The document discusses a case regarding ownership of land covered by OCT 735. The respondents filed a complaint before the CFI of Pasig seeking ownership of 383 quiniones of land covered by OCT 735. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss arguing lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, prescription, laches, and prior judgment. The lower court decided to hear the case, requiring documents related to OCT 735. The petitioners then filed a petition for review and prohibition, seeking dismissal. The court upheld the validity of OCT 735, finding the issue had already been decided in prior cases, and that settled matters should not be relitigated under the principle of stare decisis.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The document discusses a case regarding ownership of land covered by OCT 735. The respondents filed a complaint before the CFI of Pasig seeking ownership of 383 quiniones of land covered by OCT 735. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss arguing lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, prescription, laches, and prior judgment. The lower court decided to hear the case, requiring documents related to OCT 735. The petitioners then filed a petition for review and prohibition, seeking dismissal. The court upheld the validity of OCT 735, finding the issue had already been decided in prior cases, and that settled matters should not be relitigated under the principle of stare decisis.
The document discusses a case regarding ownership of land covered by OCT 735. The respondents filed a complaint before the CFI of Pasig seeking ownership of 383 quiniones of land covered by OCT 735. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss arguing lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, prescription, laches, and prior judgment. The lower court decided to hear the case, requiring documents related to OCT 735. The petitioners then filed a petition for review and prohibition, seeking dismissal. The court upheld the validity of OCT 735, finding the issue had already been decided in prior cases, and that settled matters should not be relitigated under the principle of stare decisis.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
The document discusses a case regarding ownership of land covered by OCT 735. The respondents filed a complaint before the CFI of Pasig seeking ownership of 383 quiniones of land covered by OCT 735. The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss arguing lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, prescription, laches, and prior judgment. The lower court decided to hear the case, requiring documents related to OCT 735. The petitioners then filed a petition for review and prohibition, seeking dismissal. The court upheld the validity of OCT 735, finding the issue had already been decided in prior cases, and that settled matters should not be relitigated under the principle of stare decisis.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
STARE DECISIS: Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled.
Matters already decided on the merits cannot relitigated again and again.
J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., JOSE M. TUASON, NICASIO A. TUASON, TERESA TUASON, CELSO S. TUASON and SEVERO A. TUASON, petitioners, vs. HON. HERMINIO C. MARIANO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal MANUELA AQUIAL, MARIA AQUIAL, Spouses JOSE M. CORDOVA and SATURNINA C. CORDOVA, respondents.
FACTS:
1. This is another litigation of the much controverted OCT. 735 of Sta. Mesa and D estates of the Tuason; 2. That the herein respondent filed a complaint with the CFI of Pasig, praying that they be owners of the 383 quiniones which there father acquired by means of Spanish title; 3. That the said OCT 735 allegedly included the lot that they are claiming; 4. That they are praying that OCT 735 and the titles thereof be declared void due to irregularities in the land registration proceedings; 5. The petioner herein, filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of: a. Lack of jurisprudence; b. Improper venue; c. Prescription d. Laches e. Prior judgment 6. The respondents opposed that motion thereby hearing their case by the lower court 7. An intervenor was allowed also; 8. The lower court decided to hear the petition thus requiring the Register of Deeds to produce: a. Copy of the TCTs b. Plan of the land covered by OCT 9. The purpose of which is to determine whether such allegations was part of the OCT; 10. The petitioner, filed an instant civil actions of review and prohibition, praying that the trial court be ordered to dismiss the case and enjoined from proceeding the said case;
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT OCT 735 CAN BE QUESTIONED BY THE HEREIN RESPONDENT
RULINGS:
1. The court directed the lower court to dismiss the case and once more upheld the validity of the said OCT 735; 2. The issue has already been raised in civil case 3621, 3622, 3623 3. “STARE DECISIS” Follow past precedents and do not disturb what has been settled. 4. It is against public policy that matters already been decided on the merits will be relitigated again and again
