Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 537 results on the current subject filter

Title	IDs & Reference #s	Background	Primary Holding	Subject Matter
Kasilag vs. Rodriguez et al. (7th December 1939)	AK490298 69 Phil . 217 , No. 46623	The case revolves around a homestead property dispute that began in 1932. Emiliana Ambrosio, who had been granted a homestead patent in 1931, entered into a contract with Marcial Kasilag where she received P1,000 in exchange for what was documented as a mortgage on the property's improvements (consisting of fruit trees and bamboo). The contract included provisions for a future sale if Ambrosio failed to repay within 4.5 years. After one year, when Ambrosio couldn't pay the interest or taxes, they made a verbal agreement allowing Kasilag to possess the land, collect its fruits, and make improvements in lieu of interest payments. Kasilag took possession, paid taxes, and invested P5,000 in improvements. After Ambrosio's death, her heirs (Rafaela Rodriguez and others) sued to recover the property, arguing that the original contract was actually a disguised absolute sale attempting to circumvent legal restrictions on homestead alienation. The case worked its way through the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeals before reaching the Supreme Court, where the fundamental question was whether the agreement was a legitimate mortgage of improvements or an illegal attempt to transfer a homestead property during the restricted period.	The contract constituted a valid mortgage of improvements on the homestead land, not an absolute sale. The petitioner was deemed to be in good faith regarding possession and improvements.	Philosophy of Law
Villena vs. Secretary of the Interior (21st April 1939)	AK412293 67 Phil. 451 , G.R. No. 46570	The case arose from an inquiry into the conduct of petitioner Jose D. Villena, Mayor of Makati, Rizal, by the Division of Investigation of the Department of Justice, requested by the Secretary of the Interior. This inquiry found Villena to have allegedly committed bribery, extortion, malicious abuse of authority, and unauthorized practice of law. Consequently, the Secretary of the Interior recommended Villena's suspension to the President to prevent coercion of witnesses, which the President verbally approved.	The acts of the secretaries of executive departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. Therefore, the Secretary of the Interior's suspension of a municipal mayor, done with the verbal approval or acquiescence of the President, is valid.	Constitutional Law I
Gold Creek vs. Rodriguez and Abadilla (28th September 1938)	AK685675 66 Phil. 259 , No. 45859	Gold Creek Mining Corp. applied for a patent for the “Nob Fraction” mining claim, but the government refused, citing the 1935 Constitution’s prohibition on alienating natural resources. The case centered on whether pre-Constitution mining rights survived the constitutional ban.	A perfected mining claim located before the 1935 Constitution’s adoption is not part of the public domain and thus falls outside the constitutional ban on alienating natural resources, mandating respondents to process the patent application.	Statutory Construction
Matute vs. Hernandez (8th August 1938)	AK955194 66 Phil. 68 , G.R. No. 46028	Petitioner Amadeo Matute held a contract with the Commonwealth Government, secured through public bidding, to supply fresh meat at predetermined prices. Subsequent to the contract's execution, the City of Manila increased the fees at the municipal slaughterhouse, which led the petitioner to request an increase in the contract price for the meat he supplied to the government. This price increase was granted by the Acting Purchasing Agent with the approval of the Undersecretary of Finance, but without a new public bidding or other approvals later deemed necessary by the Auditor-General.	The Auditor-General possesses discretionary power, not merely a ministerial duty, to examine the legality and regularity of government expenditures before countersigning treasury warrants; consequently, any novation of a government contract, such as a price increase altering a principal condition, must strictly comply with existing laws and executive orders, including requirements for public bidding and specified approvals, and failure to do so renders the novation invalid and the resulting expenditure unauthorized.	Constitutional Law I
Aglipay vs. Ruiz (13th March 1937)	AK840573 64 Phil. 201 , G. R. No. 45459	The case arose from the decision of the Director of Posts in May 1936 to issue and sell postage stamps commemorating the Thirty-third International Eucharistic Congress, an event organized by the Roman Catholic Church and scheduled to be held in Manila. This action was perceived by the petitioner, the head of another religious denomination, as an unconstitutional use of public resources to favor a specific church, leading to the legal challenge.	The issuance of postage stamps by the government, even if related to an event with religious significance, does not violate the constitutional prohibition against the appropriation of public funds for the use, benefit, or support of any sect or church, provided that the primary purpose of such issuance is secular (e.g., promoting the country, tourism, or commemorating an event of national or international interest) and any benefit accruing to a religious institution is merely incidental and not the direct aim of the governmental action.	Constitutional Law I
