Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 599 results on the current subject filter

Title	IDs & Reference #s	Background	Primary Holding	Subject Matter
Jain vs. Intermediate Appellate Court and People (28th September 1984)	AK063159 132 SCRA 359 , 217 Phil. 347 , No. L-63129	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.	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.	Philosophy of Law
Heirs of Jose Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry (29th November 1983)	AK724137 126 SCRA 69 , 211 Phil. 260 , No. L-27873 , No. L-30035	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.	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.	Property and Land Law
City Government of Quezon City vs. Ericta (24th June 1983)	AK611870 207 Phil. 648 , 122 SCRA 759 , No. L-34915	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.	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.	Constitutional Law II Police Power
Garcia-Padilla vs. Enrile (20th April 1983)	AK516942 206 Phil. 392 , G.R. No. 61388	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.	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.	Constitutional Law I
People vs. Narvaez (20th April 1983)	AK862181 121 SCRA 389 , 206 Phil. 314 , Nos. L-33466-67	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.	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.	Property and Land Law
Sarmiento vs. Juan (28th January 1983)	AK679362 120 SCRA 403 , 205 Phil. 335 , No. L-56605	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.	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.	Civil Procedure I Pre-trial
Marcia vs. Court of Appeals (27th January 1983)	AK812962 G.R. No. 34529 , 205 Phil. 147 , 120 SCRA 193	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.	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.	Persons and Family Law
Macias vs. Araula (20th July 1982)	AK051208 115 SCRA 135 , 200 Phil. 524 , A.M. No. 1895-CFI	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.	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.	Constitutional Law I
Puyat vs. De Guzman, Jr. (25th March 1982)	AK217409 198 Phil. 420 , G.R. No. 51122	The case arose from a contested election of the Board of Directors of International Pipe Industries Corporation (IPI) on May 14, 1979, which led to a quo warranto proceeding (SEC Case No. 1747) filed by the "Acero Group" against the "Puyat Group" before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Assemblyman Estanislao A. Fernandez, after initially attempting to appear as counsel for the Acero Group and facing objection, purchased a nominal number of IPI shares and then sought to intervene in the SEC case as a stockholder.	A Member of the Batasang Pambansa is prohibited from appearing as counsel before any administrative body, and this prohibition extends to indirect appearances, such as intervening in a case under the guise of protecting a minimal stockholding acquired shortly before and for the purpose of such intervention, when the true intent is to participate in the proceedings in a capacity akin to counsel.	Constitutional Law I
Yuvienco vs. Dacuycuy (27th May 1981)	AK311310 192 Phil. 183 , G.R. No. 55048	Petitioners expressed willingness to sell a property in Tacloban City to private respondents (occupants of the property) for P6,500,000, provided respondents decided by July 31, 1978. Respondents replied, agreeing to buy and asking petitioners' representative to "proceed Tacloban to negotiate details." A subsequent meeting occurred where petitioners' representative presented a prepared contract with payment terms (balance within 30 days) that differed from what respondents allegedly expected (balance within 90 days), leading to the non-signing of the contract and the present suit for specific performance.	For a contract of sale of real property to be enforceable under the Statute of Frauds, particularly when payment is to be made in installments, the note or memorandum must contain all essential elements of the contract, including the specific terms of payment; a mere indication of the total price without the agreed manner of payment is insufficient if the intent is not a cash sale. Furthermore, an acceptance of an offer that includes a call to "negotiate details" is not an absolute acceptance required for the perfection of a contract under Article 1319 of the Civil Code.	Obligations and Contracts
Manila Gas Corporation vs. Court of Appeals (30th October 1980)	AK184426 100 SCRA 602 , G.R. No. L-44190	Manila Gas Corporation, a public utility, supplied gas to the residence and 46-door apartment complex of Isidro M. Ongsip, a prominent businessman. After new appliances were installed in 1965, the gas meter readings remained unusually low, registering zero consumption in May and June 1966. This discrepancy prompted Manila Gas to investigate, leading to the discovery of an alleged illegal "jumper" or by-pass valve, which became the basis for the ensuing legal conflict.	A public utility corporation that files a baseless criminal complaint for qualified theft against a customer with malicious intent to vex and humiliate, and subsequently disconnects the customer's service without the required prior notice in breach of contract and in bad faith, is liable for moral and exemplary damages; however, the amount of such damages may be reduced by the court based on the specific circumstances of the case, including the financial capacity of the utility and any mitigating actions or faults of the customer.	Persons and Family Law
