Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Republic can question even final and executory judgment when there was fraud
The Republic can also question a final and executory judgment when the Land Registration Court
had no jurisdiction over the land in question
The success of the annulment of title does not solely depend on the existence of actual and
extrinsic fraud, but also on the fact that a judgment decreeing registration is null and void.
Any title to an inalienable public land is void ab initio. Any procedural infirmities attending the
filing of the petition for annulment of judgment are immaterial since the LRC never acquired
jurisdiction over the property. All proceedings of the LRC involving the property are null and void
and, hence, did not create any legal effect.
A judgment by a court without jurisdiction can never attain finality.
The Land Registration Court has no jurisdiction over non-registrable properties, such as public
navigable rivers which are parts of the public domain, and cannot validly adjudge the registration
of title in favor of private applicant.
Granting that the persons representing the government was negligent, the doctrine of estoppel
cannot be taken against the Republic. It is a well-settled rule that the Republic or its government
is not estopped by mistake or error on the part of its officials or agents.
The necessary requirements for the grant of an application for land registration are the
following:
1. The applicant must, by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, have been in possession
and occupation of the subject land;
2. The possession and occupation must be open, continuous, exclusive and notorious;
3. The possession and occupation must be under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least thirty
years immediately preceding the filing of the application; and
Valino vs Adriano
the law simply confines the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to the members of the
family to the exclusion of one’s common law partner
Mallilin vs Jamesolamin
Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)
juridical antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the
party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be
rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations
may only emerge after the marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure
would be beyond the means of the party involved
sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not, by themselves, constitute grounds for
declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity
guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its
dissolution and nullity. x x x.
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical,
although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. x x x.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. x x
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. x x x.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes,
occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. x x x.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in
the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear
as counsel for the state. x x x.
Ruling: The claim has not prescribed. Total timely filed its judicial claim on January 2009. The NIRC
provides that the CIR has 120 days from the date of submission of complete documents to decide on the
claim for tax credits. Upon inaction of the BIR after 120 days, the taxpayer may, within 30 days, appeal
on the CTA. The BIR did not give notice to Total with regard to the documents submitted on August
2008. Thus the counting of the 120 day period should start from August 2008 or when Total made its
submission of complete documents to support its application. The BIR had until December 2008 to
decide. Because of the BIR's inaction, Total had until January 25, 2009 to file their judicial claim.
Total Gas filed its judicial claim due to the inaction of the BIR. Considering that the administrative claim
was never acted upon; there was no decision for the CTA to review on appeal per se. Consequently, the
CTA may give credence to all evidence presented by Total Gas, including those that may not have been
submitted to the CIR as the case is being essentially decided in the first instance. The Total Gas must
prove every minute aspect of its case by presenting and formally offering its evidence to the CTA, which
must necessarily include whatever is required for the successful prosecution of an administrative claim