Philippine National Bank vs. National City Bank of New York (31st October 1936)	AK161292 63 Phil. 711 , G. R. No. 43596	In April 1933, Motor Service Company (MSC) accepted two checks as payment for automobile tires from unknown individuals. These checks were purportedly issued by the Pangasinan Transportation Co. and signed by J.L. Klar as Manager and Treasurer, payable to International Auto Repair Shop. MSC deposited these checks with the National City Bank of New York, which then cleared them through the Philippine National Bank (PNB). After honoring the checks, PNB discovered that J.L. Klar's signatures were forged when informed by Pangasinan Transportation Co. PNB immediately demanded reimbursement from both MSC and National City Bank, but both refused. PNB filed suit, and the case was eventually dismissed against National City Bank before trial, proceeding solely against MSC for recovery of the funds paid on the forged checks.	Payment of a check does not constitute acceptance under Section 62 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. A drawee bank can recover payments made on forged checks from negligent holders who failed to exercise due diligence in accepting the checks.	Philosophy of Law
Davao Saw Mill Co. vs. Castillo (7th August 1935)	AK655680 61 Phil. 709 , No. 40411	Davao Saw Mill operated a sawmill business on land it leased. They erected a building and installed machinery within it, some affixed to cement foundations. A lease agreement stipulated that improvements and buildings would become the property of the landowner upon lease expiration, but specifically excluded machineries from these improvements.	Machinery installed in a leased building by the lessee for its own industry, which is movable by nature and not intended to be a permanent fixture belonging to the landowner, especially when the lease agreement explicitly excludes machineries from improvements passing to the lessor, retains its character as personal property and is therefore subject to chattel mortgage and execution as such.	Property and Land Law
Near vs. Minnesota (1st June 1931)	AK767235 283 U.S. 697	The case arose under a 1925 Minnesota law, Chapter 285 of the Session Laws of Minnesota, which declared that any person engaged in the business of regularly publishing a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical" was guilty of a nuisance. The statute authorized actions in the name of the State to perpetually enjoin such publications. This law, often referred to as a "gag law," was enacted amidst concerns about yellow journalism and scurrilous publications but raised significant First Amendment issues.	A state statute that permits public authorities to enjoin the future publication of a newspaper or periodical found to be "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" constitutes a prior restraint on publication in violation of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional, particularly when applied to charges of official misconduct.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
United States vs. Schwimmer (27th May 1929)	AK629766 279 U.S. 644	The case arose from Rosika Schwimmer's application for naturalization under the Naturalization Act of 1906. At the time, international tensions and the experience of World War I had heightened concerns about national loyalty and the obligations of citizenship, including the duty to defend the country. Schwimmer, a well-known lecturer and writer with strong pacifist convictions, sought U.S. citizenship, leading to a legal challenge regarding whether her refusal to bear arms was compatible with the requirements for naturalization.	An applicant for naturalization must be willing to take up arms in defense of the United States when required by law; an unwillingness to do so, even if based on pacifist beliefs, demonstrates a lack of attachment to the principles of the Constitution and an inability to take the oath of allegiance without mental reservation, thereby disqualifying the applicant for citizenship.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
Olmstead et al. vs. United States (4th June 1928)	AK928688 277 U.S. 438	The case arose during the Prohibition era, involving a large-scale conspiracy to import, transport, possess, and sell intoxicating liquors in violation of the National Prohibition Act, operating primarily in the Seattle, Washington area and extending to British Columbia.	The interception of telephone conversations by government agents through wiretapping conducted outside the defendants' premises (without physical trespass) does not constitute a "search" or "seizure" prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, the use of such intercepted conversations as evidence in a criminal trial does not violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.	Constitutional Law II Searches and Seizures
