Digests

The State, in the exercise of its police power, can validly regulate admission to medical schools, including imposing a limit on the number of times an individual can take the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT), to ensure that only qualified individuals enter the medical profession and to protect public health and safety.

Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II

The case arose from the implementation of MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972, specifically rule h) which states: "A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances to take the NMAT. After three (3) successive failures, a student shall not be allowed to take the NMAT for the fourth time." This rule was part of the government's effort to upgrade the quality of medical education and ensure that only competent individuals are admitted to medical schools, thereby safeguarding public health. The NMAT itself was established as a qualifying examination for admission to medical schools.

Magsaysay-Labrador vs. Court of Appeals

19th December 1989

ak001133

180 SCRA 266 , 259 Phil. 748 , G.R. No. 58168

Shareholders do not possess the direct and immediate legal interest in suits involving corporate property necessary to entitle them to intervene as parties, as the corporation has a distinct legal personality and owns the property itself; an interest as a shareholder is merely indirect, contingent, and inchoate.

The case arose from a dispute over a parcel of land ("Pequeña Island") acquired during the marriage of the late Senator Genaro Magsaysay and respondent Adelaida Rodriguez-Magsaysay. After the Senator's death, Adelaida discovered annotations on the title suggesting the property was his separate capital, a Deed of Assignment transferring the land to SUBIC Land Corporation (SUBIC), and a subsequent mortgage on the property executed by SUBIC. Adelaida filed suit to annul these transactions, claiming the land was conjugal, the transactions were fraudulent, and her consent was not obtained.

258-A Phil. 134 , G.R. No. 80806

Intervention

Pita vs. Court of Appeals

5th October 1989

ak292021

The seizure of allegedly obscene materials, even under the guise of an anti-smut campaign and police power, requires a prior judicial determination of obscenity and the issuance of a valid search warrant; law enforcement authorities cannot unilaterally determine obscenity and confiscate materials without violating constitutional guarantees of due process and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case arose from an "Anti-Smut Campaign" initiated by then-Mayor of Manila, Ramon D. Bagatsing. As part of this campaign, various publications, including the petitioner's "Pinoy Playboy" magazines, were seized from vendors and publicly burned based on the authorities' belief that they were obscene, pornographic, and indecent.

177 SCRA 668 , 258 Phil. 479 , G.R. No. 88211

Freedom of Expression

Marcos vs. Manglapus

15th September 1989

ak357065

The President of the Philippines possesses unenumerated residual powers, implicit in the grant of executive power, which include the authority to bar the return of a citizen to the country if deemed necessary for the paramount interests of national security and public welfare, subject only to judicial review for grave abuse of discretion.

Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II

Following the "People Power" Revolution in February 1986, Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed as President and forced into exile in Hawaii. Corazon C. Aquino assumed the presidency amidst significant political instability, including coup attempts by Marcos loyalists and military factions, communist insurgency, secessionist movements, and severe economic difficulties attributed to the previous regime. As Marcos lay dying in Hawaii, he expressed his wish to return to the Philippines, a prospect President Aquino firmly opposed due to perceived threats to national stability and recovery efforts.

Liberty of Abode

Dario vs. Mison

8th August 1989

ak848552

257 Phil. 84 , G.R. No. 81954 , G.R. No. 81967 , G.R. No. 82023 , G.R. No. 83737 , G.R. No. 85310 , G.R. No. 85335 , G. R. No. 81954

Government reorganization after the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, while permissible under its transitory provisions (Article XVIII, Section 16), must be carried out in good faith; separations of career civil service employees resulting therefrom are valid only if they are due to bona fide reasons such as the abolition of an office, redundancy of functions, or the need to merge, divide, or consolidate positions to meet service exigencies, and not as a means to arbitrarily remove employees whose security of tenure is protected by the Constitution.

Following the 1986 People Power Revolution, President Corazon Aquino promulgated Proclamation No. 3, "DECLARING A NATIONAL POLICY TO IMPLEMENT THE REFORMS MANDATED BY THE PEOPLE," which also served as a provisional "Freedom Constitution."
Proclamation No. 3 mandated, among other things, the complete reorganization of the government to eradicate unjust and oppressive structures, vestiges of the previous regime, and to promote economy, efficiency, and the eradication of graft and corruption.
This proclamation empowered the President to undertake this reorganization, during which appointive officials could be separated from service under specified conditions.

175 SCRA 343 , 256 Phil. 777 , G.R. No. 78742 , G.R. No. 79310 , G.R. No. 79744 , G.R. No. 79777

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform

14th July 1989

ak989617

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657 (CARP), P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, subject to the condition that title to expropriated properties only transfers to the State upon full payment of just compensation to the landowners.

