Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 301 views

    Cabuay vs. Malvar

    Uploaded by

    John Lester Tan
    This case involves a property ownership dispute between two parties claiming lawful ownership based on conflicting Supreme Court rulings. The First Division ruled that Ambrosio Aguilar was the lawful owner, but this was later annulled and ownership was restored to the Lopez heirs. Meanwhile, the Third Division ruled that the Adia heirs were the lawful owners. The Court En Banc clarified that based on the law of the case doctrine, the earlier ruling of the First Division prevails, and the Lopez heirs are the rightful owners. Once a case reaches final judgment, inferior courts and future divisions must adhere to that ruling without modification, to promote stability, order, and efficiency in the legal system.

    Copyright:

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

    Cabuay vs. Malvar

    Uploaded by

    John Lester Tan
    301 views1 page
    This case involves a property ownership dispute between two parties claiming lawful ownership based on conflicting Supreme Court rulings. The First Division ruled that Ambrosio Aguilar was the lawful owner, but this was later annulled and ownership was restored to the Lopez heirs. Meanwhile, the Third Division ruled that the Adia heirs were the lawful owners. The Court En Banc clarified that based on the law of the case doctrine, the earlier ruling of the First Division prevails, and the Lopez heirs are the rightful owners. Once a case reaches final judgment, inferior courts and future divisions must adhere to that ruling without modification, to promote stability, order, and efficiency in the legal system.

    Original Description:

    Cabuay vs Malvar Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a property ownership dispute between two parties claiming lawful ownership based on conflicting Supreme Court rulings. The First Division ruled that Ambrosio Aguilar was the lawful owner, but this was later annulled and ownership was restored to the Lopez heirs. Meanwhile, the Third Division ruled that the Adia heirs were the lawful owners. The Court En Banc clarified that based on the law of the case doctrine, the earlier ruling of the First Division prevails, and the Lopez heirs are the rightful owners. Once a case reaches final judgment, inferior courts and future divisions must adhere to that ruling without modification, to promote stability, order, and efficiency in the legal system.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    301 views1 page

    Cabuay vs. Malvar

    Uploaded by

    John Lester Tan
    This case involves a property ownership dispute between two parties claiming lawful ownership based on conflicting Supreme Court rulings. The First Division ruled that Ambrosio Aguilar was the lawful owner, but this was later annulled and ownership was restored to the Lopez heirs. Meanwhile, the Third Division ruled that the Adia heirs were the lawful owners. The Court En Banc clarified that based on the law of the case doctrine, the earlier ruling of the First Division prevails, and the Lopez heirs are the rightful owners. Once a case reaches final judgment, inferior courts and future divisions must adhere to that ruling without modification, to promote stability, order, and efficiency in the legal system.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    1.

    In Re: Petitioner seeking for Clarification as to the Validity and Forceful Effect of Two
    (2) Final and Executory But Conflicting Decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court

    Group Commander, Intelligence and Security Group, Philippine Army, represented by


    Colonel Pedro R. Cabuay, Jr., petitioner, vs. Dr. Potencia Malvar and Marcelino Lopez,
    respondents. Heirs of Elino Adia, represented by Juliana Adia, intervenors.
    G.R. No. 123780 September 24, 2002

    Facts:
    This case involves who will be the lawful owner of the property. The first Division
    rendered that Ambrosio Aguilar, successor-in-interest of Hermogenes Lopez was the lawful
    owner of the property which became final and executory. However, the deed of sale was
    annulled between Hermogenez Lope and Ambrosio Aguilar and restored to the Lopez heirs
    possession of the property. On the other hand, the heirs of the late Adia argue that they should be
    the lawful owner of the said property so they filed a complaint to the LMB Director Palad which
    thus ruled that the heirs of Adia are the lawful owner of the property. Consequently, the Supreme
    Court (Third Division) recognized that Adia heirs’ are the lawful owners of the property
    Dr. Potenciano Malvar bought a portion to the Land from the Lopez heirs while Col.
    Pedro R. Cabuay, Jr. bought a portion to the Land from the Adia heirs. Cabuay filed a petition
    seeking for clarification as to the Validity and Forceful Effect of Two Final and Executory but
    Conflicting Decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court En Banc resolved to accept the present
    case only in 2000.

    Issue: WON the ruling of the third division of this Court prevails over the decision
    rendered by the First Division?

    Ruling: the Lopez heirs are the lawful and rightful owner of the property.
    The Court used the law of the case doctrine. It need not be stated that the supreme court, being
    the court of last resort, is the final arbiter of all legal questions properly brought before it and that
    its decision in any given case constitutes the law of that particular case. Once its judgment
    becomes final it is binding on all inferior courts, and hence beyond their power and authority to
    alter or modify. Reasons of public policy, judicial orderliness, economy and judicial time and the
    interests of litigants, as well as the peace and order of society, all require that stability be
    accorded the solemn and final judgments of the courts or tribunals of competent jurisdiction.
    There can be no question that such reasons apply with greater force on final judgments of the
    highest Court of the land.
    The third Division of the Supreme Court was misled. Under Section 4, sub-paragraph (3),
    Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no doctrine or principle of law laid
    down by the Supreme Court en banc or its divisions may be modified or reversed except by
    the Court sitting en banc.

    You might also like