Sibal vs. Valdez (4th August 1927)	AK944731 50 Phil. 512 , No. 26278	This case arose from a dispute over sugar cane and palay (rice) crops planted on land previously owned by the plaintiff, Leon Sibal, but later involved in execution sales. Sibal attempted to redeem sugar cane sold to the defendant, Emiliano Valdez, and sought to prevent Valdez from harvesting palay on the same land. The core issue revolves around the classification of standing crops as either personal or real property under Philippine law.	Standing sugar cane, when produced by annual crops and yearly labor, is considered personal property and is therefore not subject to redemption as real property under the provisions of the Civil Code regarding redemption of real estate.	Property and Land Law
Whitney vs. California (16th May 1927)	AK988741 274 U.S. 357	The case arose during a period of heightened concern over radical political movements and labor unrest in the United States following World War I and the Russian Revolution. California, like several other states, enacted a Criminal Syndicalism Act to counter organizations perceived as advocating for violent overthrow of the government or unlawful industrial and political change. Ms. Whitney, a niece of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field and a social activist, became involved with the Communist Labor Party.	A state, in the exercise of its police power, may constitutionally punish those who abuse the rights of free speech and assembly by knowingly becoming a member of, or assisting in organizing, an association that advocates, teaches, or aids and abets criminal syndicalism, defined as doctrines advocating unlawful acts of force and violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political change, without violating the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
Buck vs. Bell (2nd May 1927)	AK816985 274 U.S. 200	* The case arose in the context of the eugenics movement in the early 20th century, which promoted the idea that societal problems could be reduced by preventing reproduction among individuals considered genetically unfit or "defective." * Virginia enacted a statute in 1924 reflecting these views, allowing for the sterilization of inmates of certain state institutions if deemed beneficial for the patient and society, based on concerns about heredity and the societal burden of supporting "defective persons."	A state statute permitting the compulsory sterilization of institutionalized individuals found to have hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility does not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when adequate procedural safeguards are provided.	Constitutional Law II Due Process
Riel vs. Wright (5th August 1926)	AK274483 49 Phil. 194 , G. R. No. 25679	The petitioner was employed as a "temporary clerk" in the Philippine Senate. Following the adjournment of the legislative session, his services continued for an extended period. A dispute arose when the Insular Auditor refused to approve the payment warrant for services rendered significantly later than the session's close, citing limitations in the relevant appropriation act regarding temporary legislative employees. This case arose as a "test case" potentially affecting numerous similarly situated employees.	The phrase "several days after a session" as used in Section 18, subdivision 2 of Act No. 2935, governing appropriations for "supplementary force" in the Legislature, cannot be legally construed to cover a period of eighty-two days after the adjournment of the legislative session; consequently, temporary employees rendering services during such an extended period are not legally employed under that specific appropriation and have no clear legal right to compensation.	Constitutional Law I
Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad (US SC Case) (7th June 1926)	AK944319 271 U.S. 500	The Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 2972, primarily targeting Chinese merchants who constituted a significant portion of the commercial sector (around 60%) and traditionally kept their books in Chinese. The stated purpose was to facilitate tax inspection and prevent fraud, as revenue officials struggled to examine books kept in Chinese. This led to concerns about tax evasion but also significant opposition from the Chinese community, who argued the law would effectively drive them out of business due to their inability to understand or use books in the permitted languages.	Act No. 2972 of the Philippine Legislature, which prohibits keeping business account books in any language other than English, Spanish, or a local dialect, is unconstitutional because it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Philippine Bill of Rights by arbitrarily interfering with the liberty and property of Chinese merchants without reasonable justification under the police power.	Constitutional Law II Due Process, Equal Protection
Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad (PH SC Case) (6th February 1925)	AK907253 47 Phil. 385 , G.R. No. L-20479	* The case arose from the Philippine government's efforts to effectively collect sales and income taxes, particularly from Chinese merchants, many of whom kept their account books exclusively in Chinese, making inspection difficult for revenue agents. * An earlier attempt by the Collector of Internal Revenue to mandate bookkeeping in English or Spanish via administrative circular was invalidated by the Supreme Court (_Young vs. Rafferty_) for exceeding administrative authority, prompting the Legislature to enact Act No. 2972. * The Act faced significant opposition from the Chinese community and diplomatic channels, and its enforcement was initially suspended before being pursued, leading to the arrest of petitioner Yu Cong Eng and this challenge.	Act No. 2972 is interpreted to mean that persons and entities engaged in business in the Philippines must keep account books necessary for taxation purposes (specifically, sales books and other records and returns required by Bureau of Internal Revenue regulations) in English, Spanish, or a local dialect; this construction renders the Act constitutional as a valid fiscal measure.	Constitutional Law II Due Process