The case arose from the government's efforts to implement agrarian reform, aimed at redistributing agricultural lands to landless farmers. Landowners challenged the legal basis and specific provisions of the agrarian reform laws, arguing that they violated constitutional rights.

174 SCRA 653 , G.R. No. 80116

Police Power

Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera

30th June 1989

ak800714

For the crime of adultery, the complainant's status as an "offended spouse" must exist at the time of the filing of the criminal complaint, not just at the time of the alleged offense. Consequently, a foreigner who has obtained a valid final divorce decree under his national law is no longer the husband of his former Filipino spouse and thus lacks the legal personality and capacity to file an adultery case against her.

The case arose from the marital relationship between Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national, who were married in Germany in 1979. After living in Manila and having a child, the couple experienced marital discord and separated de facto. This led to Geiling filing for divorce in Germany and Pilapil filing for legal separation in the Philippines, which culminated in Geiling filing criminal complaints for adultery against Pilapil after their divorce was finalized.

252 Phil. 192 , G.R. No. 78239

Monsanto vs. Factoran Jr.

9th February 1989

ak622137

An absolute pardon granted to a convicted public officer removes the penal consequences of the crime, including accessory penalties like disqualification from public office, thereby restoring eligibility for public employment; however, it does not ipso facto restore the officer to the specific public office forfeited by reason of the conviction, nor does it extinguish civil liability arising from the offense or entitle the pardonee to back salaries for the period of suspension or non-employment.

Petitioner Salvacion A. Monsanto was the assistant treasurer of Calbayog City. She was convicted by the Sandiganbayan for the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents. This conviction, if finalized, carried with it accessory penalties including disqualification from public office. The core of the dispute arose after she received an absolute pardon from the President while her case was technically still pending (motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court), leading her to believe she was entitled to automatic reinstatement and other benefits.

168 SCRA 391 , 250 Phil. 390 , No. L-84297

Lazatin vs. House Electoral Tribunal

8th December 1988

ak403328

The HRET’s rules, not the Omnibus Election Code, govern the filing period for congressional election protests; Timbol’s protest was timely filed under HRET’s 15-day rule.

The case arose from the 1987 congressional election in Pampanga, where Timbol contested Lazatin’s proclamation due to alleged irregularities. After prolonged COMELEC proceedings, the Supreme Court reinstated Lazatin’s proclamation, prompting Timbol to file a protest with the HRET.

Statutory Construction

PLDT vs. NLRC and Abucay

23rd August 1988

ak716437

247 Phil. 641 , G.R. No. 80609

An employee dismissed for serious misconduct or for causes reflecting on their moral character (e.g., dishonesty, theft, illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker) is not entitled to separation pay or financial assistance on the grounds of social justice or equity; such an award would effectively reward wrongdoing.

Marilyn Abucay, a traffic operator at PLDT, was accused by two complainants of demanding and receiving P3,800.00 in exchange for a promise to facilitate the approval of their telephone installation applications. Following an investigation, PLDT found her guilty and terminated her employment.

164 SCRA 304 , 247 Phil. 268 , G.R. No. L-29445

Barde vs. Posiquit

15th August 1988

ak212779

Notice of the pre-trial conference under the Revised Rules of Court must be served not only upon the counsel but also directly upon the parties, and failure to notify the parties themselves renders the pre-trial and all subsequent proceedings and judgments null and void for violation of due process.

The case originated from a dispute over the inheritance of a 173 square meter residential land originally owned by spouses Claro Barde and Juana Cordial. After their deaths, their son Pedro Barde registered the property exclusively in his name, excluding his sister Brigida and the heirs of his deceased brother Rafael. This led Brigida and Rafael's heirs to file a suit for reconveyance and partition against Pedro's heirs.

G.R. No. L-69866 , 160 SCRA 590

Pre-trial

Aberca vs. Ver

15th April 1988

ak179011

A civil action for damages based on violations of constitutional rights, as provided for under Article 32 of the Civil Code, may be filed against public officers, including military personnel, and is not barred by either the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the doctrine of state immunity. Furthermore, superior officers may be held liable as joint tortfeasors for the wrongful acts of their subordinates if they are found to be directly or indirectly responsible for the constitutional violations.

The case arose from a series of "pre-emptive strikes" ordered by then-General Fabian Ver against alleged communist-terrorist underground houses in Metro Manila. These operations were carried out by various intelligence units of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, collectively known as Task Force Makabansa (TFM). The petitioners were individuals whose homes were raided and who were subsequently arrested, detained, and subjected to various forms of abuse by TFM elements during these operations.

Article 32, New Civil Code

Aberca vs. Ver

15th April 1988

ak165028

160 SCRA 590 , 243 Phil. 735 , G.R. No. 69866 , No. L-69866

The suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus does not bar a civil action for damages resulting from illegal arrests, searches, and other violations of constitutional rights. Superior officers can be held liable for such violations if they are found to be directly or indirectly responsible.

