SAMPLE CASE IN SECTION 5
CASE FOR ARTICLE 5 DBP V. CA, 65 SCAD 82, 249 SCR.331, OCTOBER 16, 1995 The supreme court said that the buyer of the parcel of the parcel of land that is considered as non disposable land of the public domain didn’t acquire the valid title over the land, but recognized the certain effects of the same, in that when the buyer ask for the land was deducted from the amount reimbursed. This is the recognition of a right without title was transmitted in favor of the buyer.And the reduction of the amount reimbursed is in conformity with the rule that no one that shall enrich himself at the expense of another. It is well settled doctrine that a statute requiring rendition of judgment within a specified time is generally construed to be merely directory, so that non compliance with them does not invalidate the judgment on the theory that if the statute had intended such result it would clearly indicated it MARCOS V.COMELEC, et al 64 ...