Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 599 results on the current subject filter

Title	IDs & Reference #s	Background	Primary Holding	Subject Matter
Pulido v. People (27th July 2021)	AK493307 995 SCRA 1 , G.R. No. 220149	The case arose from a criminal complaint for Bigamy filed by Nora S. Arcon against her husband, Luisito G. Pulido. Pulido married Arcon in 1983. While this marriage was subsisting, he married another woman, Rowena U. Baleda, in 1995. Upon discovering the second marriage in 2007, Arcon filed the bigamy charge. Pulido's defense centered on the claim that his first marriage to Arcon was void ab initio due to the absence of a valid marriage license, a fact which was later confirmed by a judicial declaration of nullity obtained while the bigamy case was ongoing.	In a criminal prosecution for bigamy, an accused can validly interpose the defense of a void ab initio marriage, and a judicial declaration of the absolute nullity of the first and/or subsequent marriage, irrespective of the time it was obtained, is a valid defense that negates the element of a prior valid and subsisting marriage.	Persons and Family Law Family Code, Article 40
Ambrose vs. Suque-Ambrose (23rd June 2021)	AK169090 988 SCRA 482 , G.R. No. 206761	The petitioner, a citizen of the United States, married the respondent, a citizen of the Philippines, in Manila. Two years later, the petitioner sought to have their marriage declared void on the ground of the respondent's psychological incapacity under Philippine law. The dispute arose when the trial court dismissed his petition not on its merits, but on the purely legal question of whether he, as a foreigner, had the standing to file such a case in a Philippine court.	A foreign national who is married in the Philippines has the legal capacity and personality to file a petition for declaration of nullity of that marriage before a Philippine court. The governing principle is _lex loci celebrationis_ (the law of the place of the ceremony), not the nationality principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code; thus, Philippine law applies to the incidents and consequences of a marriage celebrated in the Philippines, irrespective of the contracting parties' citizenship.	Persons and Family Law Article 26 and 36, Family Code; Article 15, Civil Code
National Power Corporation vs. Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (14th June 2021)	AK620202 985 SCRA 198 , G.R. No. 218378	National Power Corporation (NPC), a government-owned corporation, supplied electricity to Benguet Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BENECO), a power distributor, under a franchise agreement and a formal Transition Contract for the Supply of Electricity. The contract governed the terms of power delivery, metering, and billing between the two entities. The dispute arose from a billing error at the Irisan Substation, one of the delivery points from NPC to BENECO.	The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code is not a catch-all remedy and cannot be invoked when a valid contract exists between the parties; the provisions of the contract shall govern the parties' rights and obligations, including the remedies for breaches or errors.	Persons and Family Law Article 22, New Civil Code
Abel vs. Rule (12th May 2021)	AK212824 984 SCRA 429 , G.R. No. 234457	The case arose from a petition to recognize a foreign judgment of divorce. The petitioner, Raemark S. Abel, was a US citizen when he married Mindy P. Rule, a Filipino citizen, in California. They later jointly filed for and were granted a summary dissolution of their marriage by a California court. Subsequently, Abel reacquired his Filipino citizenship (becoming a dual citizen), while Rule became a naturalized US citizen. Abel sought to have their foreign divorce recognized in the Philippines to be able to register his subsequent marriage, but the government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed it on the ground that the divorce was obtained jointly, which it argued was contrary to Philippine public policy and the text of Article 26(2) of the Family Code.	Under Article 26(2) of the Family Code, a foreign divorce decree can be judicially recognized in the Philippines regardless of who initiated the proceedings—whether it was the alien spouse, the Filipino spouse, or both spouses jointly. Once a divorce decree is issued by a competent foreign court capacitating the alien spouse to remarry, the alien spouse is deemed to have "obtained" the divorce within the meaning of the law, thereby allowing the Filipino spouse to also have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.	Persons and Family Law Article 26(2) of the Family Code