The case arose from alleged illegal searches, seizures, arrests, and torture committed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines' Task Force Makabansa (TFM) under the command of General Fabian Ver, purportedly targeting communist-terrorist underground houses.

G.R. No. L-54598 , 160 SCRA 449

Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals

15th April 1988

ak841741

A public officer who refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform an official duty, causing material or moral loss to another, is personally liable for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code. Defiance of a lawful directive from a superior, coupled with actions showing bad faith and callousness, constitutes a wrongful act that justifies the imposition of moral and exemplary damages.

Violeta Delmo, a student and treasurer of the Student Leadership Club at West Visayas College, extended loans from club funds to other students pursuant to a club resolution. The College President, petitioner Jose B. Ledesma, considered this action a violation of school rules. Consequently, he dropped Delmo from the club's membership and declared her ineligible for any academic awards or citations, which jeopardized her chance of graduating with honors as a consistent full scholar.

Article 27 of the Civil Code

Spouses Del Campo vs. Abesia

15th April 1988

ak305738

160 SCRA 379 , 243 Phil. 532 , No. L-49219

Article 448 of the Civil Code can apply to resolve disputes between former co-owners after partition, concerning constructions made in good faith that encroach on another co-owner's allocated portion.

Spouses Del Campo and Bernarda Abesia were co-owners of a small parcel of land. During a partition action, it was discovered that Abesia's house slightly encroached onto the portion allocated to the Del Campos. The core issue was whether Abesia, as a co-owner builder, could invoke the rights of a builder in good faith under Article 448.

160 SCRA 70 , G.R. No. L-35697-99

De Lima vs. Laguna Tayabas Co.

15th April 1988

ak258258

As an exception to the well-settled rule that a party who does not appeal a judgment cannot obtain affirmative relief, an appellate court may, on equitable grounds, modify the judgment in favor of the non-appealing party, especially when said party is an indigent litigant, the opposing party's appeal is dilatory, and substantial justice would otherwise be denied due to procedural technicalities.

The case originated from a vehicular collision on June 3, 1958, between a passenger bus owned by Laguna Tayabas Bus Co. (LTB) and a delivery truck of the Seven-Up Bottling Co. The incident resulted in the death of Petra de la Cruz and serious physical injuries to Eladia de Lima and Nemesio Flores, who were all passengers of the LTB bus. This led to the filing of three separate civil suits for damages against the respondents, which were consolidated for trial.

158 SCRA 451 , No. L-76464

Article 24, Civil Code

Testate Estate of Adriana Maloto vs. Court of Appeals

29th February 1988

ak995363

For a will to be validly revoked by physical destruction under Article 830 of the Civil Code, the overt physical act of burning, tearing, obliterating, or cancelling must not only be accompanied by animus revocandi (intention to revoke) but must also be carried out by the testator personally, or by another person acting under the testator's express direction and in the testator's presence.

Adriana Maloto died in 1963, and her niece and nephews, assuming she left no will, divided her estate through an extrajudicial settlement approved by the court in an intestate proceeding.
Three years later, a document purporting to be Adriana's last will and testament was discovered in the files of her former counsel, which distributed the estate differently and included devises to the Catholic Church and other entities.
The discovery of this document triggered a series of legal battles transitioning from motions within the closed intestate proceedings to a separate, dedicated probate proceeding to determine the validity and alleged revocation of the newly found will.

Hustler Magazine, Inc. vs. Falwell

24th February 1988

ak337881

485 U.S. 4

Public figures and public officials may not recover damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature or parody without showing that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice"—that is, with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.

Respondent Jerry Falwell, a nationally recognized minister and political commentator, was the subject of an advertisement "parody" published in petitioner Hustler Magazine, a nationally circulated publication known for its often-offensive content. The parody was modeled on a popular Campari Liqueur ad campaign that featured celebrities discussing their "first time." This case arose from Falwell's lawsuit against Hustler Magazine and its publisher, Larry Flynt, seeking damages for the distress caused by this publication.

239 Phil. 563 , 155 SCRA 577 , No. L-71283

Freedom of Expression

Escritor, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

12th November 1987

ak429625

A possessor who initially acquired property based on a court decision, even if later reversed, is considered a possessor in good faith until they are actually aware of a defect in their title. Bad faith is personal and not transmissible to heirs unless they have personal knowledge of the flaw. Good faith is presumed, and the burden of proving bad faith lies with the one alleging it.

