Tinio, et al. v. v. Frances, Frances, et al. Case No. 290 G.R. No. L-7747 (November 29, 1955) Chapter III, Pae 90, !oot"ote No.#1 !$C%&' Sergio Nicolas applied for a parcel of land in Nueva Ecija and was approved in 1917. In 194, t!e "nal proof was approved #$ t!e %irector of &ands w!o issued a patent in !is favor, #ut #ecause Sergio Nicolas died, !e was su#stituted #$ !is !eirs, represented #$ !is widow. In 1947, t!e !eirs transferred t!eir rig!ts to t!e !o'estead to t!e %efendants, wit! approval a pproval #$ t!e Secretar$ of (griculture (griculture and )o''erce, and secured t!e issuance of a !o'estead patent in t!eir favor. favor. In 19*, !eirs of t!e deceased Sergio Nicolas wanted to annul t!e sale of a !o'estead and to recover t!e land, toget!er wit! t!e fruits of t!e land as da'ages. I&&' +N t!e sale or transfer of rig!t of t!e !eirs of Sergio Nicolas over t!e parcel of land was valid. *L+' No. )onve$ances 'ade #$ t!e !eirs of t!e !o'esteader to t!e %efendants do not co'pl$ wit! t!e "rst re-uire'ent re-uire'ent of Sec. / of t!e 0u#lic &ands (ct t!at t!e %irector of lands is satis"ed fro' proofs su#'itted #$ t!e !o'esteader t!at !e could not continue wit! !is !o'estead t!roug! no fault of !is own, and t!at t!e conve$ance 'ust #e 'ade wit! t!e prior or previous approval of t!e Secretar$ of (griculture (griculture and )o''erce. T!us t!e conve$ance 'ade #$ t!e !eirs of Nicolas was null and void.
L$RL vs. $RG$R!ats' n or a#out Septe'#er 1/219, 1999, or prior t!ereto in 3aati )it$, t!e accused, conspiringandconfederating toget!er and all of t!e' 'utuall$ !elping and aiding one anot!er, wit! intenttogain and wit!out t!e nowledge and consent of t!e 0!ilippine &ong %istance Telep!one50&%T6,did t!en and t!ere willfull$, unlawfull$ and feloniousl$ tae, steal and use t!ein te rn a ti on al lo ng di st an ce ca ll s #e lo ng in g to 0& %T #$ co nd uc ti ng In te rna ti on al Si 'p le esale 5IS6, w!ic! is a'et!od of routing and co'pleting international long distance callsusing lines, ca#les, antenae,andor air wave fre-uenc$ w!ic! connect directl$ to t!e local or do'estic e8c!ange facilities of t!e countr$ w!ere t!e call is destined, eectivel$ stealing t!is#usiness fro' 0&%T w!ile using itsfacilities in t!e esti'ated a'ount of 0/,7/,:*1.9 to t!eda'age and prejudice of 0&%T, int!e said a'ount. Iss/e' +!et!er international long distance calls and t!e # u s i n e s s o f p r o v i d i n g teleco''unication ortelep!one services are considered as personal properties su#jected tot!eft. *e' I n t ! e i n s t a n t c a s e , t ! e a c t o f c o n d u c t i n g I S o p e r a t i o n s # $ i l l e g a l l $ c o n n e c t i n g variouse-uip'entor apparatusto private respondent0&%Tstelep!one s$ste', t!roug!w!ic!p e t i t i o n e r i s a # l e t o re s e l l o r re 2 ro u t e i n t e r n a t i o n a l l o n g d i s t a n c e c a l l s u s i n g r e s p o n d e n t 0&%Ts facilitiesconstitutes all t!ree acts of su#traction 'entioned a#ove. $CCR+INGL , t ! e ' o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s GR$N%+ . T ! e a s s a i l e d % e c i s i o n i s RCN&I+R+ a" &% $&I+ . T!e %ecision of t!e )ourt o f (ppeals a;r'ing t!e rderissued #$
u a s ! 5 + i t ! 3 o t i o n t o % e f e r ( r r a i g n ' e n t 6 f o r t ! e f t , i s $!!IR3+ . T ! e c a s e isre'anded to t!e trial court and t!e 0u#lic 0rosecutor of 3aati )it$ is !ere#$ +IRC%+ to a'end t!e ('ended Infor'ation to s!ow t!at t!e propert$ su#ject of t!e t!eftwere servicesand #usiness of t!e private oended part$.