Tan-Andal vs. Andal (11th May 2021)	AK194649 983 SCRA 28 , G.R. No. 196359	The interpretation of Article 36 of the Family Code on psychological incapacity has been historically restrictive, primarily due to the landmark cases of _Santos v. Court of Appeals_ and _Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina_. The _Molina_ doctrine, in particular, established a set of eight stringent guidelines that courts were required to follow, including the requirement that the incapacity be medically or clinically identified, proven by experts, and shown to be grave, permanent, and incurable. This rigid framework was criticized in subsequent cases like _Ngo Te v. Yu-Te_ for being a "strait-jacket" that was inconsistent with the legislative intent of making the provision humane and resilient. The present case provided the Supreme Court with the opportunity to restate the doctrine in light of evolving science, jurisprudence, and contemporary circumstances, aiming to create a more nuanced and humane application of the law.	Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code is a legal, not a medical, concept, and it is not a mental incapacity or a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion; its existence must be established by clear and convincing evidence showing a party's failure to comprehend and comply with their essential marital obligations due to a genuinely serious psychic cause that is grave, has juridical antecedence, and is incurable in a legal sense (i.e., enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner).	Persons and Family Law Family Code, Article 36
Ado-an-Morimoto vs. Morimoto (15th March 2021)	AK452809 976 SCRA 352 , G.R. No. 247576	Sometime before December 2007, a friend introduced petitioner Rosario D. Ado-an-Morimoto to respondent Yoshio Morimoto, a Japanese national. The introduction was made for the specific purpose of arranging a simulated marriage between them, which would serve as an artifice to facilitate Rosario's acquisition of a Japanese visa. The parties agreed to this arrangement with no intention of entering into a genuine marital relationship.	A marriage that is totally simulated, where the parties have no genuine intent to enter into marital relations and merely use it as a front to obtain illicit benefits, is void ab initio for the absolute lack of the essential requisite of consent.	Persons and Family Law Family Code, Articles 2, 3, and 4
Ridao vs. Handmade Credit and Loans, Inc. (3rd February 2021)	AK229915 895 Phil. 554 , G.R. No. 236920	Petitioner Gemma A. Ridao obtained loans from respondent Handmade Credit and Loans, Inc., represented by Ridao's brother-in-law, Teofilo Manipon. A dispute arose when Handmade Credit claimed Ridao failed to pay her obligations, including an alleged increased dollar loan and an additional peso loan, while Ridao asserted she had fully paid the admitted $4,300.00 loan obligation.	Once a debtor introduces evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the evidence shifts to the creditor, who then has the duty to produce evidence to show non-payment; material alterations on a promissory note made without the assent of the other contracting party render the instrument void and unenforceable by the party causing the alteration.	Criminal Law II
Pante vs. People (18th January 2021)	AK603265 969 SCRA 243 , 894 Phil. 54 , G.R. No. 218969	Dawson Word lost a bundle of money (US dollars and Philippine pesos). A minor, one of Pante's co-accused, found the money and shared it with Pante and another minor. Pante, the only adult, took a significant portion of the money and used it for personal expenses. He only returned a portion after police intervention.	A person who receives lost property from the original finder and subsequently misappropriates it, knowing it is not rightfully theirs, is considered a "finder in law" and can be held liable for theft under Article 308, par. 2(1) of the Revised Penal Code for failing to return the property to the owner or authorities.	Property and Land Law
Re: Letter of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Roco Corona Requesting the Grant of Retirement and Other Benefits to the Late Former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and Her Claim for Survivorship Pension as His Wife Under Republic Act No. 9946 (12th January 2021)	AK237996 968 SCRA 12 , 893 Phil. 231 , A.M. No. 20-07-10-SC	Renato C. Corona served as an Associate Justice for eight years before being appointed Chief Justice in 2010. In 2011, impeachment proceedings were initiated against him by the House of Representatives on grounds including betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution. Following a trial, the Senate convicted him in 2012 primarily based on Article II concerning his failure to accurately declare his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), leading to his removal from office. Subsequently, criminal, tax, and forfeiture cases were filed against him but were all dismissed following his death in 2016, prior to any final judgment.	Removal from office via impeachment only results in removal and disqualification from holding public office and does not, by itself, cause the forfeiture of accrued retirement benefits; forfeiture requires a separate judicial conviction for criminal, civil, or administrative liabilities, which did not occur in the case of the late Chief Justice Corona due to his death terminating such proceedings.	Constitutional Law I