The case originates from a cadastral proceeding where Miguel Escritor claimed ownership of a land lot based on inheritance. The Court of First Instance initially adjudicated the land to Escritor. Years later, Simeon Acuna filed a petition for review alleging fraud and misrepresentation in Escritor's acquisition. This petition was eventually granted, and the land was adjudicated to Acuna. Acuna then sued Escritor's heirs for damages for unlawful possession of the land during the period between the initial adjudication and its reversal.

239 Phil. 403 , G.R. No. 72492

Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete

5th November 1987

ak236019

Local legislative bodies, such as a Sangguniang Panlungsod, do not possess the inherent power to compel the attendance of witnesses who are not their members through subpoena, nor the power to punish such non-members for contempt, as these powers are judicial in nature and must be expressly granted by statute or the Constitution; such powers cannot be implied from the delegation of legislative functions.

The Ad Hoc Committee of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dumaguete initiated an investigation "in connection with pending legislation related to the operations of public utilities," specifically focusing on the alleged use of inefficient power lines by Negros Oriental II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NORECO II) in Dumaguete City. This led to the issuance of a subpoena to NORECO II's officials and a subsequent order for them to show cause for contempt due to non-appearance, prompting the legal challenge.

155 SCRA 175 , No. L-59690

Hagosojos vs. Court of Appeals

28th October 1987

ak806672

A compromise agreement approved by the court becomes final and executory immediately upon approval and cannot be set aside on grounds of mistake or excusable negligence if the petition for relief under Rule 38 is not filed within the reglementary periods. Additionally, a donation of specific property from a co-owned mass, made after an alleged liquidation and partition has designated the property to others, is null and void.

The dispute centered on the conjugal partnership assets of Anastacio Hagosojos's first marriage to Jacinta Jaucian. Upon Jacinta's death in 1959, the conjugal partnership assets should have been partitioned among her surviving spouse and their three children (Luis, Araceli, and Lourdes). Instead, Anastacio remarried in 1965 and had three more children. In 1973, Anastacio donated a large portion of the first marriage's conjugal assets (Lot No. 2736) to his minor son from the second marriage, Henry. This led to a lawsuit filed by the first marriage's children to compel partition.

Property relations; Liquidation

People vs. Abarca

14th September 1987

ak372672

153 SCRA 735 , 237 Phil. 718 , No. L-74433

Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which imposes the penalty of destierro on a legally married person who kills their spouse or the spouse's paramour immediately after surprising them in the act of sexual intercourse, does not define a crime but grants a special privilege or benefit, negating conviction for homicide or murder; consequently, the act cannot be qualified by circumstances like treachery, nor can it form part of a complex crime.

Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

The case arose from an illicit relationship between Khingsley Paul Koh and Jenny Abarca, the wife of accused-appellant Francisco Abarca. This relationship began while Francisco Abarca was away in Manila reviewing for the 1983 bar examinations, leaving his wife behind in Tacloban, Leyte.

Criminal Law II

De Leon vs. Esguerra

31st August 1987

ak434466

153 SCRA 602 , 237 Phil. 582 , No. L-78059

The Supreme Court declared the replacements void, holding that the 1987 Constitution superseded the Provisional Constitution on February 2, 1987, and barred the OIC Governor’s post-ratification designations.

Petitioners, elected barangay officials in 1982, faced replacement through memoranda issued by the OIC Governor in February 1987. The Court determined the memoranda were antedated and issued after the 1987 Constitution’s ratification.

Statutory Construction

Borromeo-Herrera vs. Borromeo

23rd July 1987

ak365719

152 SCRA 171 , No. L-41171 , No. L-55000 , No. L-62895 , No. L-63818 , No. L-65995

The Supreme Court held that a waiver of hereditary rights is invalid if the essential elements of a waiver—specifically a clear and convincing intention to relinquish the right—are absent, particularly when the conduct of the parties subsequent to the waiver (such as entering into partition agreements and assigning rights for consideration) contradicts the intent to waive. Furthermore, the Court established that while a probate court has jurisdiction over matters incidental to the settlement of the estate, it cannot charge the attorney's fees of individual heirs against the estate's assets, as such fees are the personal liability of the heirs who hired the counsel.

Vito Borromeo died in 1952, leaving no forced heirs but significant property in Cebu. Initially, a document was presented for probate as his last will and testament, naming Fortunato, Tomas, and Amelia Borromeo as heirs. However, the probate court and later the Supreme Court found the will to be a forgery. The case shifted to intestate proceedings, where various relatives sought recognition. In 1969, the trial court declared nine individuals as the legal intestate heirs. Fortunato Borromeo then attempted to claim a majority share of the estate by presenting a "Waiver of Hereditary Rights" purportedly signed by five of these heirs in 1967, leading to multiple legal challenges regarding the waiver's validity, the judge's impartiality, and the administration of the estate.