)it$ of 3anila vs )!inese )o''unit$ of 3anila , ? 14** 51%6, 1 cto#er 1919
!$C%&' 0etitioner 5)it$ of 3anila6 "led a petition pra$ing t!at certain lands #e e8propriated for t!e purpose of constructing a pu#lic i'prove'ent na'el$, t!e e8tension of i@al (venue, 3anila and clai'ing t!at suc! e8propriation was necessar$. Aerein defendants, on t!e ot!er !and, alleged 5a6 t!at no necessit$ e8isted for said e8propriation and 5#6 t!at t!e land in -uestion was a ce'eter$, w!ic! !ad #een used as suc! for 'an$ $ears, and was covered wit! sepulc!res and 'onu'ents, and t!at t!e sa'e s!ould not #e converted into a street for pu#lic purposes. T!e lower court ruled t!at t!ere was no necessity for t!e e8propriation of t!e particular strip of land in -uestion. 0etitioner t!erefore assails t!e decision of t!e lower court clai'ing t!at it 5petitioner6 !as t!e aut!orit$ to e8propriate an$ land it 'a$ desireB t!at t!e onl$ function of t!e court in suc! proceedings is to ascertain t!e value of t!e land in -uestionB t!at neit!er t!e court nor t!e owners of t!e land can in-uire into t!e advisa#le purpose of t!e e8propriation or as an$ -uestions concerning t!e necessities t!ereforB t!at t!e courts are 'ere appraisers of t!e land involved in e8propriation proceedings, and, w!en t!e value of t!e land is "8ed #$ t!e 'et!od adopted #$ t!e law, to render a judg'ent in favor of t!e defendant for its value.
I&&' +N t!e courts 'a$ in-uire into and !ear proof upon t!e necessit$ of t!e e8propriationC *L+' Des. T!e courts !ave t!e power to restrict t!e e8ercise of e'inent do'ain to t!e actual reasona#le necessities of t!e case and for t!e purposes designated #$ t!e law. +!en t!e 'unicipal corporation or entit$ atte'pts to e8ercise t!e aut!orit$ conferred, it 'ust co'pl$ wit! t!e conditions acco'pan$ing suc! aut!orit$. T!e necessit$ for conferring t!e aut!orit$ upon a 'unicipal corporation to e8ercise t!e rig!t of e'inent do'ain is, wit!out -uestion, wit!in t!e power of t!e legislature. ut w!et!er or not t!e 'unicipal corporation or entit$ is e8ercising t!e rig!t in a particular case under t!e conditions i'posed #$ t!e general aut!orit$, is a -uestion t!at t!e courts !ave t!e rig!t to in-uire into.
utuan Saw'ill vs. )ourt of Ta8 (ppeals 5? &2/:/1, Fe#ruar$ 19::6 En anc, e$es <& 5<6G 1/ concur FactsG %uring t!e period fro' 1
hate vs +e" 0osted on 3arh 5, 201 105 P*IL 65 1959 !$C%& c!ate is t!e incu'#ent 'unicipal 3a$or of )larin, 3isa'is ccidenta, w!ile 0 and %eling are t!e incu'#ent 0rovincial ?overnor of t!e 0rovince and Hice23a$or of t!e said 'unicipalit$, respectivel$. In an ad'inistrative co'plaint, c!ate was c!arged #efore t!e 0rovincial oard ofG 516 organi@ing, participating, and tolerating illegal coc"g!ts and ot!er for's of ga'#lingB 56 co''itting grave pu#lic scandals and acts un#eco'ing of a pu#lic o;cialB 56 'isconduct in o;ce 5in slapping !is wife and daug!ter inside t!e 'unicipal #uilding in front of 'an$ people6B 546 neglect of dut$B and 5*6 oppression. n t!e sa'e date t!at t!e priginal ad'inistrative c!arges was "led, t!e ?overnor suspended c!ate fro' o;ce, directing t!e latter to turn over t!e sa'e to %eling, t!e Hice23a$or. c!ate -uestions t!e legalit$ of t!e ad'inistrative c!arges and of t!e order of suspension. Aence, t!is action. nder &e.2166, Revse $m"stratve Coe , t!e aut!orit$ of t!e 0rovincial ?overnor to receive and investigate co'plIn$s against 'unicipal o;cials rests on groundsG 1.