Cabasal vs. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (18th November 2020)	AK197938 963 SCRA 369 , G.R. No. 233846	Petitioners Spouses Nestor and Ma. Belen Cabasal were engaged in a build-and-sell business and obtained a credit line from BPI Family Savings Bank (BPI), secured by mortgages on two real properties. After three years, they found a buyer, Eloisa Guevarra Co, who agreed to purchase the properties through a sale with assumption of mortgage. At the time of this proposed transaction, the petitioners' loan accounts with BPI were already past due. The dispute arose from the interaction between the petitioners, their buyer, and a BPI employee when they attempted to process the transaction at the bank.	An act cannot be considered an abuse of right under Article 19 of the New Civil Code unless the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the act was performed in bad faith or with a malicious intent to injure; merely enforcing a company policy or being blunt in communication, without a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity, does not give rise to liability for damages.	Persons and Family Law Article 19, 20, and 21, New Civil Code
DPWH vs. Manalo (16th November 2020)	AK226477 G.R. No. 217656	Respondents are owners of residential structures located on land owned by the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) along Luzon Avenue, Quezon City. These structures were directly affected by the Department of Public Works and Highways' (DPWH) C-5 extension project, designed to link the South Luzon Expressway and the North Luzon Expressway. The DPWH sought to clear the area for the project, leading to a dispute over compensation and the process of eviction and demolition.	The complaint filed by informal settlers whose residential structures are affected by a government infrastructure project sufficiently states a cause of action if it alleges their ownership of the structures, the government agency's obligation to respect their rights to due process (including procedures under R.A. No. 7279 for eviction and demolition), and the agency's violation of these rights. Underprivileged and homeless citizens cannot be summarily evicted or their dwellings demolished without adherence to the legal requirements for notice, consultation, and relocation or financial assistance as mandated by the Constitution and relevant statutes.	Civil Procedure I
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Central Bank of the Philippines (12th October 2020)	AK149491 958 SCRA 224 , 887 Phil. 849 , G.R. No. 197593	The case revolves around a sophisticated bank fraud scheme that exploited vulnerabilities in the check clearing process. Syndicate members opened accounts at BPI and Citibank, then deposited fraudulent checks. CBP employees Valentino and Estacio intercepted and altered clearing documents, preventing BPI from dishonoring the checks. Citibank, unaware of the fraud, allowed withdrawals after the clearing period. BPI discovered the ₱9 million loss and sought full reimbursement from CBP, which only partially complied. The legal battle that ensued focused on CBP's liability for its employees' actions and the nature of its clearing house operations.		Constitutional Law I
Araza vs. People (8th September 2020)	AK703368 882 Phil. 905 , G.R. No. 247429	The case arose from the marital relationship between Jaime Araza (petitioner) and AAA (private complainant), who were married in 1989. Their relationship deteriorated around February 2007 when Araza went to Zamboanga City for a networking business. AAA later discovered that Araza was having an affair with Tessie Luy Fabillar and had fathered three children with her. This discovery and Araza's subsequent actions led to AAA experiencing emotional and psychological distress, prompting her to file a criminal complaint.	Marital infidelity, when it causes mental or emotional anguish to the wife, constitutes psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, and the law does not require that the victim become psychologically ill but only that emotional anguish and mental suffering be proven, typically through the victim's testimony.	Criminal Law II VAWC
Navarro-Banaria vs. Banaria (28th July 2020)	AK776525 945 SCRA 258 , G.R. No. 217806	The respondents are the children and grandchildren of the late Pascasio S. Banaria from his previous marriage. The petitioner, Adelaida C. Navarro-Banaria, is the legal wife of Pascasio and the stepmother to his children. At the time of the events, Pascasio was elderly, frail, and suffering from physical and mental infirmities that rendered him dependent on others. The dispute arose from the respondents' efforts to celebrate their patriarch's 90th birthday, an annual family tradition, and the petitioner's alleged malicious actions that prevented his attendance and caused the respondents significant distress and financial loss.	A person's exercise of a legal right, such as a wife's prerogative in matters concerning her husband, is not absolute and must conform to the standards of conduct prescribed by Article 19 of the Civil Code; exercising such a right in bad faith, with the intent to prejudice or injure another, constitutes an abuse of right that is legally actionable and gives rise to liability for damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code.	Persons and Family Law Article 19 and 21 of the Civil Code