149 SCRA 305 , 233 Phil. 313 , No. L-59603

Opening of Succession

Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay

29th April 1987

ak477243

Presidential Decrees No. 76, 464, 794, and 1533, which limit just compensation to the lower of the owner’s declared value or the assessor’s value, are unconstitutional and void as they encroach upon the judiciary’s inherent power to determine just compensation in expropriation cases.

The Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA) sought to expropriate private land owned by San Antonio Development Corporation for the Mactan Export Processing Zone. EPZA attempted to base just compensation on valuations stipulated in Presidential Decrees, which were significantly lower than the market value. The trial court appointed commissioners to determine just compensation under Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, prompting EPZA to file this petition questioning the court's authority to do so.

148 SCRA 659 , 232 Phil. 615 , G.R. No. 74457

Eminent Domain

Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

20th March 1987

ak605477

Executive Order No. 626-A is unconstitutional because it violated due process by allowing confiscation of property without prior hearing, employed means not reasonably necessary to achieve its purpose, conferred judicial functions on administrative authorities, and contained an invalid delegation of legislative powers.

The case arose during the Marcos regime when the government sought to protect carabaos (water buffalos) as essential farm animals by prohibiting their transportation across provincial boundaries, with the aim of preventing their indiscriminate slaughter.

Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II

Police Power

Teja Marketing vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

9th March 1987

ak520987

232 Phil. 321 , G.R. No. 65510

Parties involved in an illegal "kabit system," an arrangement contrary to public policy, are deemed in pari delicto, and courts will not aid either party in enforcing their illicit agreement or recovering what has been given thereunder.

Obligations and Contracts

The case arose from a transaction involving the sale of a motorcycle intended for use as a trimobile under the seller's existing franchise, an arrangement commonly known as the "kabit system." This system involves a person who has been granted a certificate of public convenience allowing another person who owns motor vehicles to operate under such franchise for a fee, which is considered contrary to public policy.

Demetria vs. Alba

27th February 1987

ak192412

232 Phil. 222 , G.R. No. 71977

The first paragraph of Section 44 of Presidential Decree No. 1177 is unconstitutional because it empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds without regard to whether the funds are savings or whether the transfer is for augmenting an item, thereby over-extending the privilege granted by Section 16(5), Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution and constituting an undue delegation of legislative power.

The case arose from the petitioners' challenge to Presidential Decree No. 1177, specifically Section 44, which granted the President broad authority to transfer appropriated funds within the Executive Department. This decree was issued during a period when the President exercised legislative powers. Petitioners, concerned about potential abuse and the circumvention of constitutional safeguards on public funds, questioned the legality of this provision.

146 SCRA 446 , G.R. No. L-63915

Tañada vs. Tuvera

29th December 1986

ak242154

Publication in the Official Gazette is an indispensable prerequisite for the effectivity of all statutes, presidential decrees, executive orders, and administrative rules intended to enforce or implement existing laws; the clause "unless it is otherwise provided" in Article 2 of the Civil Code pertains only to the fifteen-day effectivity period and does not grant the legislature the power to dispense with the publication requirement itself.

This case arose from a prior petition where the petitioners demanded the publication of numerous presidential decrees issued during the Marcos administration, which had not been published as required by law. The Supreme Court's initial decision on April 24, 1985, ordered the government to publish all unpublished presidential issuances "which are of general application." Finding this directive ambiguous, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification to precisely define the scope of laws requiring publication, the meaning of "publication," and the proper medium and timing for such publication.

146 SCRA 509 , 230 Phil. 590 , No. L-73002

Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

29th December 1986

ak048318

The Supreme Court held that the land acquired by Acme Plywood from the Infiels in 1962 was already private land by operation of law due to the Infiels' immemorial possession, and thus Acme Plywood, as a successor-in-interest, had a registrable title despite being a corporation and despite the 1973 Constitution’s restrictions, because the right vested prior to the 1973 Constitution.

Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. sought to register five parcels of land acquired from Mariano and Acer Infiel, members of the Dumagat tribe, through land registration proceedings under Section 48 of the Public Land Act. The Director of Lands opposed the registration, arguing that because the proceedings started after the 1973 Constitution came into effect, the corporation was disqualified from owning public land according to the new constitution.

144 SCRA 259 , 228 Phil. 258 , G.R. NO. 71388

Koh vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

23rd September 1986

ak423446

A dismissal of a case based on non-compliance with a "Notice of Case Status" issued by a court's officer-in-charge, which requires parties to manifest their intent regarding modes of discovery, is null and void and does not constitute res adjudicata, as such notice is not a lawful order of the court contemplated under Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court.

The dispute originated from an erroneous bank transaction where respondent First Interstate Bank of California, due to a computer mistake, issued a cashier's check for US-$8,500.00 to petitioner Maria Monserrat R. Kor, instead of the US-$500.00 actually remitted by her father.