Azarcon vs. Vallarta (28th October 1980)	AK487327 100 SCRA 450 , 188 Phil. 481 , No. L-43679	The contested land was originally owned by Dr. Jose V. Cajucom, who sold it in two separate transactions. First, to the Vallartas' predecessors in 1932, and later to the Azarcons in 1959. Both parties subsequently obtained titles, leading to conflicting claims of ownership over the same property.	The Original Certificate of Title held by the Vallartas is valid and superior, while the Free Patent Title held by the Azarcons is declared null and void and ordered cancelled.	Property and Land Law
Ceniza vs. COMELEC (28th January 1980)	AK528318 95 SCRA 763 , 180 Phil. 597 , G.R. No. 52304	Following the enactment of the 1973 Constitution emphasizing local government autonomy, the Interim Batasan Pambansa passed Batas Blg. 51 in preparation for the January 30, 1980 local elections. This law introduced a classification system for cities based on annual income (P40 million threshold) into "highly urbanized" and "component" cities. This classification determined whether the registered voters of a city could participate in the election of officials of the province where the city is geographically located, leading to challenges from voters in affected cities like Cebu and Mandaue.	The classification of cities into highly urbanized and component cities based on annual income under Batas Pambansa Blg. 51, which determines whether their residents can vote for provincial officials, is based on substantial distinctions germane to the constitutional mandate of promoting local autonomy and does not violate the equal protection clause or the right of suffrage.	Constitutional Law II Equal Protection
Vda. de Laig vs. Court of Appeals (21st November 1978)	AK844009 86 SCRA 641	The dispute originated from a double sale of a parcel of land originally owned by Petre Galero. Galero first engaged the services of Atty. Benito Laig to recover the property in a civil case. After winning the case and after the decision became final, Galero transferred the entire property to Atty. Laig—one-half by sale and the other half as contingent attorney's fees. Years later, Galero, with the assistance of Atty. Jose L. Lapak, fraudulently obtained a new owner's duplicate title and sold the same property to Carmen Verso. This second sale was registered by the Register of Deeds, Atty. Baldomero M. Lapak, who was the father of Atty. Jose L. Lapak. This prompted the heirs of Atty. Laig to file a suit to annul the second sale and for reconveyance, leading to the present protracted legal battle.	The prohibition under Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code, which prevents lawyers from acquiring by purchase the property and rights which are the object of litigation in which they take part, applies only during the pendency of the litigation. A sale of such property to the lawyer after the judgment has become final and the property is no longer in litigation is valid.	Persons and Family Law
Arenas vs. City of San Carlos (Pangasinan) (5th April 1978)	AK735400 82 SCRA 318 , 172 Phil. 306 , No. L-34024	Isidro G. Arenas, serving as City Judge of San Carlos City, claimed entitlement to a higher salary based on Republic Act No. 5967. The city government refused to pay the differential, citing that the law mandates the judge's salary to be lower than the mayor's. Arenas filed a mandamus petition, which was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.	The Supreme Court held that the proviso in Republic Act No. 5967, which states that a city judge's salary must be at least P100 less than that of the city mayor, qualifies the general provision establishing city judges' salaries.	Statutory Construction
Arianza vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission (28th February 1978)	AK230860 81 SCRA 698 , 171 Phil. 616 , No. L-43352	Arianza worked for Central Azucarera de la Carlota, Inc. from 1960, performing various physically demanding tasks, including packing and piling bagasse and working as a water tender in the fire-room. He developed liver cirrhosis, which he claimed was aggravated by his work conditions. His claim was initially dismissed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission but was later reversed by the Supreme Court.	The Supreme Court held that Arianza’s liver cirrhosis, though not directly caused by his employment, was aggravated by his working conditions, making it compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.	Philosophy of Law
Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. vs. Hontanosas (31st August 1977)	AK095815 168 Phil. 608 , G.R. No. L-35951	The dispute originated from a collection suit filed by Allied Overseas Commercial Co., Ltd. (Allied) against Ben Uy Rodriguez in the CFI of Manila, where Allied obtained a writ of preliminary attachment secured by a bond from Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. (Pioneer). Although the Manila case was dismissed for improper venue, Rodriguez subsequently filed a separate action in the CFI of Cebu against Pioneer and Allied (later including Allied's assignee, Hadji Esmayaten Lucman) to claim damages for the alleged wrongful and malicious attachment.	A claim for damages arising from a wrongful preliminary attachment must be prosecuted in the same court where the attachment bond was filed and the writ of attachment was issued, pursuant to Rule 57, Section 20 of the Rules of Court; prosecuting such a claim in a separate action before a different court is improper and that court lacks jurisdiction.	Civil Procedure I Pre-trial
Cruz vs. J. M. Tuason and Co., Inc. (29th April 1977)	AK142238 167 Phil. 261 , G.R. No. L-23749	The case arose from claims over a large tract of land. The Deudor family, asserting rights based on an "informacion posesoria," allegedly engaged Faustino Cruz to make improvements on a portion of this land. Subsequently, J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and Gregorio Araneta, Inc. (defendants-appellees), who were the registered owners, purportedly engaged Cruz to act as an intermediary to settle a civil case (Civil Case No. Q-135) with the Deudors concerning 50 quiñones of land, promising him 3,000 square meters as compensation. A compromise agreement was indeed reached between the Deudors and the defendants.	A motion for reconsideration that merely reiterates arguments already considered and resolved by the court is pro-forma and does not suspend the reglementary period for filing an appeal; consequently, an appeal filed beyond this period must be dismissed as the assailed order has become final and executory.	Obligations and Contracts
Bagatsing vs. Ramirez (17th December 1976)	AK142723 74 SCRA 306 , 165 Phil. 909 , G.R. No. L-41631	June 12–15, 1974: Manila’s Municipal Board enacted and Mayor Bagatsing approved Ordinance No. 7522, imposing fees on public market stalls. February 17, 1975: The Federation of Manila Market Vendors sued to invalidate the ordinance, claiming non-compliance with the City Charter’s publication rules. August 29, 1975: The Court of First Instance (Manila) nullified the ordinance for lacking pre-enactment publication.	Tax ordinances are governed by the Local Tax Code’s publication requirements (post-approval only), overriding the Revised City Charter’s stricter pre- and post-enactment rules.	Statutory Construction
Purugganan vs. Paredes (21st January 1976)	AK605464 69 SCRA 69 , 161 Phil. 91 , No. L-23818	Plaintiff Purugganan owned lots burdened by a registered easement of drainage in favor of Defendant Paredes' adjacent property. Paredes constructed a house that exceeded the easement's specifications, causing rainwater to improperly drain onto Purugganan's property. Purugganan sued to enforce the easement, while Paredes claimed her house was pre-existing and not in violation.	A summary judgment was correctly rendered because the defendants-appellants violated the conditions of a registered easement of drainage and failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that would necessitate a full trial. Furthermore, any prescriptive easement of light and view was extinguished by the registration of the servient estate under the Torrens System without such easement being annotated.	Property and Land Law
Lim vs. Ponce de Leon (29th August 1975)	AK198759 66 SCRA 299 , G.R. No. L-22554	Jikil Taha sold a motor launch to Alberto Timbangcaya. A year later, Timbangcaya filed a criminal complaint, alleging that Taha had forcibly retaken the launch. Based on this, Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon initiated a criminal case for robbery against Taha. In the interim, Taha had sold the same motor launch to Delfin Lim. The fiscal, upon learning of the launch's location and its subsequent sale to Lim, ordered its seizure as evidence in the pending criminal case, leading to the present civil suit for damages.	A public officer, such as a provincial fiscal, has no authority to order the seizure of private property without a valid search warrant, even if the property is the corpus delicti of a crime. A violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures by a public officer gives rise to civil liability for damages under Article 32 of the New Civil Code, and the officer's good faith is not a valid defense.	Persons and Family Law Article 32, New Civil Code
