated Maguesun's registration, under which Meycauayan claims its rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    40 views4 pages

    CASE

    Uploaded by

    Alex Velasco
    The Court ruled that: 1. Meycauayan may not seek reconveyance of the lands as res judicata applies from the previous case that invalidated Maguesun's registration. 2. Meycauayan's acts of continually filing pleadings to prevent execution of the previous decision and urging the trial court to ignore the appellate court orders constitute indirect contempt. 3. While Meycauayan claims it was not a party to the previous case, the decision is binding as it invalidated Maguesun's registration, under which Meycauayan claims its rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    CASE #1

    Jamora vs. Blanco - 078 Phil 502

    FACTS

    JUAN JAMORA, Petitioner, v. MANUEL BLANCO, Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, respondent. This is an
    original action for certiorari instituted b the petitioner, Juan Jamora, seeking the annulment of the order of
    the respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Honorable Manuel Blanco, dated October ]8,
    1946, which dismissed special proceeding No. 36 (Intestate Estate of the Deceased Gorgonia Jamora
    Vda. de Mapa: Juan Jamora, petitioner), and set aside all the proceedings theretofore accomplished
    therein. The order complained of recites that the respondent Judge personally knew that the estate of the
    deceased Gorgonia Jamora Vda. de Mapa had been settled and distributed according to her will probated
    in the Court of First Instance of Manila some fifteen years ago, and that the petitioner, then already
    appointed administrator, when required to explain, stated that he instituted special proceeding No. 36 in
    the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, because the records of the testate proceedings in the Court of First
    Instance of Manila were destroyed as a result of the war.

    ISSUE/S

    Petitioner’s main contention is that the respondent judge acted illegally in basing the order of dismissal on
    his personal knowledge of alleged facts not borne out by any evidence.

    RULING

    The herein petition will therefore be, as the same in hereby, dismissed, and it is so ordered with costs
    against the petitioner.
    CASE #2
    G.R. No. L-12435 November 9, 1917
    THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,
    vs.
    REGINO BLANCO, defendant-appellant.

    FACTS:

    The defendant and appellant was convicted originally in the court of the justice of peace of the
    municipality of Castillejos, Province of Zambales, and fined P25 on a charge of violation of an ordinance
    of that municipality prohibiting and penalizing the obstruction of the public highways. On appeal to the
    Court of First Instance of the Province of Zambales, the accused was again convicted and fined P25. The
    case in before us on appeal from the judgment entered in the Court of First Instance. On this appeal
    counsel relies wholly upon his contentions —
    First. That a doubt arises as to whether the ordinance in question was in force at the date of its alleged
    violation. Section 9 of the ordinance reads as follows:
    Esta ordenanza entrara en vigor desde su aprobacion por la honorable Junta Provincial. (This ordinance
    will take effect from the date of its approval by the honorable provincial board.)
    Counsel contends that since no affirmative proof was offered in the court below as to the date of approval
    of the ordinance, the court had no evidence before it on which to base a finding that the ordinance was in
    force at the date of its alleged violation.
    It is contented further, that the ordinance having been enacted under authority of the provisions of article
    39, subsection (j) of Act No. 82 (The Municipal Code), and that Code having been repealed by the
    enactment of the Administrative Code, the ordinance should be deemed to have been abrogated at the
    same time

    ISSUES:

    Whether or not the Court of the Justice of the Peace should take judicial notice of the Municipal
    Ordinances in force in the municipality where it sits.

    Whether or not the Court of First Instance may take judicial notice in an appeal from the judgment of a
    Court of the Justice of the Peace wherein the case originated.

    Whether or not the ordinance is deemed to have been abrogated.

    RULING:

    We have no doubt, however, that the court of a justice of the peace may, and should, take judicial notice
    of the municipal ordinances in force in the municipality wherein it sits; and we are furthermore of the
    opinion that in an appeal from the judgment of a court of the justice of the peace the appellate courts may
    take judicial notice of municipal ordinances in force in the municipality wherein the case originated, and to
    that end may adopt the findings and conclusions of the court of the justice of the peace in that regard as
    developed by the record, in the absence of affirmative proof that such findings and conclusions are
    erroneous. (U. S. vs. Hernandez, 31 Phil. Rep., 342; Cf. sec. 51, Manila Charter.)
    CASE#3
    PEOPLE VS DE ROXAS

    FACTS

    The case involves parcel of lands in Tagaytay City, as the same wasregistered under the name of
    Maguesun Management and DevelopmentCorporation (Maguesun). The Heirs seeks to annul the
    registration toMaguesun, to which the Court granted.Meycauayan Central Realty Corporation
    (Meycauayan) filed an actionfor reconveyance regarding three (3) parcels of land bought fromMaguesun,
    claiming that it is an innocent purchaser for value and in goodfaith and that as a stranger to the suit, the
    same cannot be applied with resjudicataFurther, petitioners seek the Court to rule on direct/indirect
    contemptto Meycauayan for constantly seeking reconveyance despite a court order.

    ISSUE/S:

    Whether or not Meycauayan may reconvey said lands


    Whether or not res judicata applies

    RULING

    The Roxas heirs allege that the following acts of Meycauayan constitute indirect contempt under Section
    3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Civil Procedure: (1)Meycauayan's defiance of the final and executory Decision
    and Resolution of this Court in G.R. No. 118436; (2) its act of filing pleadings before the land registration
    court to prevent execution of the Decision and Resolution; (3) its act of filing a Complaint raising the same
    issues in its Petition for Intervention which this Court had already denied and urging the trial court to
    ignore and countermand the orders of this Court.

    On the other hand, Meycauayan alleges that the Decision in G.R. No. 118436 does not bind Meycauayan
    because it was not a party in the case. According to Meycauayan, the Decision in G.R. No. 118436 may
    be enforced against Maguesun but not against Meycauayan which is a stranger to the case. Meycauayan
    insists that as a purchaser in good faith and for value its rights cannot be prejudiced by the alleged
    fraudulent acquisition by Maguesun of the subject properties. Meycauayan, therefore, is not liable for
    contempt of court for filing an action for reconveyance, quieting of title and damages.

    You might also like