144 SCRA 194 , 228 Phil. 193 , G.R. Nos. L-68379-81

Discovery

Javier vs. Commission on Elections

22nd September 1986

ak367573

The COMELEC Second Division lacked jurisdiction to decide pre-proclamation controversies involving Batasang Pambansa members, as such cases must be heard en banc under the 1973 Constitution.

The 1984 Antique elections were marred by violence, including the killing of petitioner Evelio Javier’s supporters. Javier challenged irregularities in the canvass, but COMELEC’s Second Division dismissed his claims and proclaimed Arturo Pacificador winner. Javier’s assassination in 1986 and the Batasang’s abolition under the post-Marcos Freedom Constitution rendered the case moot.

G.R. No. 62952 , 139 SCRA 206 , 223 Phil. 418

Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals

9th October 1985

ak040831

A probate court may exceptionally pass upon the intrinsic validity of a will even before or during the ruling on its formal (extrinsic) validity when the will contains provisions that are clearly and evidently void on their face, such as a devise to a person with whom the testator explicitly admits to living in concubinage.

The dispute arose from the testamentary disposition of a married man who, after separating from his legal wife, cohabited with another woman for 22 years and subsequently left the free portion of his estate to her in his will, explicitly acknowledging their illicit relationship within the very text of the testamentary document.

No. L-68470 , 139 SCRA 139

Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr.

8th October 1985

ak986888

An absolute divorce obtained abroad by an alien spouse is valid and binding in the Philippines, and it effectively terminates the marital bond from the perspective of the alien spouse; consequently, the alien spouse loses the standing to sue the Filipino spouse in the Philippines for rights arising from the marriage, such as the management or division of alleged conjugal property.

Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Richard Upton, a US citizen, were married in Hongkong in 1972 and established their residence in the Philippines. They had two children. In 1982, they obtained a divorce decree from a court in Nevada, USA, where Upton acknowledged that they had no community property. Subsequently, Van Dorn remarried. A year after the divorce, Upton filed a lawsuit in the Philippines, claiming that a business owned by Van Dorn was conjugal property and seeking an accounting and the right to manage it.

138 SCRA 294 , Nos, L-71208-09 , Nos. L-71212-13

Article 15, Civil Code

Galman vs. Pamaran

30th August 1985

ak797659

This case arises from the assassination of former Senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr. in 1983 at Manila International Airport. The primary issue concerns the admissibility of testimonies and evidence provided by suspects before the Agrava Fact-Finding Board, especially in light of their constitutional right against self-incrimination and the immunity granted under Presidential Decree No. 1886. The Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of the testimonies and evidence submitted to the Agrava Board, reinforcing constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

The assassination of Senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr. on August 21, 1983, led to the creation of the Agrava Fact-Finding Board under P.D. 1886. The Board investigated the incident and gathered testimonies, including those from suspects. Legal questions arose during subsequent trials regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained under mandatory compulsion by the Board.

Statutory Construction

Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corporation

30th April 1985

ak256751

136 SCRA 141 , G.R. No. 30642

An injured worker or their heirs have a choice of remedies between availing of the limited, no-fault compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act or suing for greater damages under the Civil Code where the injury or death is caused by the employer's gross negligence; however, these remedies are mutually exclusive. An initial choice to receive compensation under the Act will not bar a subsequent civil suit for damages if that choice was based on ignorance or a mistake of fact, such as being unaware of the employer's culpable negligence at the time.

The case arose from a tragic mining accident where several employees of Philex Mining Corporation died. At the time, two distinct legal frameworks governed compensation for work-related injuries and deaths. The Workmen's Compensation Act (WCA) provided a system of limited, no-fault liability, ensuring that employees or their heirs received swift but modest compensation regardless of who was at fault. In contrast, the Civil Code allowed for actions based on tort (quasi-delict) or breach of contract, which could result in significantly higher awards for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, but required the claimant to prove the employer's fault or negligence. This created a legal conflict over which remedy was proper, particularly in cases where an employer's negligence was the direct cause of the accident.

134 SCRA 245 , 219 Phil. 216 , G.R. No. L-38338

Roxas vs. De Jesus, Jr.

28th January 1985

ak986713

A holographic will containing only the month and year of execution (e.g., "FEB./61") substantially complies with the dating requirement of Article 810 of the Civil Code and must be allowed probate absent any appearance of fraud, bad faith, or competing wills.

Following the deaths of spouses Andres and Bibiana de Jesus, intestate proceedings were initially filed until a notebook containing a handwritten letter-will by Bibiana was discovered by the appointed administrator, prompting a shift toward testamentary probate proceedings.