Padua vs. Robles (29th August 1975)	AK406269 66 SCRA 485 , No. L-40486	On January 1, 1969, a taxi owned by Bay Taxi Cab, driven by Romeo Punzalan, hit and killed 10-year-old Normandy Padua in Olongapo City. The victim's parents (Paulino and Lucena Padua) filed a civil case against Punzalan and the Bay Taxi Cab (Civil Case No. 427-O), while Punzalan faced criminal charges for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (Criminal Case No. 1158-O). The civil court ruled in favor of the Paduas, ordering Punzalan to pay damages but absolving Bay Taxi Cab. The criminal court later convicted Punzalan and sentenced him to imprisonment, stating that his civil liability had already been determined in Civil Case No. 427-O. However, when the Paduas attempted to execute the civil judgment, Punzalan was found to be insolvent. They then filed a separate action (Civil Case No. 1079-O) to enforce Robles’ subsidiary liability. The lower court dismissed the case, ruling that there was no cause of action. The Paduas appealed, and the Court of Appeals referred the case to the Supreme Court due to the legal question involved.	The Supreme Court ruled that Robles, as the employer of the negligent driver Punzalan, was subsidiarily liable for the civil indemnity awarded to the Paduas under the judgment in the criminal case, in accordance with Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The dismissal by the lower court was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.	Philosophy of Law
People vs. Licera (22nd July 1975)	AK629032 G. R. No. L-39990 , 65 SCRA 270	The case arose from a legal uncertainty created by two conflicting Supreme Court decisions regarding the illegal possession of firearms. The earlier doctrine, established in _People vs. Macarandang_, interpreted Section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code to include secret agents appointed by governors as "peace officers" exempt from firearm licensing requirements. A later case, _People vs. Mapa_, explicitly overturned this interpretation. The accused, Rafael Licera, was appointed as a secret agent and apprehended for possessing a firearm while the _Macarandang_ doctrine was still in effect, but was tried and convicted after the _Mapa_ doctrine had been established.	A new judicial doctrine in the field of penal law that abrogates a previous one must be applied prospectively and cannot be given retroactive effect if it would be prejudicial to an accused who acted in reliance on the old doctrine.	Persons and Family Law
Aquino, Jr. vs. Enrile (17th September 1974)	AK831150 59 SCRA 183 , 158-A Phil. 1 , No. L-35546 , No. L-35538 , No. L-35539 , No. L-35540 , No. L-35547 , No. L-35556 , No. L-35567 , No. L-35571 , No. L-35573	The case primarily revolved around the legality of arresting individuals without a court order, based solely on martial law powers. The petitioners argued that the martial law proclamation was unconstitutional, and that the arrests violated due process. The respondents maintained that the arrests were necessary for national security given the ongoing rebellion.		Constitutional Law I
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union (12th September 1974)	AK917809 158 Phil. 60 , G.R. No. L-2524	The case arose from a conflict between an employee's religious beliefs prohibiting labor union membership and a collective bargaining agreement's closed shop provision. Benjamin Victoriano, an employee of Elizalde Rope Factory Inc. and a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious sect prohibiting its members from joining labor organizations, was compelled by a closed shop agreement between his employer and the Elizalde Rope Workers' Union to be a member of the Union. Following the enactment of R.A. No. 3350, which exempts such individuals from closed shop provisions, Victoriano resigned from the Union. The Union then demanded his dismissal from the company, leading to the legal challenge.	Republic Act No. 3350, which amends Section 4(a)(4) of the Industrial Peace Act (R.A. No. 875) by exempting members of religious sects prohibiting affiliation with labor organizations from the coverage of closed shop agreements, is constitutional. It validly protects the fundamental right to freedom of religion without unduly infringing upon other constitutional rights or established legal principles.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Religion
Republic vs, Vda. de Castellvi (15th August 1974)	AK859862 58 SCRA 336 , 157 Phil. 329 , No. L-20620	The Republic needed to expand the Basa Air Base and initiated expropriation proceedings against Carmen M. Vda. de Castellvi and Maria Nieves Toledo-Gozun, landowners of adjacent properties. The Republic had previously leased Castellvi’s land since 1947. Disagreement arose over the just compensation, with landowners claiming a much higher value (P15.00 per square meter) compared to the Republic's initial valuation (P0.20 per square meter).	The Supreme Court held that the "taking" of the properties occurred upon the filing of the expropriation complaint in 1959, not in 1947 when the Republic initially leased Castellvi's land. The just compensation for the expropriated lands, classified as residential, was fixed at P5.00 per square meter. The Republic was ordered to pay interest on the compensation from the time of deposit of provisional value and from the actual taking in possession.	Constitutional Law II Eminent Domain
