Documents

MAGSAYSAY-LABRADOR vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Description
digest
Categories
Published
of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  MAGSAYSAY-LABRADOR vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 58168. December 19, 1989.Fernan, C.J. FACTS: Private respondent Adelaida Rodrige! agsa#sa# $iled an action against %bic &and'orporation (%)*+', among ot-ers, to annl t-e deed o$ assignment and deed o$ mortgage eected in$avor o$ t-e latter b# -er late -sband.Private respondent alleged t-at t-e sb/ect land o$ t-e t0o deeds 0as acired t-rog- con/gal $nds.%ince -er consent to t-e disposition o$ t-e same 0as not obtained, s-e claimed t-at t-e acts o$ assignmentand mortgage 0ere done to de$rad t-e con/gal partners-ip. %-e $rt-er contended t-at t-e same 0eredone 0it-ot consideration and -ence nll and void.Petitioners, sisters o$ t-e deceased -sband o$ t-e private respondent, $iled a motion $or intervention ont-e grond t-at t-eir brot-er conve#ed to t-em one2-al$ o$ -is s-are-oldings in %)*+', or abot 314. -etrial cort denied t-e motion $or intervention rling t-at petitioners -ave no legal interest becase %)*+'-as a personalit# separate and distinct $rom its stoc-olders. -e 'A con$irmed t-e denial on appeal.7ence, t-is petition. ISSUE: -et-er petitioners, as stoc-olders o$ %)*+', -ave a legal interest in t-e action $or annlment o$ t-edeed o$ assignment and deed o$ mortgage in $avor o$ t-e corporation. HELD: N. -e 'ort noted t-at t-e interest 0-ic- entitles person to intervene in a sit bet0een ot-er partiesmst be in t-e matter in litigation and o$ sc- direct and immediate c-aracter t-at t-e intervenor 0illeit-er gain or lose b# t-e direct legal operation and e$$ect o$ t-e /dgment. +n t-e instant petition, it0as said t-at t-e interest, i$ it eists at all, o$ petitioners2movants is indirect, contingent, remote, con/ectral,conseential and collateral. At t-e ver# least, t-eir interest is prel# inc-oate, or in s-eer epectanc# o$ a rig-t in t-e management o$ t-e corporation and to s-are in t-e pro$its t-ereo$ and in t-e properties and assets t-ereo$ on dissoltion, a$ter pa#ment o$ t-e corporate debtsand obligations. -ile a s-are o$ stoc represents a proportionate or aliot interest in t-e propert# o$ t-e corporation, it does not vest t-e o0ner t-ereo$ 0it- an# legal rig-t or title to an# o$ t-e propert#, -isinterest in t-e corporate propert# being eitable or bene$icial in natre. %-are-olders are in nolegal sense t-e o0ners o$ corporate propert#, 0-ic- is o0ned b# t-e corporation as a distinct legalperson.  Director of lands vs. Court of AppealsFacts: The land in question is situated in Obando, Bulacan. It adjoins the ailo!an iver and privaterespondent #aleriano have converted it into a $shpond. In their application in %&'(, privaterespondents clai)ed that the* are the co+oners in fee si)ple of the land partl* throu!hinheritance and partl* b* purchase and that- it is not ithin an* forest or )ilitar*reservation. The epublic of the hil., represented b* the Dir of the Bureau of ForestDevelop)ent, opposed the application on the principal !round that the land applied for is/IT0I1 T0231C4A55IFI2D 26IO1 of Obando, Bulacan and that such area aredeno)inated as FO 25T4A1D5+do not for) part of the disposable and alienable portion of the public do)ain. The Trial Court ordered re!istration of the subject land in favor of the#alerianos. This as a7r)ed b* the CA hich said in part that 8since the subject propert* isentirel* devoted to $shpond purposes, it cannot be cate!ori9ed as part of forest lands.Issue: /O1 the courts can reclassif* the subject public land.0eld:Courts cannot reclassif*... its be*ond their co)petence and jurisdiction. The classi$cationof public lands is an e;clusive prero!ative of the 2;ecutiveDepart)ent of the6overn)ent <Bureau of Forest Develop)ent= and not of the Courts. In theabsence of suchclassi$cation, the land re)ains as unclassi$ed land until it is released there fro) andrendered open to disposition.5ince the subj propert* is still unclassi$ed, hateverpossession Applicants <#aleriano= )a* have had, and, hoever lon!, cannot ripen intoprivate onership.The conversion of the subj propert* into a $shpond b* Applicants doesnotauto)aticall* render the propert* as alienable and disposable. The reco))endation of the District Forester for release of subject propert* fro) unclassi$ed re!ion is not theulti)ate ord on the )atter.  CIR v.Primetown, GR 162155, August 28, 2007 FA'%: Gilbert ;ap, <ice '-air o$ Primeto0n applied on arc- 11, 1999 $or a re$nd or credit o$ incometa 0-ic- Primeto0n paid in 199=. 7e claimed t-at t-e# are entitled $or a re$nd becase t-e#s$$ered losses t-at #ear de to t-e increase o$ cost o$ labor and materials, etc. 7o0ever,despite t-e losses, t-e# still paid t-eir arterl# income ta and remitted creditable 0it--oldingta $rom real estate sales to *+R. 7ence, t-e# 0ere claiming $or a re$nd. n a# 1>, 1999,revene o$$icer ?li!abet- %antos reired Primeto0n to sbmit additional docments to 0-ic-Primeto0n complied 0it-. 7o0ever, its claim 0as not acted pon 0-ic- prompted it to $ile apetition $or revie0 in 'A on April 13, @. 'A dismissed t-e petition as it 0as $iled be#on$ t-e@2#ear prescriptive period $or $iling a /dicial claim $or ta re$nd according to %ec @@9 o$ N+R'. According to 'A, t-e t0o2#ear period is eivalent to => da#s prsant to Art 1> o$ N''.%ince Primeto0n $iled its $inal ad/stment retrn on April 13, 1998 and t-at #ear @ 0as a leap#ear, t-e petition 0as $iled =>1 da#s a$ter Primeto0n $iled its $inal ad/sted retrn. 7ence,be#ond t-e reglementar# period. Primeto0n appealed to 'A. 'A reversed t-e decision o$ 'A.7ence, t-is appeal.+%%)?: BN petition 0as $iled 0it-in t-e t0o2#ear period7?&D: Prsant to ? @9@ or t-e Administrative 'ode o$ 198=, a #ear s-all be nderstood to be 1@calendar mont-s. -e %' de$ined a calendar mont- as a mont- designated in t-e calendar 0it-ot regard to t-e nmber o$ da#s it ma# contain. -e cort -eld t-at Administrative 'ode o$ 198= impliedl# repealed Art 1> o$ N'' as t-e provisions are irreconcilable. Primeto0n is entitled$or t-e re$nd since it is $iled 0it-in t-e @2#ear reglementar# period.

TARC 2nd Report

Jul 23, 2017

Astronomy Snap

Jul 23, 2017
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks