Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 340 results on the current subject filter

Title	Reference #s	Summary	Background	Subject Matter
Capitol Wireless, Inc. vs. Provincial Treasurer of Batangas (30th May 2016)	791 SCRA 272, 785 Phil. 712, G.R. No. 180110	This case involves Capitol Wireless, Inc.'s (Capwire) petition against the real property tax assessments on its submarine cable system by the Provincial Treasurer and Assessors of Batangas. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, finding that Capwire should have first availed of administrative remedies before resorting to judicial action, as factual questions regarding the cable's location and taxability needed to be resolved. The Court further ruled that submarine cables are taxable real property, akin to electric transmission lines, and are not exempt from real property tax.	Capwire, a telecommunications company, claimed co-ownership of the "Wet Segment" of submarine cable systems laid internationally and reported "Indefeasible Rights in Cable Systems" as property. For loan restructuring, Capwire assessed the value of its right and submitted a sworn statement for real properties. The Provincial Assessor of Batangas then issued real property tax assessments on these cable systems. Capwire contested the assessments, arguing the cables were in international waters and not taxable in the Philippines.	Property and Land Law
Alolino vs. Flores (4th April 2016)	788 SCRA 92, 783 Phil. 605, G.R. No. 198774	This case involves a dispute between neighbors over the construction of a house/sari-sari store by the respondents on a municipal/barrio road adjacent to the petitioner's property. The petitioner claimed that the respondents’ structure obstructed his right to light and view, ingress and egress, and constituted a nuisance. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling in favor of the petitioner, ordering the demolition of the respondents' structure and recognizing it as both a public and private nuisance due to its illegal construction on public property.	Petitioner Alolino owned property with a two-story house. Respondents Flores spouses built a house/sari-sari store on an adjacent municipal/barrio road without a building permit. This structure blocked Alolino's light and ventilation and access to the municipal road from his rear door, prompting him to seek its removal.	Property and Land Law
Republic vs. Tan (10th February 2016)	783 SCRA 643, 780 Phil. 764, G.R. No. 199537	This case involves the Republic's petition to reverse the Court of Appeals' decision which affirmed the lower court's grant of Andrea Tan's application for land title registration based on acquisitive prescription. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic, holding that a declaration of land as alienable and disposable is insufficient to convert it into patrimonial property of the State, which is necessary for acquisitive prescription to run against the State.	Andrea Tan applied for original land registration based on acquisitive prescription, claiming continuous possession of a parcel of land declared alienable and disposable in 1965. The Municipal Trial Court granted her application, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Republic appealed, arguing that mere declaration of alienability is insufficient for prescription against the State.	Property and Land Law
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Fadcor, Inc (25th January 2016)	781 SCRA 561, 779 Phil. 32, G.R. No. 197970	This case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) challenging the Court of Appeals' (CA) decision which reversed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) ruling. The RTC had ordered Fadcor, Inc. and its officers (respondents) to pay Metrobank a deficiency obligation arising from an extra-judicial foreclosure sale. The CA reversed the RTC, finding that certain exhibits supporting the deficiency claim were improperly admitted because they were not explicitly identified piece-by-piece in the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of the ex parte hearing, allegedly violating A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. The Supreme Court granted Metrobank's petition, reversed the CA, and reinstated the RTC decision, holding that the formal offer and admission of evidence by the RTC were sufficient, especially since the presentation was ex parte due to respondents' failure to appear at pre-trial, and that A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC primarily applies to regular pre-trial proceedings, not ex parte hearings resulting from a defendant's default.	Metrobank extended loans totaling P32,950,000.00 to Fadcor, Inc., secured by real estate mortgages over ten parcels of land and continuing surety agreements executed by individual respondents (Fadcor officers). Fadcor defaulted on its loan obligations.	Civil Procedure I Pre-trial
Saguisag vs. Ochoa, Jr. (12th January 2016)	779 SCRA 241, 777 Phil. 280, G.R. No. 212426, G.R. No. 212444	The case concerns a petition questioning the constitutionality of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) between the Philippines and the United States. The petitioners argue that EDCA violated the Constitution as it was entered into without the concurrence of the Senate, a requirement for international treaties or agreements involving foreign military forces. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Executive branch, upholding EDCA as a valid executive agreement that did not require Senate concurrence.	The case was brought to the Supreme Court as the petitioners contended that the executive acted beyond its powers by entering into EDCA without Senate concurrence. They argued that the agreement allowed the presence of foreign military troops and facilities, which under the Constitution could only be authorized by a treaty concurred in by the Senate.	Constitutional Law I
Gonzales vs. GJH Land, Inc. (formerly S.J. Land, Inc.) (10th November 2015)	774 SCRA 242, 772 Phil. 483, G.R. No. 202664	This case resolves whether a regular branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) lacking designation as a Special Commercial Court can dismiss an intra-corporate case for lack of jurisdiction, or should instead transfer it to the designated Special Commercial Court branch.	The case arose from a dispute over corporate shares in S.J. Land, Inc. (later GJH Land, Inc.) where the petitioners claimed full payment of their share subscriptions while the company attempted to sell these allegedly unpaid shares.	Civil Procedure I
De Leon vs. Chu (2nd September 2015)	768 SCRA 609, 768 Phil. 217, G.R. No. 186522	This case involves a dispute over ownership of a 50-square meter portion of land, originating from alleged forgery of a deed of sale. Petitioner Rowena De Leon filed a case to compel Respondent Lolita Chu to surrender the title (LRC Case No. 1322), while Respondents Lolita Chu and Domingo Delos Santos filed a separate case to annul the deed and cancel the title (Civil Case No. 2257), alleging forgery. The RTC consolidated the cases, found forgery by Rowena, annulled the deed/title, and dismissed Rowena's petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The Supreme Court denied Rowena's petition for review, finding no merit in her arguments regarding forum shopping, indispensable parties, and issues raised for the first time on appeal, ultimately upholding the lower courts' findings.	The dispute arose from conflicting claims over a 50-square meter parcel of land, originally part of a 600-square meter property owned by Domingo Delos Santos. Domingo allegedly sold the entire 600 sqm to Lolita Chu in 1990. Lolita entrusted the deed to Rowena De Leon before leaving for Japan. Subsequently, a different Deed of Sale emerged dated March 1993, purportedly showing Domingo sold 50 sqm to Rowena and the remaining 550 sqm to Lolita. Rowena registered the 50 sqm portion in her name, leading Lolita and Domingo to claim forgery and file for annulment, while Rowena sought the surrender of the title she claimed Lolita wrongfully withheld.	Civil Procedure I Motion
Manila Electric Company vs. The City Assessor (5th August 2015)	765 Phil. 605, G.R. No. 166102	This case involves a petition by Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) contesting the real property tax assessment by the City of Lucena on its electric facilities, including transformers, electric posts, transmission lines, insulators, and electric meters. The Supreme Court ruled that while these facilities are now considered real property and subject to tax under the Local Government Code, the specific 1997 assessment by Lucena City was invalid due to procedural deficiencies in appraisal and notice, violating MERALCO’s right to due process.	MERALCO had been operating in Lucena City since 1922 under various franchises, some of which provided tax exemptions on certain electric facilities. Lucena City began assessing real property tax on MERALCO's electric facilities starting 1985. MERALCO contested these assessments, arguing that its facilities were exempt under its franchise and were personal property, not real property.	Property and Land Law
Navy Officers' Village Association, Inc. (NOVAI) vs. Republic (3rd August 2015)	765 Phil. 429, 764 SCRA 524, G.R. No. 177168	This case concerns the cancellation of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) held by Navy Officers' Village Association, Inc. (NOVAI) over a parcel of land within a former military reservation. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision that the land remained inalienable public domain and that the deed of sale to NOVAI was void due to the non-existence of the Presidential Proclamation cited as its basis and other irregularities.	The land in question was originally part of Fort William McKinley, later Fort Andres Bonifacio Military Reservation (FBMR). Presidential Proclamation No. 423 reserved a large area for military purposes. Proclamation No. 461 excluded a portion as AFP Officers’ Village, intended for disposal under specific laws. Subsequently, Proclamation No. 478 reserved a smaller portion, including the property in dispute, for veterans rehabilitation. NOVAI claimed to have purchased the land from the Republic based on a Deed of Sale referring to a fictitious Proclamation No. 2487.	Property and Land Law
Villanueva vs. Judicial and Bar Council (7th April 2015)	755 SCRA 182, 757 Phil. 534, G.R. No. 211833	The case involves a petition filed by Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva challenging the constitutionality of the Judicial and Bar Council's (JBC) policy requiring five years of service as a first-level court judge before qualifying for promotion to a second-level court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the JBC's policy is constitutional and within its discretion, but directed the JBC to publish its policies for transparency.	Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva was appointed as a first-level court judge in 2012. In 2013, he applied for promotion to several Regional Trial Court (RTC) positions but was disqualified by the JBC due to its policy requiring five years of service as a first-level court judge. Villanueva challenged this policy, arguing that it was unconstitutional and violated his rights to equal protection and due process.	Philosophy of Law
Aquino vs. Quiazon (11th March 2015)	753 SCRA 98, 755 PHIL. 793, G.R. No. 201248	This case involves a dispute over land ownership between the Naguit family (petitioners), claiming ownership through a deed of sale from 1894 and long-term possession, and the Quiazon family (respondents), asserting ownership based on a Torrens title derived from a 1919 land registration decree. The Supreme Court addressed whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioners' complaint for quieting of title based on a lack of cause of action, considering evidence beyond the allegations in the complaint.	The Naguit family filed a complaint seeking to annul the Quiazon family's title and quiet title in their favor, asserting a prior claim based on a deed of sale and continuous possession. The Quiazons countered that their Torrens title, derived from a land registration decree, was superior. The trial court conducted a preliminary hearing and dismissed the case, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.	Civil Procedure I
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) vs. United Planners Consultants, Inc (23rd February 2015)	751 SCRA 389, 754 Phil. 513, G.R. No. 212081	DENR appealed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) dismissal of its petition to annul an arbitral award favoring UPCI for unpaid consultancy services. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA, ruling that DENR’s procedural lapses (including missing filing deadlines and filing prohibited motions) barred its claims, and emphasized that the Commission on Audit (COA) retains jurisdiction over monetary claims against government agencies.	DENR entered a consultancy agreement with UPCI in 1993 but paid only 47% of the contract price. After UPCI sued for non-payment, the case was referred to arbitration, resulting in a monetary award. DENR challenged the award’s confirmation and execution but failed to follow procedural rules.	Statutory Construction