Cabanas vs. Pilapil (25th July 1974)	AK516159 58 SCRA 94 , 157 Phil. 97 , No. L-25843	The case arose from a dispute over the custody of insurance proceeds intended for a minor beneficiary. The deceased, Florentino Pilapil, had named his brother Francisco as the trustee for his daughter Millian's insurance benefits. However, Millian's mother, Melchora Cabanas, sought to obtain the proceeds, arguing that as the child's mother and guardian, she was entitled to administer the funds.		Constitutional Law I
Astorga vs. Villegas (30th April 1974)	AK503127 56 SCRA 714 , No. L-23475	The case originated from the passage of House Bill No. 9266, which sought to define the powers of the Manila Vice-Mayor. After its passage, controversy erupted when it was discovered that the version signed into law did not include substantial amendments made by Senator Tolentino on the Senate floor.	The Supreme Court declared Republic Act 4065 invalid as it was not properly enacted into law, ruling that when there is a conflict between the enrolled bill and the legislative journal records, the latter may be consulted to determine whether a bill was duly enacted.	Statutory Construction
People vs. Jabinal (27th February 1974)	AK908521 55 SCRA 607 , G.R. No. L-30061	The legal context of this case revolves around the interpretation of firearm laws, specifically the exemption for "peace officers." Initially, in the cases of _People vs. Macarandang_ (1959) and _People vs. Lucero_ (1958), the Supreme Court held that individuals appointed as secret agents with duties related to maintaining peace and order were considered "peace officers" and thus exempt from the requirement of a license to possess firearms. This interpretation was abruptly overturned in 1967 by the ruling in _People vs. Mapa_, which adopted a strict and literal interpretation of the law, holding that secret agents are not included in the list of exempted persons and are therefore liable for illegal possession. The present case arose from an act committed in 1964, when the old, more lenient doctrine was still in effect, but was decided by the trial court in 1968, after the new, stricter doctrine was established.	When a judicial doctrine is overruled and a new one is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively and should not retroactively prejudice parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof, especially in the construction and application of criminal laws.	Persons and Family Law
Republic vs. Villasor (28th November 1973)	AK095335 54 SCRA 83 , 153 Phil. 356 , No. L-30671	The case arose from an arbitration award against the Republic of the Philippines. When the respondents sought to execute the judgment, they obtained an order from Judge Villasor declaring the decision final and executory. This led to the issuance of an alias writ of execution and notices of garnishment against funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The Republic then filed this petition to challenge the validity of the order and execution.		Constitutional Law I
Miller vs. California (21st June 1973)	AK558260 413 U.S. 15	The case arose from a re-examination by the Supreme Court of the standards for regulating obscenity, an area that had caused significant legal difficulty and a lack of consistent majority opinions in previous cases. The Court sought to provide more concrete guidelines for states to regulate pornographic materials, particularly when disseminated to unwilling recipients or juveniles, while still protecting First Amendment rights for serious expression.	The Court established a new three-part test for obscenity: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Court also held that "contemporary community standards" are those of the local or state community, not a national standard.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary (31st March 1973)	AK643524 50 SCRA 30 , 151-A Phil. 35 , 69 OG 7975 , No. L-36142	Following the declaration of Martial Law and the drafting of a new Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, President Marcos submitted the proposed constitution for ratification via Citizens Assemblies, bypassing a traditional plebiscite. This prompted several legal challenges questioning the process and the President's authority.	The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petitions, with a majority finding the issues either moot or not properly raised. The Court was divided on whether the 1973 Constitution had been validly ratified, but a majority considered it effectively in force.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II
Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals (31st January 1972)	AK064106 43 SCRA 192 , 150 Phil. 222 , No. L-33471	Eusebio Dichoco’s shipment of 438 packages of foodstuffs was seized by customs for lacking a Central Bank release certificate. The CTA initially allowed release under bond, reversed itself, then reinstated the bond order. The Commissioner of Customs challenged this via certiorari.	Importations violating Central Bank circulars are “prohibited importations” under Section 102(k) of the Tariff and Customs Code and cannot be released under bond pursuant to Section 2301.	Statutory Construction
Tumalad vs. Vicencio (30th September 1971)	AK332768 41 SSCRA 143 , 148-B Phil. 625 , No. L-30173	Defendants-Appellants executed a chattel mortgage over their house, built on rented land, to Plaintiffs-Appellees to secure a loan. Upon default, Plaintiffs-Appellees extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the house at auction. Plaintiffs-Appellees then filed an ejectment case against Defendants-Appellants in the municipal court to recover possession and collect rent.	A house constructed on rented land can be validly constituted as personal property and subject to a chattel mortgage if the parties to the contract agree to treat it as such. Furthermore, the mortgagor is not obligated to pay rent to the purchaser during the one-year redemption period following an extrajudicial foreclosure sale, unless the purchaser legally obtains possession through proper court procedures and posting of a bond.	Property and Land Law
Cohen vs. California (7th June 1971)	AK728188 403 U.S. 15	The case arose during the Vietnam War era, a period of significant social and political unrest in the United States, particularly concerning the military draft. Cohen's act of wearing the jacket was a form of protest against the draft and the war, reflecting a common sentiment among dissenters at the time. The public display of such an expletive in a courthouse, a public forum, brought to the forefront the conflict between an individual's right to free expression and the state's interest in maintaining public order and decency.	A state cannot, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, criminalize the public display of a single offensive expletive when that display does not incite immediate violence, is not directed at a specific individual in a personally abusive manner, is not obscene in the legal sense, and does not intrude upon substantial privacy interests in an intolerable way; the emotive function of speech is also protected.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
Edu vs. Ericta (24th October 1970)	AK811997 35 SCRA 481 , 146 Phil. 469 , No. L-32096	Respondent Teddy Galo challenged the Reflector Law and Administrative Order No. 2 (requiring vehicles to install reflectors) as violations of due process and non-delegation. The lower court issued a preliminary injunction against the order, prompting the petitioner to seek Supreme Court review.	The Reflector Law (RA 5715) and Administrative Order No. 2 are constitutional, as they reasonably advance public safety under the state’s police power and adhere to non-delegation principles.	Statutory Construction
Gongon vs. Court of Appeals (30th April 1970)	AK161579 32 SCRA 412 , G.R. No. L-24421	The case arose from the government's acquisition of the Tambobong Estate in Malabon, Rizal, from the Roman Catholic Church on December 31, 1947, under Commonwealth Act No. 539. This law authorized the President to acquire private lands and subdivide them for resale to bona fide tenants, occupants, or other qualified individuals. The lot in question, Lot 18-B, Block 23, was part of this estate. Amada Aquino was the original lessee, who then sublet the property to Matias Gongon in 1934. When the government began reselling the lots, both Aquino (as lessee) and Gongon (as occupant) filed applications to purchase the same lot, leading to a legal conflict over who had the preferential right.	The preferential right to purchase a lot under Commonwealth Act No. 539, which gives preference first to "bona fide tenants" and second to "occupants," is not absolute and must be interpreted in line with the constitutional principle of social justice. Where the parties are not on an equal footing, as when the lessee is a non-occupant and already a landowner while the sublessee is the actual occupant and landless, equity and justice demand that the preferential right be granted to the actual occupant to fulfill the law's purpose of giving land to the landless.	Persons and Family Law
Sta. Maria vs. Lopez (18th February 1970)	AK782342 31 SCRA 637 , No. L-30773	Sta. Maria was appointed Dean of the College of Education at UP for a five-year term. Due to student protests and demands for his resignation, UP President Salvador P. Lopez transferred him to a Special Assistant role. Sta. Maria argued this was a removal without cause or due process.	The transfer of Sta. Maria from his deanship to a Special Assistant role was a removal from office without due process, violating his constitutional right to security of tenure. The Court ordered his reinstatement as Dean.	Philosophy of Law