People vs. Pomar (3rd November 1924)	AK753803 46 Phil. 440 , No. 22008	In 1923, the Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 3071, which mandated employers to provide paid maternity leave to pregnant women workers. Under Section 13 of this law, women employees were entitled to receive wages for thirty days before and thirty days after childbirth. The case arose when Julio Pomar, managing La Flor de la Isabela tobacco factory, refused to pay such maternity benefits to Macaria Fajardo, a cigar-maker who had given birth. The prosecution filed charges against Pomar for violating the Act, leading to his conviction in the lower court. Pomar challenged the constitutionality of the law, arguing it violated fundamental rights to freedom of contract and property, ultimately bringing the case before the Supreme Court for review.	The provisions of Section 13 of Act No. 3071 are unconstitutional and void as they violate the constitutional right to liberty of contract under the first paragraph of section 3 of the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916.	Philosophy of Law
Pensader vs. Pensader (7th February 1924)	AK902639 47 Phil. 959 , No. 21271	The case centers on a claim of inheritance versus a claim of ownership through donation and adverse possession. The plaintiffs, nephews of the deceased Canuto Pensader, sought to partition land they considered common inheritance. The defendants, niece and grand-nephew of Canuto, asserted exclusive rights based on donations made by Canuto and decades of uninterrupted possession. The legal context is property rights, inheritance laws, donation, and the principle of prescription through adverse possession.	The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's judgment, ruling that the plaintiffs' action for partition was barred by prescription because the defendants and their predecessors had been in continuous, adverse possession of the coconut land for over thirty years, under claim of ownership.	Property and Land Law
People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw (27th February 1922)	AK656044 43 Phil. 19 , No. 17958	The case arose from a horrific act of piracy in the Dutch East Indies where Moro pirates attacked Dutch subjects, committed robbery, rape, and attempted murder. The perpetrators later returned to the Philippines where they were arrested and tried, raising important questions about jurisdiction and the applicability of Spanish-era piracy laws.	The Court held that piracy is a crime against all mankind (hostes humani generis) that can be punished by any country regardless of where it was committed, and that the Spanish Penal Code provisions on piracy remained valid law in the Philippines after the American occupation.	Criminal Law II
Osorio vs. Osorio and Ynchausti Steamship Co. (30th March 1921)	AK543470 41 Phil. 531 , No. 16544	D. Antonio Osorio had a share in a shipping business with Ynchausti & Co. Upon his death, his estate, including this share, was to be partitioned among his heirs, including his widow Da. Petrona Reyes. Before the formal partition, Da. Petrona Reyes donated a portion of her expected inheritance to her son, Leonardo Osorio. This donation later became contested when the shares of stock representing the inherited business interest were inventoried as part of Da. Petrona Reyes' estate after her death.	The donation made by Da. Petrona Reyes to Leonardo Osorio of her share in her deceased husband's inheritance, even before formal adjudication, is valid because she had a vested right to the inheritance at the time of donation, and such inheritance is not considered "future property" in the prohibitive sense of Article 635 of the Civil Code.	Property and Land Law
Chartered Bank vs. Imperial and National Bank (15th March 1921)	AK799964 48 Phil. 931 , No. 17222	PNB sued Umberto de Poli to recover goods under a chattel mortgage. After PNB obtained a writ of attachment, other creditors petitioned for de Poli’s insolvency. The insolvency court took control of all assets, including the attached goods. PNB argued its mortgage rights superseded insolvency proceedings. The lower court allowed PNB to proceed, prompting creditors to challenge via certiorari.	Secured creditors retain the right to enforce their liens independently under the Insolvency Law (Act No. 1956) and are not compelled to participate in insolvency proceedings.	Statutory Construction
Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila (11th October 1920)	AK900808 41 Phil. 103 , G. R. No. 15972	The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 532, which mandated that all laundries, dyeing, and cleaning establishments issue signed duplicate receipts in English and Spanish, specifying the kind and number of articles received for service, aiming to regulate the delivery and return of clothes and prevent disputes and fraud, particularly targeting issues arising from receipts issued in Chinese characters.	Municipal ordinances enacted under the general welfare clause and the specific power to regulate businesses, requiring reasonable measures like issuing detailed receipts in official languages to prevent fraud and disputes and protect the public, constitute a valid exercise of police power, even if they impose some burden on business owners, provided they are not discriminatory, arbitrary, or unduly oppressive.	Constitutional Law II Due Process
Abrams vs. United States (10th November 1919)	AK287637 250 U.S. 616	The case arose during World War I, shortly after the U.S. sent troops to parts of Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution, an action perceived by the defendants (Russian immigrants and self-proclaimed anarchists/revolutionists) as an attempt to crush the revolution. The Espionage Act of 1917, amended in 1918, criminalized various forms of dissent and anti-war expression deemed harmful to the U.S. war effort against Germany.	The distribution of circulars advocating a general strike in ammunition factories during wartime, even if primarily motivated by a desire to protest U.S. policy towards Russia, constitutes sufficient evidence of an unlawful intent to curtail war production and hinder the prosecution of the war against Germany, thereby violating the Espionage Act and falling outside the protection of the First Amendment.	Constitutional Law II Freedom of Expression
City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila (31st October 1919)	AK178680 40 Phil. 349 , No. 14355	The City of Manila sought to extend Rizal Avenue and filed a petition to expropriate certain parcels of land in Binondo, Manila, owned by the Chinese Community of Manila, which included a cemetery. The Chinese Community opposed the expropriation, arguing it was unnecessary, would desecrate a cemetery, and alternative routes were available.	In expropriation proceedings initiated by the City of Manila, the courts have the authority to inquire into and hear evidence regarding the necessity of the expropriation; the determination of necessity is not solely a legislative prerogative but a judicial question subject to review when general authority to expropriate is granted.	Constitutional Law II Eminent Domain
Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro (7th March 1919)	AK549703 39 Phil. 660 , G.R. No. 14078	Rubi and other Manguianes (indigenous people of Mindoro) were ordered by the provincial governor to leave their native habitats and establish residence on a reservation at Tigbao in Mindoro. One Manguian named Dabalos escaped and was imprisoned. The Manguianes filed for habeas corpus, challenging the provincial governor's authority to confine them to reservations.	The Supreme Court ruled that Section 2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917, which authorized provincial governors to direct "non-Christian" inhabitants to live in reservations, was constitutional and did not violate due process or equal protection guarantees, nor did it constitute slavery or involuntary servitude.	Constitutional Law II Police Power
United States vs. Constantino Tan Quingco Chua (29th January 1919)	AK487241 39 Phil. 552 , No. 13708	The case originated from a loan of P100 made by Chua to Pedro Andres in 1911. Over five years, the debt grew to approximately P700 due to excessive interest. The transaction was later disguised as a pacto de retro sale to evade the Usury Law.	The court held that the transaction was a usurious loan disguised as a pacto de retro sale, and Chua was guilty of violating the Usury Law.	Philosophy of Law
Manzanares vs. Moreta (22nd October 1918)	AK506216 38 Phil. 821 , No. 12306	In this landmark case from 1918, an automobile accident occurred on the morning of March 5, 1916, at the intersection of Solana and Real Streets in Manila. Rafael Moreta was driving his automobile from the southern part of Solana Street when he encountered other vehicles at Real Street. After this encounter, instead of proceeding cautiously, he continued at high speed without sounding his horn. As he entered Solana Street, his vehicle struck and fatally injured Salvador Bona, a child between 8 and 9 years old, who was crossing from the right sidewalk to the left. The impact was so severe that even after hitting the child, the automobile continued moving for about two meters. The victim's mother, Simona Manzanares, a poor washerwoman, filed a civil case seeking P5,000 in damages. The Court of First Instance awarded her P1,000 as indemnity, which Moreta appealed after his motion for a new trial was denied. The case reached the Supreme Court through a bill of exceptions, where it became a pivotal decision establishing important principles about damage compensation in cases involving wrongful death, particularly concerning minor children.	The Supreme Court held that an action for damages can be maintained in Philippine jurisdiction for the death of a person by wrongful act, and that in cases involving the death of a minor child, the law presumes pecuniary loss to the parent without need for specific proof of actual earnings or support.	Philosophy of Law
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