Leus vs. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove (28th January 2015)	748 SCRA 378, 752 PHIL. 186, G.R. No. 187226	The Supreme Court ruled that pregnancy out of wedlock by an unmarried school employee is not a valid ground for dismissal as it does not constitute "disgraceful or immoral conduct" under secular standards, despite the employer being a Catholic educational institution.	This case revolves around the dismissal of a non-teaching staff member from a Catholic school after becoming pregnant out of wedlock, leading to a legal battle over whether such circumstance constitutes valid grounds for termination of employment.	Philosophy of Law
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. BASF Coating + Inks Phil., Inc (26th November 2014)	743 SCRA 113, 748 Phil. 760, G.R. No. 198677	The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Tax Appeals’ cancellation of deficiency tax assessments against BASF Coating + Inks Phils., Inc., ruling that the Bureau of Internal Revenue’s (BIR) right to assess had prescribed due to its failure to send notices to the taxpayer’s updated address despite actual knowledge of the change. The BIR’s assessments were deemed void for violating due process and statutory limitations.	BASF dissolved on March 31, 2001, and relocated to Calamba, Laguna. The BIR issued a FAN for 1999 tax deficiencies on January 17, 2003, but mailed it to BASF’s old Las Piñas address. BASF protested the assessment, arguing prescription and lack of valid notice. The CTA and CTA En Banc ruled in favor of BASF, prompting the BIR to appeal to the Supreme Court.	Statutory Construction
Zuñiga-Santos vs. Santos-Gran (8th October 2014)	738 SCRA 33, 745 Phil. 171, G.R. No. 197380	The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint seeking to annul a sale and revoke a title, but modified the grounds for dismissal, holding that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action and that the action had prescribed.	The case concerns a dispute over the ownership of properties transferred from the petitioner's name to the respondent's name, where the petitioner claims the transfer was based on void or voidable documents.	Civil Procedure I
Arigo vs. Swift (16th September 2014)	735 SCRA 102, 743 Phil. 8, G.R. No. 206510	This case involves a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan filed against US and Philippine officials regarding the grounding of the USS Guardian on Tubbataha Reef. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars the exercise of jurisdiction over the US respondents, and that the issue has become moot with the completion of salvage operations.	The grounding of the USS Guardian on Tubbataha Reef, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and protected area under Philippine law, caused significant environmental damage. The incident sparked public outrage and raised questions about the US military presence in Philippine waters under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Various environmental and activist groups filed a petition for a Writ of Kalikasan, seeking accountability and compensation for the reef damage.	Constitutional Law I
Pulgar vs. The Regional Trial Court of Mauban, Quezon, Br. 64, et al. (10th September 2014)	734 SCRA 527, 742 Phil. 557, G.R. No. 157583	This case involves a petition directly filed with the Supreme Court challenging the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) dismissal of petitioner Frumencio Pulgar's motion for intervention in Civil Case No. 0587-M. The RTC dismissed the main case, originally filed by Quezon Power (Philippines) Limited, Co. (QPL) as a consignation and damages complaint protesting a realty tax assessment, for lack of jurisdiction, ruling it should have been filed with the Local Board of Assessment Appeals. Consequently, the RTC also dismissed Pulgar's intervention. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that since intervention is merely ancillary, the dismissal of the main case due to lack of jurisdiction necessarily results in the dismissal of the intervention.	The underlying dispute concerned the Municipal Assessor of Mauban, Quezon's 1999 assessment of significant realty taxes on the Mauban Power Plant owned by Quezon Power (Philippines) Limited, Co. (QPL), based on a market value far exceeding QPL's own declared value. QPL contested the assessment's validity and the assessor's authority.	Civil Procedure I Intervention
SM Land, Inc. vs. Bases Conversion and Development Authority (13th August 2014)	733 SCRA 68, 756 PHIL. 354, G.R. No. 203655	This case involves a Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) and its President. The Court affirmed its earlier Decision which granted SM Land Inc.'s (SMLI) petition for certiorari and directed BCDA to proceed with the competitive challenge for SMLI's unsolicited proposal for the Bonifacio South Property. The Court reiterated that a perfected contract existed between SMLI and BCDA (the Certification of Successful Negotiations), mandating the competitive challenge process under the NEDA JV Guidelines, which have the force of law, and that BCDA was estopped from unilaterally cancelling the process.	The dispute originated from an unsolicited proposal submitted by SMLI to BCDA for the development of the Bonifacio South Property through a joint venture. After negotiations, BCDA accepted the proposal's terms and conditions and issued a Certification of Successful Negotiations (CSN), agreeing to subject SMLI's proposal to a competitive challenge (Swiss Challenge) as outlined in the NEDA JV Guidelines and the agreed Terms of Reference (TOR). Subsequently, BCDA unilaterally cancelled the competitive challenge process, intending to subject the property to public bidding instead, prompting SMLI to file a petition.	Civil Procedure I Intervention
Araullo vs. Aquino (1st July 2014)	728 SCRA 1, 737 Phil. 457, G.R. No. 209287, G.R. NO. 209135, G.R. NO. 209136, G.R. NO. 209155, G.R. NO. 209164, G.R. NO. 209260, G.R. NO. 209442, G.R. NO. 209517, G.R. NO. 209569	This case involves the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) implemented by the administration of President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. Petitioners challenged the legality of DAP, arguing that it violated constitutional provisions on government spending. The Supreme Court ruled that key parts of the DAP were unconstitutional, specifically those allowing cross-border transfers and funding projects not covered by the General Appropriations Act (GAA).	The Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) was a mechanism introduced by the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) under Secretary Florencio Abad. It allowed the executive branch to pool savings from various government agencies and realign them to other projects to accelerate economic growth. However, petitioners argued that it violated the constitutional power of Congress over appropriations.	Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
People vs. Jumawan (21st April 2014)	722 SCRA 108, 733 Phil. 102, G.R. No. 187495	Accused-appellant Edgar Jumawan was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) for two counts of raping his wife, KKK, on October 16 and 17, 1998. Jumawan appealed to the Supreme Court, primarily arguing against the concept of marital rape, asserting implied consent within marriage, and raising the defense of alibi. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that R.A. No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997) explicitly removed marital immunity for rape, thereby rejecting the outdated doctrine of irrevocable implied consent. The Court found the victim's testimony credible and corroborated by her daughters, deemed the appellant's alibi insufficient, and upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count, with modifications only to the civil damages awarded.	The accused-appellant, Edgar Jumawan, and the private complainant, KKK, were married in 1975, raised four children, and established several businesses primarily managed by KKK. While their conjugal intimacy was initially fulfilling, the accused-appellant reportedly became sexually brutal starting in 1997, foregoing foreplay and causing physical pain, leading KKK to resist, which resulted in threats. In 1998, quarrels increased, often initiated by the accused-appellant complaining about KKK's preoccupation with their businesses' financial problems and her alleged failure to attend to him, stating a woman's place was at home and in bed.	Criminal Law II Rape
Imbong vs. Ochoa Jr. (8th April 2014)	721 SCRA 146, 732 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 204819, G.R. No. 204934, G.R. No. 204957, G.R. No. 204988, G.R. No. 205003, G.R. No. 205043, G.R. No. 205138, G.R. No. 205478, G.R. No. 205491, G.R. No. 205720, G.R. No. 206355, G.R. No. 207111, G.R. No. 207172, G.R. No. 207563	This consolidated case involves multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) in the Philippines. Petitioners argue that the RH Law violates various constitutional rights including the right to life, health, religious freedom, and due process. The Supreme Court partially granted the petitions, declaring certain provisions of the RH Law and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional while upholding the law's general validity.	The Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) was enacted to address population growth and improve reproductive health in the Philippines. It mandates government provision of reproductive health services and supplies, including contraceptives, and requires sex education in schools. The law generated significant controversy and strong opposition, particularly from religious groups. Shortly after its enactment, various groups filed petitions challenging its constitutionality.	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law
Republic vs. De Guzman Vda. de Joson (10th March 2014)	728 Phil. 550, 718 SCRA 228, G.R. No. 163767	This case involves the Republic's appeal against the Court of Appeals' decision affirming the lower court's grant of land registration to Rosario de Guzman Vda. de Joson. The Supreme Court reversed the CA and CFI decisions, holding that De Joson failed to sufficiently prove that the land in question was alienable and disposable public land, a necessary requirement for land registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree. The Court emphasized that mere possession, even for a long period, is insufficient without proof of the land's alienable and disposable status through a positive act of government.	Rosario de Guzman Vda. de Joson applied for land registration based on her and her predecessors-in-interest's alleged open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession and occupation of the land since 1926. The Republic opposed, arguing the land was unclassified forest land and not subject to private appropriation. The CFI and CA ruled in favor of De Joson, but the Republic appealed to the Supreme Court.	Property and Land Law
Pryce Corporation vs. China Banking Corporation (18th February 2014)	716 SCRA 207, 727 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 172302	This case involves a dispute over the corporate rehabilitation of Pryce Corporation and the conflicting decisions issued by two divisions of the Court of Appeals regarding the approval of its rehabilitation plan. The Supreme Court ultimately resolved whether the principle of res judicata applied and if a hearing was necessary before the issuance of a stay order in corporate rehabilitation cases.	Pryce Corporation filed for corporate rehabilitation in 2004. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati found the petition sufficient and issued a stay order. The rehabilitation receiver submitted an amended plan, which the RTC approved. China Banking Corporation (China Bank) and Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) challenged the approval, leading to conflicting rulings in the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court resolved the issue in favor of Pryce Corporation.	Philosophy of Law
Disini vs. Secretary of Justice (11th February 2014)	727 Phil. 28, G.R. No. 203335, G.R. No. 203299, G.R. No. 203306, G.R. No. 203359, G.R. No. 203378, G.R. No. 203391, G.R. No. 203407, G.R. No. 203440, G.R. No. 203453, G.R. No. 203454, G.R. No. 203469, G.R. No. 203501, G.R. No. 203501, G.R. No. 203515, G.R. No. 203518	These consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionality of several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, arguing that certain sections violate constitutional rights related to freedom of expression, due process, privacy, and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court partially upheld and partially struck down provisions of the law after extensive review.	The Cybercrime Prevention Act was enacted to regulate cyberspace activities, aiming to address cybercrimes while recognizing the internet's benefits. Petitioners argue that the law’s means to regulate cyberspace activities infringe upon constitutional rights. The government asserts the law is a reasonable measure to maintain order in cyberspace, prevent wrongdoings, and protect systems from attacks. A Temporary Restraining Order was initially issued and later extended, preventing the law's implementation pending adjudication.	Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Manila Memorial Park, Inc. vs. Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (3rd December 2013)	711 SCRA 302, 722 Phil. 538, G.R. No. 175356	This case addresses the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 7432, as amended by RA 9257, specifically concerning the tax deduction scheme for businesses granting senior citizen discounts, with petitioners arguing it constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, while the Court ultimately upholds the law as a valid exercise of police power.	Manila Memorial Park, Inc. and La Funeraria Paz-Sucat, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of the tax deduction scheme implemented for senior citizen discounts, claiming it violates the constitutional provision against taking private property for public use without just compensation.	Constitutional Law II
Republic vs. Bacas (20th November 2013)	710 SCRA 411, 721 Phil. 808, G.R. No. 182913	This case involves a petition by the Republic of the Philippines to annul land titles obtained by private individuals (Bacases and Chabons) for parcels of land within the Camp Evangelista Military Reservation. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic, declaring the land registration proceedings null and void due to lack of jurisdiction of the Land Registration Court (LRC) over inalienable public land and because the private individuals fraudulently failed to disclose the military reservation and occupancy in their applications.	President Quezon issued Proclamation No. 265 in 1938, reserving land for military purposes, creating Camp Evangelista. Despite this, the Bacases and Chabons filed separate land registration applications in 1964 and 1974, respectively, for parcels within the reservation. The Land Registration Court granted their applications, leading to Original Certificates of Title. The Republic then filed actions to annul these titles.	Property and Land Law
Belgica vs. Ochoa (19th November 2013)	710 SCRA 1, 721 Phil. 416, G.R. No. 208566, G.R. No. 208493, G.R. No. 209251	The Supreme Court declared the "Pork Barrel System," encompassing both Congressional and Presidential Pork Barrel, unconstitutional for violating the principles of separation of powers, non-delegability of legislative power, and checks and balances.	The case arose from public outrage and concern over the alleged misuse and corruption associated with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and other lump-sum discretionary funds, particularly in light of the Commission on Audit (CoA) report and the "Napoles controversy."	Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Statutory Construction
Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation (8th October 2013)	690 SCRA 336, 719 Phil. 137, G.R. No. 187485, G.R. No. 196113, G.R. No. 197156	The Supreme Court resolved whether taxpayers must strictly comply with the mandatory 120+30-day periods for filing judicial claims for VAT refunds under the Tax Code, addressing exceptions based on BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 (2003–2010) and the doctrine of operative fact.	San Roque Power Corporation filed a judicial claim for VAT refund 13 days after its administrative claim, violating the 120-day waiting period. The Court of Tax Appeals granted the refund, but the Supreme Court reversed, emphasizing strict compliance with procedural timelines.	Statutory Construction
Heirs of Mario Malabanan vs. Republic of the Philippines (3rd September 2013)	704 SCRA 561, 717 Phil. 141, G.R. No. 179987	This case involves a petition for land registration which was denied by the Court of Appeals and initially upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court resolution addressed motions for reconsideration from both parties, ultimately denying them and reiterating that possession of alienable and disposable public land for registration under Section 14(1) of the Property Registration Decree must be proven to have commenced and been continuous since June 12, 1945, and the land must have been classified as alienable and disposable at the time of application, though not necessarily for the entire duration of possession.	Mario Malabanan applied for land registration in 1998 claiming ownership through purchase and continuous, open, public, and adverse possession for over 30 years, asserting the land was alienable and disposable public land. The Republic opposed, arguing failure to prove the land's alienable and disposable nature and insufficient possession as required by law.	Property and Land Law
Chingkoe vs. Republic (13th July 2013)	702 SCRA 677, 715 Phil. 651, G.R. No. 183608	This case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals' decision which reversed the Regional Trial Court's dismissal of two consolidated collection cases filed by the Bureau of Customs (BOC). The RTC dismissed the cases due to the repeated failure of the BOC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to appear at pre-trial hearings. The CA granted the BOC's Petition for Certiorari, finding grave abuse of discretion by the RTC and ordered the remand of the cases. The Supreme Court reversed the CA, ruling that certiorari was the wrong remedy (appeal should have been filed) and that the RTC's dismissal was justified, but modified the dismissal to be without prejudice due to the public interest involved in the collection of taxes.	The case originated from two separate collection suits filed by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Bureau of Customs (BOC), seeking to recover allegedly unpaid customs duties and taxes from Chiat Sing Cardboard Inc. and Filstar Textile Industrial Corporation (Filstar), along with individual defendants including the petitioners Faustino and Gloria Chingkoe. The basis for the collection suits was the alleged use of fake and spurious tax credit certificates originally issued to Filstar and subsequently used by Chiat Sing to settle import duties, and the fraudulent acquisition of tax credit certificates by Filstar itself.	Civil Procedure I Pre-trial
Eagleridge Development Corporation vs. Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. (10th April 2013)	695 SCRA 714, 708 Phil. 693, G.R. No. 204700	This case involves a petition seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals' dismissal of a certiorari petition, which had challenged the Regional Trial Court's denial of the petitioners' motion for the production and inspection of a Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA). The petitioners, defendants in a collection suit where the plaintiff's credit was assigned to the respondent, argued the LSPA was crucial to determine the assignment price for exercising their right of redemption under Article 1634 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that the LSPA was relevant and material, and its production was necessary for fair litigation and the petitioners' right to discovery, ordering the respondent to produce the document.	Export and Industry Bank (EIB) initiated a collection suit against Eagleridge Development Corporation (EDC) and its sureties, Marcelo N. Naval and Crispin I. Oben, for an outstanding loan obligation. During the pendency of this suit, EIB assigned EDC's loan obligation to Cameron Granville 3 Asset Management, Inc. (Cameron), a special purpose vehicle, through a Deed of Assignment which referenced an underlying Loan Sale and Purchase Agreement (LSPA). Cameron was subsequently substituted as the plaintiff in the collection case.	Civil Procedure I Discovery
Bongalon vs. People (20th March 2013)	694 SCRA 12, 707 Phil. 11, G.R. No. 169533	This case involves a petitioner convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) for child abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 for striking and slapping a minor. The Supreme Court, despite procedural lapses in the petition, reviewed the case on its merits, set aside the conviction for child abuse, and found the petitioner guilty only of slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, applying the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation. The Court emphasized that not every act of physical contact against a child constitutes child abuse; specific intent to debase, degrade, or demean the child's intrinsic worth must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.	The incident occurred during an evening procession where the petitioner's minor daughters and the victim, Jayson dela Cruz (a 12-year-old minor), along with his brother, were participants or bystanders. An initial altercation involving alleged stone-throwing and name-calling between the children preceded the petitioner's confrontation with Jayson.	Criminal Law II Slight Physical Injuries
Fernando vs. St. Scholastica's College (12th March 2013)	693 SCRA 141, 706 Phil. 138, G.R. No. 161107	This case involves a petition challenging the validity of a Marikina City ordinance regulating fences and walls. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, declaring Sections 3.1 and 5 of the ordinance invalid for being an ultra vires exercise of police power that amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation and violated due process and right to privacy.	The City of Marikina enacted Ordinance No. 192 aiming to regulate fence construction for public safety, security, beautification, and neighborliness. The ordinance set height limits and see-through requirements for fences and mandated a five-meter parking setback for certain establishments, including educational institutions. St. Scholastica's College, affected by this ordinance, challenged its validity.	Constitutional Law II
Pilar Development Corporation vs. Dumadag (11th March 2013)	693 SCRA 96, 706 Phil. 93, G.R. No. 194336	This case concerns a petition for review on certiorari regarding the dismissal of an accion publiciana filed by Pilar Development Corporation (PDC) against residents who built shanties on its property. The core issue is whether PDC can recover possession of a 3-meter strip of land within its titled property designated as a public easement along Mahabang Ilog Creek. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the 3-meter strip is a public easement and that the proper party to seek recovery of possession is the Republic of the Philippines or the local government, not PDC.	Pilar Development Corporation claimed ownership of a property within Pilar Village Subdivision, a portion of which was occupied by respondents who built shanties. PDC filed an accion publiciana to evict the respondents, arguing they built without consent on land designated for village recreational facilities. The respondents countered that the local government, not PDC, had jurisdiction over the area. The trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed PDC's complaint, finding the occupied area was a public easement.	Property and Land Law
Dayao vs. Commission on Elections (29th January 2013)	689 SCRA 412, 702 Phil. 348, G.R. No. 193643	The Supreme Court dismissed petitions for certiorari seeking the annulment of COMELEC resolutions that denied the cancellation of LPGMA's party-list registration, affirming that the COMELEC's decision to grant registration to a party-list group can become final and conclusive, barring subsequent challenges unless new grounds for cancellation arise post-registration.	Petitioners, who are dealers of LPG and an association of industries, sought to cancel the registration of LPGMA as a sectoral organization under the Party-List System, arguing that LPGMA did not represent a marginalized sector.	Statutory Construction
Giron vs. Commission on Elections (22nd January 2013)	689 SCRA 97, 702 Phil. 30, G.R. No. 188179	Henry Giron challenged the constitutionality of Sections 12 and 14 of Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Act), which deal with substitution of candidates and repeal of certain provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, claiming they violate the "one subject-one title" rule of the Constitution.	The case was a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition filed by Giron against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) regarding the implementation of the Fair Election Act.	Statutory Construction
University of the Philippines vs. Dizon (23rd August 2012)	679 SCRA 54, 693 Phil. 226, G.R. No. 171182	This case involves the University of the Philippines (UP) challenging a Court of Appeals decision that upheld the garnishment of UP's funds to satisfy a judgment in favor of a construction company. The Supreme Court ruled that UP's funds, being government funds, were not subject to garnishment and that the Commission on Audit had primary jurisdiction over the monetary claim.	The case originated from a construction contract dispute between UP and Stern Builders. When UP failed to pay, Stern Builders sued and won a judgment for damages. UP's attempts to appeal were denied for being late, leading to the garnishment of its funds. UP then challenged the garnishment through various legal actions, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.	Constitutional Law I
Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the Retired Chief/Associate Justice of the Supreme Court (31st July 2012)	678 SCRA 1, 692 Phil. 147, A.M. No. 11-7-10-SC	This administrative matter addresses the conflict between the Supreme Court's chosen formula (CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35) and the Commission on Audit's preferred formula (COA Memorandum No. 98-569-A) for computing the appraisal value of properties purchased by retired Supreme Court Justices. The Supreme Court En Banc, invoking the Judiciary's constitutional fiscal autonomy and independence, resolved that its in-house computation method is legal and valid, confirming its authority to determine the manner of disposing its properties, including setting the valuation for items sold as a retirement privilege to its Justices, without being dictated by the COA on the specific formula to use.	The issue arose from a Commission on Audit (COA) Opinion finding an underpayment by five retired Supreme Court Justices who purchased personal properties (mostly vehicles) assigned to them during their tenure. The COA contested the valuation formula used by the Supreme Court's Property Division, which was based on the Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) Joint Resolution No. 35, insisting that a different COA formula should have been applied. This prompted the Supreme Court's Office of Administrative Services to seek clarification from the Court En Banc regarding the proper formula.	Constitutional Law I
Madriaga, Jr. vs. China Banking Corporation (25th July 2012)	677 SCRA 560, 691 Phil. 770, G.R. No. 192377	This case involves a dispute over property ownership following a series of transactions, including a sale, a compromise agreement, an execution sale, and a mortgage foreclosure. The Supreme Court ruled that the satisfaction of the writ of possession rendered the case moot and that the issuance of the ex parte writ did not violate due process, as the petitioner had opportunities to contest it and the possession was not considered adverse to the original mortgagor.	The dispute originated from a sale of properties by Spouses Trajano to Madriaga, Sr., followed by complications involving a mortgage with Asia Trust Bank, an execution sale in favor of Madriaga, Sr., and a subsequent mortgage with China Bank that led to foreclosure.	Constitutional Law II
Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council (17th July 2012)	676 SCRA 579, 691 Phil. 173, G.R. No. 202242	The Supreme Court declared the Judicial and Bar Council’s (JBC) eight-member composition unconstitutional, ruling that Congress is entitled to only one representative under the 1987 Constitution. The Court ordered the JBC to reconstitute itself with seven members.	After Chief Justice Renato Corona’s removal in May 2012, petitioner Francisco Chavez (a nominee for Chief Justice) challenged the JBC’s composition. The JBC had included two congressional representatives since 1994, initially splitting one vote and later granting each a full vote.	Statutory Construction
Liwag vs. Happy Glen Loop Homeowners Association, Inc (4th July 2012)	675 SCRA 744, 690 Phil. 321, G.R. No. 189755	This case involves a dispute over the ownership and use of Lot 11, Block 5 in Happy Glen Loop Subdivision, Caloocan City, where a water facility has served the subdivision's residents for over 30 years. Emeteria Liwag, as successor-in-title, sought to remove the water tank on the lot, while the homeowners’ association argued that the lot was an open space reserved for public use. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's ruling that the lot was part of the subdivision's open space and subject to an easement for the water facility, rendering the sale of the lot to Liwag void.	In 1978, F.G.R. Sales, the original subdivision developer, assigned rights to Ernesto Marcelo due to financial obligations. Marcelo assured government agencies that water facilities were available in the subdivision. The water facility on Lot 11, Block 5 became the sole water source for residents for over 30 years. In 1995, Marcelo sold Lot 11, Block 5 to Hermogenes Liwag. After his death, Emeteria Liwag demanded the removal of the water tank, prompting the homeowners' association to file a case before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).	Statutory Construction
Re: Request for Copy of 2008 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth [SALN] and Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the Justices of the Supreme Court and Officers and Employees of the Judiciary (13th June 2012)	672 SCRA 27, 687 Phil. 24, A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC	This consolidated administrative matter addresses numerous requests filed by various individuals and organizations, primarily media entities, seeking copies of the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), Personal Data Sheets (PDS), and Curriculum Vitae (CV) of Justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, lower court judges, and other judiciary personnel. The Supreme Court, acknowledging the constitutional right to information and the statutory duty of public officials to disclose their assets, balanced these rights against the need to protect judicial independence, ensure the safety of judiciary members, and prevent the misuse of sensitive personal information. The Court ultimately resolved to grant the requests but subjected the release of such documents to specific, detailed guidelines aimed at regulating access, verifying the legitimacy of the purpose, and requiring En Banc approval for requests pertaining to Justices of appellate courts.	The case arose from initial requests by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) in 2009 for the 2008 SALNs and PDS/CVs of Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Justices to update their database on government officials. Following these initial requests, numerous similar petitions were filed by various media outlets, organizations, individuals, and even government offices (like the Ombudsman and Malacañang seeking comment on a bill) for SALNs and other personal documents of judiciary members covering different years, spurred by interests in transparency, governance reporting, academic research, impeachment proceedings, and general public information.	Constitutional Law I
Marcos, Jr. vs. Republic (25th April 2012)	671 SCRA280, 686 Phil. 980, G.R. No. 189434	The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan's decision to forfeit the assets of Arelma, S.A., a corporation created by Ferdinand E. Marcos, in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, holding that the Marcoses failed to prove the assets were lawfully acquired and that summary judgment was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.	This case involves the Republic's efforts to recover ill-gotten wealth allegedly acquired by the Marcoses during their time in power, specifically focusing on assets held by Arelma, S.A.	Constitutional Law II
Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. vs. University of the Philippines (18th April 2012)	670 SCRA 206, 686 Phil. 191, G.R. No. 185918	This case involves a labor dispute between Lockheed Detective and Watchman Agency, Inc. and the University of the Philippines (UP) regarding the payment of wages and benefits to security guards. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision that money claims against UP must first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA) before execution can be made.	The case stems from a labor dispute between security guards and their employers, Lockheed and UP. After winning their case for unpaid wages and benefits, the security guards sought to execute the judgment. This led to the garnishment of UP's funds in a PNB account. UP contested this garnishment, arguing that the funds were public funds and thus exempt from execution without going through the proper channels.	Constitutional Law I
China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (Group) vs. Santamaria (7th February 2012)	665 SCRA 189, 681 Phil. 198, G.R. No. 185572	The Supreme Court ruled that China National Machinery & Equipment Corp. (CNMEG) is not entitled to immunity from suit and that the Contract Agreement for the North Luzon Railway System project is not an executive agreement. The case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings regarding the validity of the contracts.	The case revolves around the Northrail Project, a railway construction project in the Philippines. CNMEG, a Chinese corporation, was contracted to construct the railway. When the respondents filed a complaint to annul the contracts, CNMEG claimed immunity from suit as an agent of the Chinese government. The case progressed through various courts, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court to determine whether CNMEG was immune from suit and whether the Contract Agreement was an executive agreement.	Constitutional Law I
Villareal vs. People (1st February 2012)	664 SCRA 519, 680 Phil. 527, G.R. No. 151258, G.R. No. 154954, G.R. No. 155101, G.R. No. 178057, G.R. No. 178080	This case involves the death of Leonardo "Lenny" Villa during a fraternity initiation rite conducted by the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity at Ateneo de Manila University. The Supreme Court ruled that the accused fraternity members were guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, modifying the Court of Appeals' decision which had acquitted most of the accused and convicted only a few for slight physical injuries.	Lenny Villa, a law student at Ateneo de Manila University, died during the initiation rites of the Aquila Legis Juris Fraternity in February 1991. The initiation involved physical beatings and psychological pressure, leading to Villa's death from cardiac failure due to multiple traumatic injuries. The case led to the enactment of the Anti-Hazing Law in 1995.	Philosophy of Law
Commissioner of Customs vs. Hypermix Feeds Corporation (1st February 2012)	664 SCRA 666, 680 Phil. 681, G.R. No. 179579	The Supreme Court invalidated Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 27-2003 for violating due process and equal protection rights. The regulation imposed different tariff rates on wheat imports based on arbitrary classifications, such as importer type and port of discharge, without proper compliance with procedural requirements like notice, hearing, and publication.	Hypermix Feeds Corporation challenged CMO No. 27-2003, which classified wheat imports as either food grade (3% tariff) or feed grade (7% tariff) based on factors like importer identity, country of origin, and port of discharge. Hypermix argued that the regulation unfairly classified its wheat as feed grade despite being food grade, subjected it to higher tariffs, and violated constitutional rights.	Statutory Construction
Alma Jose vs. Javellana (25th January 2012)	664 SCRA 11, 680 Phil. 10, G.R. No. 158239	The Supreme Court affirmed that the denial of a motion for reconsideration of an order granting a motion to dismiss is a final, not interlocutory order, as it conclusively terminates the matter. Under the "fresh period rule," a party has 15 days from notice of denial to appeal.	In 1979, Margarita Marquez Alma Jose sold two parcels of land to Ramon Javellana through a deed of conditional sale for ₱160,000. The agreement required Margarita to register the land under the Torrens System, with her children (Juvenal and Priscilla) authorized to receive the balance payment and proceed with registration if she became incapacitated.	Civil Procedure I
People vs. Trestiza (16th November 2011)	660 SCRA 407, 676 Phil. 420, G.R. No. 193833	A case involving the kidnapping for ransom of Lawrence Yu and Irma Navarro by police officers and a private individual who initially claimed they were conducting a legitimate drug operation. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for kidnapping with ransom despite their being police officers.		Criminal Law II
Datu Michael Abas Kida vs. Senate of the Philippines (18th October 2011)	659 SCRA 270, 675 Phil. 316, G.R. No. 196271, G.R. NO. 196305, G.R. NO. 197221, G.R. NO. 197282, G.R. NO. 197392, G.R. NO. 197454	The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) No. 10153, which synchronized the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) elections with national and local elections. Petitioners argued the law violated constitutional requirements for legislative procedure, regional autonomy, and the President’s power to appoint interim officials, but the Court ruled synchronization was a constitutional mandate and the law’s provisions were valid.	RA No. 10153 reset the August 2011 ARMM elections to May 2013 to align with national and local polls. Petitioners challenged the law, claiming it violated ARMM’s autonomy, legislative processes, and the constitutional requirement for elective regional positions.	Constitutional Law I Statutory Construction