People vs. Leocadio, et al. (15th July 2020)	AK428858 877 Phil. 819 , G.R. No. 237697	The case arose from the recruitment of young women, mostly minors, from impoverished island barangays in Getafe, Bohol, with promises of lucrative employment in an internet cafe in Angeles, Pampanga. This recruitment preyed on their vulnerability due to poverty, with the ultimate purpose being their engagement in cybersex operations.	The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation constitutes "trafficking in persons" even without the means enumerated for adult trafficking, and the crime is qualified if the victim is a child or if committed in large scale (against three or more persons); conspiracy can be inferred from the concerted acts of the accused towards a common criminal design.	Criminal Law II Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act
Kane vs. Roggenkamp (6th July 2020)	AK466674 G.R. No. 214326 , 941 SCRA 306	Alastair John Kane and Patricia Roggenkamp, both Australian citizens, were in a romantic relationship and resided together in Parañaque City, Philippines. Their relationship soured following an incident where Roggenkamp alleged that Kane physically assaulted her. This led to the filing of criminal charges against Kane for violation of R.A. 9262, with Roggenkamp as the private complainant. Kane was eventually acquitted in the criminal case, which then led Roggenkamp to file a separate civil suit for damages, sparking the procedural and substantive disputes that reached the Supreme Court.	An acquittal in a criminal case for physical violence based on reasonable doubt is not a bar to the subsequent filing of an independent civil action for damages for physical injuries under Article 33 of the Civil Code, unless the judgment of acquittal explicitly declares that the facts from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.	Persons and Family Law Article 33 of the Civil Code
People vs. Meneses (30th June 2020)	AK504298 940 SCRA 372 , 875 Phil. 724 , G.R. No. 233533	Joey Meneses was apprehended in a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers after a confidential informant reported his drug dealing activities. The operation stemmed from an initial transaction where Meneses sold marijuana to an undercover police officer. Subsequently, a planned buy-bust operation led to his arrest for selling both marijuana and shabu.	The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, which upheld the Regional Trial Court's conviction of Joey Meneses y Cano for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.	Criminal Law II
Lomarda vs. Fudalan (17th June 2020)	AK894620 938 SCRA 613 , G.R. No. 246012	Respondent Engr. Elmer Fudalan applied for electrical service from Bohol I Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BOHECO I) for his farmhouse. The process required him to hire a BOHECO I-authorized electrician and secure a certification from the local Barangay Power Association (BAPA), which was chaired by petitioner Crispina Raso. The dispute arose from the petitioners' actions following the respondent's attempt to comply with these requirements.	The exercise of a legal right, such as enforcing the rules of an electric cooperative, becomes an actionable tort under Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code if it is done in a manner contrary to morals and good customs, with the intent to injure another; such an abuse of rights warrants the award of damages to the aggrieved party.	Persons and Family Law
People vs. Sapla (16th June 2020)	AK889679 874 Phil. 240 , G.R. No. 244045	The case arises amidst the State's campaign against illegal drugs, juxtaposed with the fundamental constitutional right of individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, emphasizing that the fight against drugs cannot be pursued by sacrificing constitutionally protected rights.	Exclusive reliance on an unverified tip relayed by an anonymous informant is insufficient to engender probable cause that warrants an intrusive warrantless search and seizure; law enforcers must rely on their personal knowledge based on overt acts personally observed or other reliable circumstances, beyond the tip itself, to justify such a search.	Criminal Law II Searches and Seizures