neglect of dut$, oppression, corruption or ot!er for's of 'alad'inistration of o;ce, and
.
conviction #$ "nal judg'ent of an$ cri'e involving 'oral turpitude.
0ending action #$ t!e 0rovincial oard, t!e 0rovincial ?overn'ent 'a$ suspend t!e o;cer concerned if in !is opinion t!e c!arge is one aecting t!e o;cial integrit$ of t!e o;cer c!arged.
I&& (re t!e ad'inistrative c!arges a#ove2stated grounds for t!e valid suspension of c!ateC
*L+ No. Acts charged afect only his character as a private individual.
c!ateJs acts Kcannot #e safel$ said or considered to #e related to t!e perfor'ance of !is o;cial dutiesL and !e does not !ave to #e a 3a$or to co''it t!e oenses c!arged.
3so"/t " 8e is mso"/t s/h as a:ets the per;orma"e o; hs /tes as a" o8er and not suc! as onl$ aects !is c!aracter as a private individual. The misconduct, miseasance or maleasance warranting re'oval of an o;cer fro' o;cemust have direct relation to and be connected with the perormance o ocial duties amounting to either maladministration or willul, intentional neglect and ailure to discharge the duties o the oce. In t!e instant case, t!e records fail to indicate t!at c!ate was 'otivated #$ an$ o;cial considerations w!en !e co''itted t!e acts co'plained of. It appears t!at t!e acts complained o were done or more personal reason. 3oreover, t!e alleged violation of t!e ga'#ling law occurred wit!in anot!er 'unicipalit$. T!e c!arges of KoppressionL see's too super"cial to 'eet t!e standard "8ed in t!e legal de"nition of KoppressionL. c!ate was accused and convicted of slig!t p!$sical injuries w!ic! did not involve 'oral turpitudeB !e does not appear to !ave #een convicted of t!e c!arges of Killegal coc"g!tingL and Kassaults upon agents in aut!orit$L. T!e c!arges do not constitute 'isconduct or 'alad'inistration of o;ce. (s suc!, the order o suspension was not ounded on legal grounds.
)u vs epu#lic FactsG n
IssueG w!et!er or not applicant !as t!e #urden to prove AeldG Des. urden is on t!e applicant justin cu to prove t!at !e !as all t!e -uali"cations and non dis-uali"cations enu'erated in t!e naturali@ation law
3actan )e#u IntMl (irport 53)I((6 vs
0&%T vs 0rovince of laguna
!atsG 0&%T is a !older of a legislative franc!ise under (ct No. 4:, as a'ended, to render local and international teleco''unications services. T!e ter's and conditions of its franc!ise were later consolidated under epu#lic (ct No. 7/, Section 1 of w!ic! e'#odies t!e so2called Kin2lieu2of2all ta8esL clause, w!ereunder 0&%T s!all pa$ a franc!ise ta8 e-uivalent to Q of all its gross receipts, w!ic! franc!ise ta8 s!all #e Kin lieu of all ta8esL. T!ereafter, t!e &ocal ?overn'ent )ode too eect. Section 17 of t!e )ode, in relation to Section 1*1 t!ereof, grants provinces and ot!er local govern'ent units t!e power to i'pose local franc!ise ta8 on #usinesses enjo$ing a franc!ise. Invoing its aut!orit$, t!e 0rovince of &aguna, t!roug! its local legislative asse'#l$, enacted a provincial ordinance i'posing a franc!ise ta8 upon all #usinesses enjo$ing a franc!ise, w!ic! includes 0&%T. In co'pliance wit! t!e ordinance, 0&%T paid t!e 0rovince of &aguna its local franc!ise ta8 lia#ilit$ for t!e $ear 199 in t!e a'ount of 01,/1,1.1/. 