Automotive Parts & Equipment Company, Inc. vs. Lingad (31st October 1969)	AK801807 30 SCRA 248 , 140 Phil. 580 , No. L-26406	The petitioner, Automotive Parts & Equipment Company, was incorporated in 1961 and had been paying its employees on both daily and monthly bases. Following the enactment of Republic Act No. 4180 in 1965, which amended the minimum wage law, the Secretary of Labor mandated an increase in monthly wages to a minimum of P180.00. The company contested this requirement, seeking a declaratory relief to interpret its obligations under the law.	The Supreme Court ruled that Section 19 of Republic Act No. 602, which prohibits the reduction of wages exceeding the minimum wage, applies to all employers regardless of when they commenced operations.	Statutory Construction
National Marketing Corp. vs. Tecson (27th August 1969)	AK067424 29 SCRA 70 , 139 Phil. 584 , No. L-29131	The Price Stabilization Corporation obtained a final judgment in 1955 against Miguel Tecson. Years later, the National Marketing Corporation, as its successor, attempted to revive this judgment in 1965. The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the action was filed beyond the ten-year prescription period. The only issue on appeal was whether the action to revive had prescribed.	An action to revive a judgment must be filed within ten years or 3,650 days from the date the judgment became final, as defined by Article 13 of the Civil Code. Beyond this period, revival is barred by prescription.	Statutory Construction
Laura Corpus, et al. vs. Felardo Paje and The Victory Liner Transportation Co., Inc. (31st July 1969)	AK122160 G.R. No. L-26737	The case originated from a vehicular accident on December 23, 1956, in Lubao, Pampanga. A passenger bus owned by Victory Liner Transportation Co., Inc. and driven by Felardo Paje collided with a jeep driven by Clemente Marcia. The collision resulted in the death of Clemente Marcia and physical injuries to two other individuals. This event triggered both criminal and civil proceedings to determine liability for the death and damages.	The acquittal of an accused in a criminal case for reckless imprudence on the ground that the fact from which civil liability might arise did not exist is a bar to a subsequent civil action for damages based on the same act (delict). Alternatively, if the civil action is founded on quasi-delict, it must be filed within the four-year prescriptive period from the date of the incident, which is not interrupted by the institution of the criminal action.	Persons and Family Law Article 33, Civil Code
People vs. Lava (16th May 1969)	AK022947 28 SCRA 72 , No. L-4974, , No. L-4975, , No. L-4976 , No. L-4977 , No. L-4978	The accused, high-ranking members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB), were charged with rebellion for engaging in armed attacks, raids, and assassinations aimed at overthrowing the government. The trial court found them guilty of rebellion with multiple murders, arsons, and robberies, sentencing several to death or life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court re-evaluated the conviction under established jurisprudence.	The Supreme Court ruled that the accused should only be charged with simple rebellion, as established in People v. Hernandez (1956), and that rebellion cannot be complexed with other common crimes like murder, arson, and robbery. The Court upheld the doctrine that when common crimes are committed in furtherance of rebellion, they are absorbed into the crime of rebellion itself.	Philosophy of Law
City of Baguio vs. Marcos (28th February 1969)	AK680073 27 SCRA 342 , 136 Phil. 569 , No. L-26100	The case originated from a 1912 cadastral proceeding (Civil Reservation Case No. 1) declaring the land public in 1922. In 1961, Belong Lutes petitioned to reopen the case, claiming ancestral possession. Petitioners, as tree farm lessees, opposed the reopening but were dismissed by lower courts. The Supreme Court reversed these rulings.	Lessees of public land possess legal standing to oppose petitions to reopen cadastral proceedings under R.A. 931. The 40-year period under R.A. 931 is calculated from the law’s approval (1953), making the 1922 cadastral decision eligible for reopening.	Statutory Construction
Republic vs. PLDT (27th January 1969)	AK453367 136 Phil. 20 , 26 SCRA 620 , No. L-18841	The Bureau of Telecommunications, a government entity, sought to interconnect its Government Telephone System (GTS) with PLDT's telephone network to provide broader telecommunication services to the public, including overseas calls. PLDT initially allowed interconnection through leased trunk lines but later severed these connections, citing unauthorized commercial use and competition from the Bureau. The Republic then filed suit to compel interconnection.	The Republic of the Philippines, exercising its sovereign power of eminent domain, can compel PLDT to interconnect its telephone system with the government system, even without a voluntary contract, provided that just compensation is paid to PLDT for the use of its facilities and services.	Constitutional Law II Eminent Domain
Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy (15th April 1968)	AK037088 23 SCRA 29 , No. L-21450	The case originated from a simple collection suit for P1,908.00 filed by the spouses Tijam against the spouses Sibonghanoy in the CFI of Cebu shortly after the Judiciary Act of 1948 (RA 296) took effect, which placed such amounts under the exclusive original jurisdiction of inferior courts. A writ of attachment against the Sibonghanoys' property was dissolved upon the posting of a counter-bond by the Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. (Surety).	A party is barred by laches from invoking the defense of lack of jurisdiction when they have actively participated in the case proceedings through various stages for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, sought affirmative relief, and only raised the jurisdictional question after receiving an unfavorable decision on the merits.	Civil Procedure I
Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga (28th March 1968)	AK384710 22 SCRA 1334 , 131 Phil. 446 , No. L-24440	The Municipality of Zamboanga was the capital of Zamboanga Province. Commonwealth Act 39 converted the Municipality into Zamboanga City and stipulated that the City would purchase provincial properties in Zamboanga City when the capital moved. The capital moved to Dipolog, and later Republic Act 711 divided Zamboanga Province into Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur. Republic Act 3039 later amended Commonwealth Act 39 to transfer the properties to Zamboanga City for free, leading to this legal challenge by Zamboanga del Norte, seeking payment for its share of the properties.	Republic Act 3039 is constitutional insofar as it transfers properties of the former Zamboanga province used for governmental purposes (public properties) to Zamboanga City without compensation, but unconstitutional for properties not used for such purposes (patrimonial properties), as the latter requires due process and just compensation for valid transfer.	Property and Land Law
Katz vs. United States (18th December 1967)	AK574343 389 U.S. 347	The case arose from an FBI investigation into the petitioner's suspected involvement in transmitting gambling information via telephone between Los Angeles, Miami, and Boston, in violation of federal law.	The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and its reach does not depend on physical penetration into a constitutionally protected area; electronic eavesdropping on conversations made from a public phone booth, where the user has a justifiable expectation of privacy, constitutes a "search and seizure" requiring a warrant based on probable cause.	Constitutional Law II Searches and Seizures
Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections (9th November 1967)	AK403726 21 SCRA 774 , 129 Phil. 7 , No. L-28196 , No. L-28224	Congress passed Resolutions 1 and 3 (proposing amendments) and Resolution 2 (calling a future constitutional convention) on March 16, 1967. RA 4913 scheduled the plebiscite during the 1967 general election. Petitioners argued the amendments were rushed and inadequately publicized.	The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 4913 and the congressional resolutions proposing the amendments, ruling that submission during a general election complied with Article XV. However, six justices in concurring opinions found the public’s awareness insufficient for valid ratification.	Statutory Construction
Lidasan vs. Commission on Elections (25th October 1967)	AK047045 21 SCRA 496 , 128 Phil. 526 , No. L-28089	RA 4790 aimed to create Dianaton from barrios in Lanao del Sur and Cotabato. The Office of the President urged suspending its implementation, but COMELEC enforced it. Petitioner Bara Lidasan, a Cotabato resident, challenged the law’s validity.	RA 4790 is void for violating the Single Subject Rule under Article VI, Section 21(1) of the 1935 Constitution.	Statutory Construction
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. vs. City Mayor of Manila (31st July 1967)	AK423474 20 SCRA 849 , 128 Phil. 473 , No. L-24693	The Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association challenged Ordinance No. 4760, arguing it was unconstitutional and beyond the powers of the Manila Municipal Board. They claimed the ordinance violated due process by imposing unreasonable fees and regulations, invading privacy, and lacking certainty. The City Mayor defended the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power to curb immorality.	Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of Manila is constitutional, as the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of its validity, and the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power aimed at safeguarding public morals.	Constitutional Law II Police Power