Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, let this petition be, as it is hereby DISMISSED.” [3] This petition also impugns the April 25, 1991 Court of Appeals Resolution [4] which denied reconsideration. The Facts The facts found by public respondent are as follows: [5] “Petitioner is the applicant in a land registration case filed with Branch 71, Regional Trial Court of the Fourth Judicial Region stationed in Antipolo, Rizal.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, let this petition be, as it is hereby DISMISSED. [3] This petition also impugns the April 25, 1991 Court of Appeals Resolution [4] which denied reconsideration. The Facts The facts found by public respondent are as follows: [5] Petitioner is the applicant in a land registration case filed with Branch 71, Regional Trial Court of the Fourth Judicial Region stationed in Antipolo, Rizal. Sought to be brought by petitioner under the operation of the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) is a 96,470 square meter lot denominated as Lots 6846-A, 6846-B, 6846-C and 6846-D. Copies of the application were ordered by respondent Court to be furnished (to) the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA) which on March 18, 1987 submitted a report recommending that applicant be order[ed] to amend his petition by including the names and complete postal addresses of the adjoining owners and correcting the discrepancy regarding the boundary lot number along line 2-3 of Lot 6846-D on plan Csd-04-005516-D. On order of respondent Court [trial court], the petition was accordingly amended. After the NLTDRA was notified that the case is [sic] initially set for hearing on December 7, 1987, the Acting Chief, Docket Division of the NLRDRA [sic] submitted another report recommending that petitioner be ordered to refer to the Bureau of Lands for corrections of the discrepancy existing in the directional bearing and area of Lot 6846-D, Csd-04-005516-D. The technical descriptions as corrected by the Bureau of Lands was [sic] submitted and the application was initially set for hearing on April 26, 1988. The Notice of Initial Hearing stating that the application was set forbe [sic] heard on April 26, 1988 was thereafter issued by the NLTDRA. On June 1, 1988, an order of general default was issued by respondent Court. Exempted from the order was one Annie Jimenez who filed an opposition to the application. On June 22, 1988, private respondent Solid Homes, Inc. filed its opposition stating that a land registered in its name under the Torrens System and covered by then TCT No. N-7873 is almost identical to the property subject of the application by petitioner. The opposition was not admitted considering that no motion to set aside the order of general default was filed by private respondent. On June 28, 1988, private respondent filed a motion to lift the order of general default and to admit its opposition on the ground that its right would be adversely affected by the application. Acting on the motion and in order to avoid duplicity, the NLTDRA was directed to make the plotting of the relative position of the property covered by LRC Psd-245998 and embraced in TCT No. N-7873 and to submit its plotting to the Court for its guidance. In the same order dated July 1, 1988, respondent Court in the interest of justice set aside the order of general default in so far as private respondent was concerned and admitted private resp
G.R. NO. 160895 - JOSE R. MARTINEZ, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. NO. 160895 -
CaseG.R. No. 76371 -
G.R. No. 76371 -
CaseG.R. No. 135038 - ROLANDO Y. TAN, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HEIRS OF JOSE L. ATEGA, FRANCISCO B. AALA, HAYDEN B. LUZON AND LEONCIO PADERES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 135038 -