0rior t!ereto, )ongress enacted t!e 0u#lic Teleco''unications 0olic$ (ct of t!e 0!ilippines. T!en, t!e %epart'ent of Finance, t!ru its ureau of &ocal ?overn'ent Finance 5&?F6, issued a ruling to t!e eect t!at 0&%T, a'ong ot!er teleco''unication co'panies, #eca'e e8e'pt fro' local franc!ise ta8. (ccordingl$, 0&%T s!all #e e8e'pt fro' t!e pa$'ent of franc!ise and #usiness ta8es i'posa#le #$ &?s under Sections 17 and 14, respectivel$ of t!e &ocal ?overn'ent )ode, upon t!e eectivit$ of ( 79*. Aowever, 0&%T s!all #e lia#le to pa$ t!e franc!ise and #usiness ta8es on its gross receipts during t!e period t!at 0&%T was not enjo$ing t!e R'ost favored clauseM provision of ( 7/*. 0&%T t!en refused to pa$ t!e 0rovince of &aguna its local franc!ise ta8 lia#ilit$ for t!e following $ear and it even "led wit! t!e ;ce of t!e 0rovincial Treasurer a written clai' for refund of t!e a'ount it paid as local franc!ise ta8 for t!e previous $ear.
Iss/e' %oes Section of ep. (ct No. 79* operate to e8e'pt 0&%T fro' pa$'ent of franc!ise ta8C
ulingG appl$ing t!e rule of strict construction of laws granting ta8 e8e'ptions, sec of ( 79* cannot #e considered as !aving a'ended 0&%TMs franc!ise to entitle it to e8e'ption fro' i'position of local franc!ise ta8es.
3o#il vs )usto's (rrastre
3IL P*ILIPPIN&
AE&%G (lt!oug! arrastre function 'a$ #e dee'ed proprietar$, it is necessar$ incident of govern'ental function of ), so t!at engaging in t!e sa'e does not necessaril$ render it lia#le to suit.
(sian trans corp. vs ca FactsG Petitioner, Asian Transmission Corporation, seeks via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1995 Rules of Civil Procedure the nullification of the March 2, 2!!! "ecision 1 of the Court of Appeals den#in$ its petition to annul 1% the March 11, 199& '()planator# *ulletin' 2 of the "epartment of +aor and (mplo#ment -".+(% entitled '/orkers0 (ntitlement to olida# Pa# on April 9, 199&, Ara n$ 3a$itin$an and 4ood rida#', hich ulletin the ".+( reproduced on anuar# 2&, 199, 2% the ul# &1, 199 "ecision & of the Panel of 7oluntar# Aritrators rulin$ that the said e)planator# ulletin applied as ell to April 9, 199, and &% the 8eptemer 1, 199 Resolution of the Panel of 7oluntar# Aritration den#in$ its Motion for Reconsideration :ssue; hether or not holida#s should paid even if it falls under the same date<
AE&%G art 9* of t!e la#or code aords worer enjo$'ent of 1/ paid regular !olida$s. T!e fact t!at two !olida$s fall on t!e sa'e date s!ould not operate to reduce to 9 t!e 1/ !olida$ pa$ #ene"ts a worer is entitled to receive. (rt 4 of t!e la#or code provides t!at all dou#ts in t!e i'ple'entation and interpretation of its provisions, s!all #e resolved in favor of la#or.