132 SCRA 237 , G.R. No. L-40207 , 217 Phil. 232

Kalaw vs. Relova

28th September 1984

ak772257

When a holographic will contains only one substantial provision (naming a sole heir) which is altered by the testator without the required authentication of a full signature, the entire will is voided and revoked, and the original unaltered text cannot be probated.

Natividad K. Kalaw died leaving a holographic will that originally instituted her sister Rosa as the sole heir, but the document was later found with Rosa's name crossed out and her brother Gregorio's name inserted in its place, sparking a dispute over who should inherit the estate.

132 SCRA 359 , 217 Phil. 347 , No. L-63129

Jain vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and People

28th September 1984

ak063159

The crime of theft, under Philippine law, requires physical taking or apoderamiento of the personal property of another; substituting train receipts to fraudulently claim ownership of sugar canes does not constitute theft because there was no physical taking of the canes themselves.

Wayne Jain was accused of theft based on informations filed by the City Fiscal for allegedly stealing sugar canes. The prosecution argued that Jain, in conspiracy with a watchman, fraudulently substituted train receipts to misrepresent ownership and claim proceeds from sugar canes owned by Tomasa Bermejo.

Philosophy of Law

Cayetano vs. Leonidas

30th May 1984

ak102084

214 Phil. 460 , 129 SCRA 522 , No. L-54919

The intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, including the order of succession and the amount of successional rights, is governed exclusively by the national law of the decedent pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code; consequently, Philippine laws on legitimes do not apply to the estate of a foreign national whose own national law does not provide for such compulsory inheritance.

Adoracion C. Campos was an American citizen and a permanent resident of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who died in Manila in 1977 while on a temporary visit. Her father, Hermogenes Campos, initially took possession of her entire estate by executing an Affidavit of Adjudication, claiming to be her sole compulsory heir. However, a will executed by Adoracion in the United States, which had already been probated in Pennsylvania, was later presented for reprobate in the Philippines by her sister, Nenita Campos Paguia.

Subject and Object of Succession

Roberts vs. Leonidas

27th April 1984

ak289542

129 SCRA 33 , 214 Phil. 30 , G.R. No. 55509

The probate of a will is strictly mandatory under Article 838 of the Civil Code, and an intestate proceeding cannot validly settle the estate of a decedent who died testate; therefore, a subsequent petition for the allowance of the will and annulment of a prior intestate partition must be entertained by the courts.

The dispute arose from the conflicting methods used by the heirs of an American expatriate to settle his Philippine estate, where the heirs initially bypassed his executed wills via a compromise agreement and an intestate proceeding, prompting the second wife to later seek the formal probate of the wills to enforce the decedent's actual testamentary dispositions and annul the intestate partition.

126 SCRA 69 , 211 Phil. 260 , No. L-27873 , No. L-30035

Heirs of Jose Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry

29th November 1983

ak724137

Possession of forest lands, regardless of duration, cannot ripen into private ownership. Forest lands remain in the public domain and are not subject to registration for private individuals unless there is a positive act from the government declassifying them as agricultural or disposable land.

The case originated from an application for land registration filed in the Court of First Instance of Capiz for Lot No. 885. Several oppositions were filed, including one from the Director of Forestry, who argued the land was forest land. The Court of First Instance partially granted the application to private litigants, but this was appealed.

207 Phil. 648 , 122 SCRA 759 , No. L-34915

City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta

24th June 1983

ak611870

Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 of Quezon City is unconstitutional and void as it constitutes an invalid exercise of police power amounting to confiscation of property without due process or just compensation, rather than a valid regulation.

Quezon City enacted an ordinance regulating private cemeteries, including a provision (Section 9) requiring a 6% set-aside for pauper burials. This provision was not initially enforced, but seven years later, the City Council resolved to enforce it, directing the City Engineer to stop land transactions in cemeteries not complying with the 6% requirement. Himlayang Pilipino, Inc., a cemetery operator, challenged the ordinance in court.

206 Phil. 392 , G.R. No. 61388

Police Power

Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile

20th April 1983

ak516942

The President's decision to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in cases of invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when public safety requires it, is a political question beyond judicial inquiry; consequently, a Presidential Commitment Order (PCO) issued for offenses covered by such suspension renders the detention legal and valid, and the right to bail is deemed suspended for the duration of the emergency for those detained for such offenses.

The case arose following the official lifting of Martial Law in the Philippines via Proclamation No. 2045 on January 17, 1981. However, this same proclamation continued the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus with respect to persons detained for crimes of insurrection, rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and for all other crimes committed in furtherance thereof. The arrests and detentions in this case occurred under this legal framework, amidst ongoing government efforts to suppress perceived threats to national security.

