Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 510 results on the current subject filter

Title	IDs & Reference #s	Background	Primary Holding	Subject Matter
People vs. Bustos (8th March 1918)	AK959486 37 Phil. 731 , G.R. No. 12592	In late 1915, numerous citizens of Pampanga, concerned about the alleged misconduct of Roman Punsalan, the justice of the peace of Macabebe and Masantol, prepared a petition detailing charges of malfeasance and asking for his removal from office. This petition, along with supporting affidavits, was submitted to the Executive Secretary, the proper authority for handling such complaints against justices of the peace at the time, through the law office of Crossfield & O'Brien.	A communication made in good faith upon any subject-matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or in reference to which he has a duty, is privileged if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty, even if it contains criminatory matter which would otherwise be slanderous or libelous; this qualified privilege applies to complaints against public officials addressed to the proper authorities for redress, and malice cannot be presumed but must be proven by the prosecution.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
United States vs. Guendia (20th December 1917)	AK647225 37 Phil. 337 , No. 12462	Simeon Guendia was charged with frustrated murder for attacking his querida. The lower court found him guilty, though it acknowledged his apparent insanity. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence regarding his mental state at the time of the offense and during the trial.	The Supreme Court ruled that Guendia was insane at the time of the commission of the crime and thus exempt from criminal liability under subsection 1 of Article 8 of the Penal Code.	Philosophy of Law
The United States vs. Santos (10th September 1917)	AK917783 36 Phil. 853 , No. 12779	Dionisio Santos, a policeman in Pateros, Rizal, was tasked with preventing pilfering in a certain area. While patrolling, he saw two individuals near an uninhabited house and arrested them without a warrant, detaining them for six to seven hours before releasing them. The trial court convicted Santos of coercion, but the Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if his actions were justified.	A peace officer who arrests a person without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion and in good faith is not liable, even if the arrested person is later found innocent.	Philosophy of Law
Mendoza vs. De Leon (15th February 1916)	AK987030 33 Phil. 508 , No. 9596	Marcos Mendoza was granted an exclusive ferry privilege by the municipality of Villasis under Act No. 1634. After operating the ferry for over a year, the municipal council, composed of the defendants, revoked his lease and awarded a franchise to another person, leading to Mendoza's forcible ejection. Mendoza then sued the individual council members for damages.	The municipal council members are held jointly and severally liable for damages sustained by Marcos Mendoza due to the unlawful rescission of his ferry lease contract because their actions were not in good faith and were not a mere error in judgment, but a clear disregard of Mendoza's contractual rights for no valid reason.	Property and Land Law
Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby (2nd October 1915)	AK159516 31 Phil. 590 , No. 8936	Two owners of adjacent lots in Manila, Legarda and Saleeby, both registered their lands under the Torrens system. A stone wall situated on Legarda's property was mistakenly included in both their initial registration and Saleeby's subsequent registration, leading to conflicting claims over the wall and the land it occupied.	In cases of double registration under the Torrens system, the certificate of title earlier in date prevails over the later one; registered title holders are not obligated to continuously monitor subsequent land registration proceedings to protect their already registered title.	Property and Land Law
Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin (10th September 1913)	AK952887 25 Phil. 245 , No. 8692	The underlying dispute involved an action for mandamus in the Court of First Instance (CFI) where Constancio Joaquin sought to compel the issuance of a cockpit license and obtained a mandatory injunction. Godofredo B. Herrera, the Municipal President, then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court challenging the CFI's jurisdiction. During this certiorari proceeding, a member of the Supreme Court issued an injunction restraining Joaquin from operating his cockpit. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed Herrera's certiorari petition and dissolved the injunction.	he Supreme Court will not assess damages arising from an injunction issued by it in a certiorari proceeding; such damages, if any, must be claimed and proven in the court trying the main action where the merits of the case are ventilated, as certiorari is limited to reviewing jurisdictional errors and does not involve a "final trial" on the merits for the purpose of assessing damages under Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure.	Civil Procedure I
Carlos vs. Ramil (5th September 1911)	AK314311 20 Phil. 183 , No. 6736	An elderly couple, Agustin and Juliana Carlos, needed care and made an agreement with their adopted daughter and her husband, Antonio Ramil, to give them land if they stayed and cared for them for life, fearing the husband would take the daughter away.	An agreement to transfer land in exchange for future lifetime care constitutes an onerous donation (donacion con causa onerosa) governed by contract law, and is valid and enforceable upon fulfillment of the care obligation.	Property and Land Law
United States vs. Toribio (26th January 1910)	AK202554 15 Phil. 85 , G.R. No. 5060	The case arose during a period when a contagious disease threatened the carabao population in the Philippines, impacting agriculture and the economy. Act No. 1147 was enacted to regulate the registration, branding, and slaughter of large cattle, aiming to protect the ownership and use of these animals.	Act No. 1147 prohibits the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption anywhere in the Philippines without a permit, regardless of the presence of a municipal slaughterhouse. The law is a valid exercise of police power and not an infringement on private property rights.	Constitutional Law II Police Power
Reynolds vs. United States (6th January 1879)	AK870216 98 U.S. 145	The case arose from the conflict between federal anti-bigamy laws and the practice of polygamy by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church) in the Utah Territory. The federal government sought to suppress polygamy, viewing it as detrimental to social order, while many Mormons considered it a religious obligation. This tension led to prosecutions under federal statutes, with defendants often invoking religious freedom as a defense.	The First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion protects religious beliefs and opinions but does not protect overt acts that violate generally applicable criminal laws, even if those acts are committed in pursuance of a religious duty; thus, a religious belief cannot be a defense to a charge of bigamy.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Religion
American Print Works vs. Lawrence (15th October 1847)	AK008372 21 N.J.L. 248 (N.J. 1847)	In December 1835, a devastating fire broke out in New York City, rapidly spreading and threatening to consume a large portion of the city. Mayor Cornelius W. Lawrence, in consultation with city officials and military experts, ordered the destruction of several buildings using gunpowder to create firebreaks and halt the conflagration. Among the destroyed buildings were stores containing goods belonging to American Print Works.	The defendant, Mayor Cornelius W. Lawrence, was not guilty of trespass because the destruction of the plaintiff's goods was a necessary and lawful act to prevent the spread of the Great Fire of 1835, justified under both a New York statute and common law necessity.	Constitutional Law II Police Power