PACANAN vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 186224, August 25, 2009,597 SCRA 189) a acts; :n the .rder of March 1=, 2!!, the Comelec irst "ivisiondismissed the appeal for failure to pa# the correct appeal fee asprescried # the Comelec Rules of Procedure ithin the five>da# re$lementar# period< :n the assailed Resolution dated anuar# 21, 2!!9, the Comelec
(n *anc denied petitioner0s motion for reconsideration, declarin$ that the Comelec did not ac?uire @urisdiction over the appealecause of the non> pa#ment of the appeal fee on time, and thatthe Comelec irst "ivision as correct in dismissin$ the saidappeal< :ssue; hether or not comelec should have een careful in decidin$ the matter eld; Comelec should have een more cautious on dismissin$ petitioner0s appeal on mere technicalit# of non>pa#ment of the additional appl fee $iven the pulic interest involved in election cases< (lection la and rules are to e interpreted and applied in a lieral manner so as to $ive effect, not to frustrate, the ill of the electorate<
OR!" vs COMELEC GR No. 78957, #u$% 28, 1988
&'ts *% +%tto$%- 's '++o$t%/ 's COMELEC Cosso$%- t*%$ P-%s/%$t M'-os 3o- ' t%- %+-$g o$ M' 17, 1992. &oo$g t*% $st''to$ o3 t*% Au$o gov%-$%$t, t*% +%tto$%- sutt%/ ' ou-t%s -%sg$'to$ ** 's '%+t%/ P-%s/%$t Au$o. *% +%tto$%- -%u%st%/ 3o- +'%$t o3 -%t-%%$t %$%3ts $vo$g RA 1568, 's '%$/%/ RA 595 '$/ -%:%$'t%/ RA 6118, ** 's /%$%/ t*% -%s+o$/%$t o$ t*% g-ou$/ t*'t *% s $ot %$tt%/ to -%t-%%$t %$%3ts u$/%- RA 1568, 's '%$/%/ t*out s+%3$g t*% -%'so$ t*%-%3o-.
!ssu% ;*%t*%- o- $ot t*% +%tto$%- s %$tt%/ to -%t-%%$t %$%3ts 's +-ov/%/ RA 1568 '$/ -%:%$'t%/ RA 6118.
"ecision;
CRESENC!O R=>EN OLEN!NO, petitioner>appellant, vs< CESAR!O CAO<, P-ov$' ;'-/%$, >'t'$g's, >'t'$g's, acts; Petitioner as a ukalahap and as found # the Court of irst :nstance of *atan$as $uilt# of the crime of ille$al asseml# held i n furtherance of the ukalahap desi$ns< The @ud$ment as promul$ated on Ma# 11, 19< .n une 21, the President issued Proclamation o< =6 $rantin$ amnest# under certain conditions to leaders and memers of the ukalahap an d the P3M or$aniBations< .n ul# 16, ithin the 2!>da# period for surrender imposed as a condition # the amnest#, the petitioner, alread# servin$ sentence, sent the President a petition for his release under the provisions of the proclamation< o action as taken on this petition and the petitioner came to court ith the present application<
:ssue; /hether or not amnest# proclamation no< =6 is applicale
eld; 8C ruled that amnest# proclamation no =6 is applicale to hukalahap alread# under$oin$ sentence upon the date of its promul$ation< The avoed practical o@ective of amnest# is to secure pled$e of lo#alt# and oedience to the constituted authorities and encoura$e resumption of laful pursuits and occupation< "uncan vs C: acts; Petitioners Roin rancis Radle# "uncan and Maria +uc# Christensen are husand and ife, the former a *ritish national residin$ in the Philippines for the last 1= #ears and the latter an American citiBen orn in and a resident of the Philippines< avin$ no children of their on ut havin$ previousl# adopted another child, said spouses filed a petition ith respondent court -8p< Proc< o< 55=% for the adoption of a child previousl# aptiBed and named # them as Colin *err# Christensen "uncan< The petition is filed and denominated as Sp. Proc. No. 5457.
:ssue; hether or not consent is needed eld; havin$ declared that the child as an aandoned one # an unknon parent, there appears to e no more le$al need to the adoption< :n adoption of children, dura le) sed le) this should e softened so as to appl# the la ith less severit# for adoption is more for the enefit of unfortunate children, than those orn ith silver spoon in their mouths<
Phil Rait vs 4alauran