121 SCRA 389 , 206 Phil. 314 , Nos. L-33466-67

People vs. Narvaez

20th April 1983

ak862181

Narvaez is guilty of two counts of homicide, not murder, due to incomplete self-defense and mitigating circumstances. His sentence is reduced to four months of arresto mayor, and he is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased with a reduced amount of damages, leading to his immediate release given his lengthy pre-trial detention.

Narvaez, a settler in South Cotabato, was embroiled in a land dispute with Fleischer and Company. He had been leasing a portion of the land in contention, but the company sought to remove him and other settlers. The deceased victims, Davis Fleischer and Flaviano Rubia, were secretary-treasurer and assistant manager of Fleischer & Co. respectively, and were fencing the land when Narvaez shot them.

120 SCRA 403 , 205 Phil. 335 , No. L-56605

Sarmiento vs. Juan

28th January 1983

ak679362

A trial court commits grave abuse of discretion when it denies a motion for postponement of pre-trial based on a party's sudden illness (even if initially lacking a medical certificate but later substantiated under oath) and declares that party in default, especially when the opposing party also failed to make a valid appearance (i.e., counsel appeared without special authority); the requirement for pre-trial to be held "after the last pleading has been filed" can be interpreted to mean after the period for filing the last pleading has expired, and failure to answer a compulsory counterclaim does not necessarily prevent pre-trial.

The underlying case (Civil Case No. 126113 in the Court of First Instance of Manila) was initiated by private respondent Belfast Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. against petitioner Andres C. Sarmiento and his father, Benjamin R. Sarmiento, Sr., seeking indemnification under an Indemnity Agreement related to a bail bond.

G.R. No. 34529 , 205 Phil. 147 , 120 SCRA 193

Pre-trial

Marcia vs. Court of Appeals

27th January 1983

ak812962

An acquittal of an accused in a criminal case for reckless imprudence, which is based on a final judicial declaration that the fact from which civil liability may arise did not exist, bars a subsequent civil action for damages arising from the same incident.

The case originated from a vehicular collision on December 23, 1956, in Lubao, Pampanga, between a passenger bus operated by Victory Liner, Inc. and driven by Felardo Paje, and a jeep driven by Clemente Marcia. The collision resulted in the death of Clemente Marcia and physical injuries to the petitioners, Edgar Marcia and Renato Yap, who were passengers in the jeep. This led to the filing of both a criminal action against the bus driver and a separate civil action for damages by the injured parties against the driver and the bus company.

204 Phil. 402 , 119 SCRA 16 , G.R. No. 58509

Rodelas vs. Aranza

7th December 1982

ak067629

A lost or destroyed holographic will may be proved and probated by means of a photostatic or xerox copy, because such a reproduction allows the probate court to make the necessary comparison of the handwriting to determine its authenticity.

The dispute arose following the death of Ricardo B. Bonilla, prompting the petitioner to seek the probate of his holographic will. Because the original will was lost, the petitioner submitted a photostatic copy, leading the oppositors to challenge the legal validity of using secondary evidence for the probate of a holographic will.

203 Phil. 572 , 118 SCRA 195 , G.R. No. L-36033

Taboada vs. Rosal

5th November 1982

ak310617

Under Article 805 of the Civil Code, the requirement that witnesses subscribe the will is satisfied if they sign on the left margin of the page containing the testamentary dispositions, as this fulfills the purpose of identifying the document; additionally, a failure to state the number of pages in the attestation clause is not a fatal defect if the total number of pages is discernible from the will itself or stated in the acknowledgment.

Dorotea Perez executed a two-page notarial will in the Cebuano-Visayan dialect. Following her death, Apolonio Taboada filed a petition for probate. Although no opposition was filed and evidence of due execution was presented, the presiding trial judge scrutinized the document and denied probate based on technical defects regarding the placement of witness signatures and the content of the attestation clause.

115 SCRA 135 , 200 Phil. 524 , A.M. No. 1895-CFI

Macias vs. Araula

20th July 1982

ak051208

While the evidence presented was insufficient to establish prohibited partisan political activity (electioneering) or grave misconduct/oppression under the high standard of proof required in administrative cases against judges, a judge's conduct must nonetheless be free from the appearance of impropriety, and actions that could be misinterpreted as partisan, even if well-intentioned (like explaining election mechanics at a political rally), warrant admonishment under the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

The case arose in the context of intense local political rivalry in Dauin, Negros Oriental, following the April 7, 1978 elections. Respondent Judge Araula's wife was the incumbent Mayor and KBL Chairman in Dauin, while the complainant and his witnesses were associated with the opposing Pusyon Bisaya party. The charges stemmed from incidents occurring shortly before and after these elections, reflecting the bitter political division and personal animosity between the factions, particularly involving the Judge's family and Atty. Rudy Enriquez, a relative and political opponent.