Taisei Shimizu Joint Venture vs. Commission on Audit (2nd June 2020)	AK421432 936 SCRA 359 , 873 Phil. 323 , G.R. No. 238671	After completing the New Iloilo Airport project, TSJV found that some of its billings remained unpaid. They sought arbitration through CIAC, which granted a substantial award in their favor. When TSJV attempted to enforce this award, they encountered resistance from government agencies, leading them to seek enforcement through COA. However, COA only partially approved the payment, effectively modifying the CIAC's final and executory award. TSJV then brought the case to the Supreme Court, challenging COA's decision.		Constitutional Law I
Galapon vs. Republic (22nd January 2020)	AK051471 930 SCRA 51 , G.R. No. 243722	Cynthia A. Galapon, a Filipina, and Noh Shik Park, a South Korean national, were married in the Philippines in 2012. Their relationship deteriorated, and they subsequently obtained a divorce by mutual agreement in South Korea, which was confirmed by the Cheongju Local Court. Following the divorce, Galapon sought to have the foreign divorce decree recognized in the Philippines to regain her capacity to remarry.	Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code allows for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree in the Philippines regardless of whether the divorce was obtained solely by the foreign spouse, solely by the Filipino spouse, or jointly by both spouses. The purpose of the provision is to avoid the unjust situation where the Filipino spouse is still considered married under Philippine law while the foreign spouse is free to remarry under their own national law.	Persons and Family Law
In Re: Petition for Judicial Recognition of Divorce Between Minuro Takahashi and Juliet Rendora Moraña (5th December 2019)	AK060710 927 SCRA 265 , G.R. No. 227605	Petitioner Juliet Rendora Moraña, a Filipino, married Minoru Takahashi, a Japanese national, in the Philippines in 2002. They lived in Japan and had two children. After ten years, the couple became estranged, with the petitioner alleging that her husband failed to provide support and started cohabiting with another woman. Her husband suggested they obtain a divorce so that their children could receive financial assistance from the Japanese government. Believing it was for their children's welfare, the petitioner agreed, and they jointly applied for and were granted a divorce by the Office of the Mayor of Fukuyama City, Japan.	A foreign divorce decree, even if obtained jointly by the Filipino and alien spouses or initiated by the Filipino spouse alone, is recognizable in the Philippines for the purpose of capacitating the Filipino spouse to remarry, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code; however, both the fact of the divorce and the national law of the alien spouse allowing the divorce must be proven as facts in accordance with the Rules on Evidence.	Persons and Family Law
People vs. Guillermo (27th November 2019)	AK963268 926 SCRA 144 , 866 Phil. 690 , G.R. No. 229515	Nida and Desiree Guillermo were arrested in a buy-bust operation for allegedly selling shabu to a poseur-buyer. They were charged with violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. 9165. The prosecution presented the testimony of the arresting officers and the forensic chemist, while the defense presented testimonies denying the drug sale and alleging irregularities in the arrest and post-arrest procedures.	The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Nida and Desiree Guillermo beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, primarily due to inconsistencies and irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the chain of custody of the seized evidence.	Criminal Law II
People vs. Dela Rosa (6th November 2019)	AK098282 866 Phil. 36 , G.R. No. 227880	Ruth Dela Rosa and her common-law spouse Crisanto Samper took in and raised AAA, Crisanto's niece, for six years. Dela Rosa had a friend named Kim Caben, a Korean national who would visit Angeles City. The case arose from incidents in February and March 2013 involving the sexual exploitation of AAA and another minor, BBB, orchestrated through Dela Rosa's introduction of AAA to Kim.	The recruitment element in trafficking in persons includes providing the conditions for prostituting a minor, and a victim's consent is rendered meaningless when the victim is a minor, even without coercive means. Discrepancies between a witness's affidavit and testimony do not necessarily impair credibility as affidavits taken ex parte are generally considered inferior to testimony given in open court.	Criminal Law II Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act
PLDT vs. Citi Appliance M.C. Corporation (9th October 2019)	AK339916 922 SCRA 518 , 864 Phil. 899 , G.R. No. 214546	Citi Appliance, owner of a land in Cebu City, discovered underground telephone lines, cables, and manholes installed by PLDT while excavating for a parking lot for its planned commercial building. These installations were preventing Citi Appliance from fully utilizing its property. Citi Appliance sought to have PLDT remove these installations or pay for parking exemption fees, leading to a forcible entry case when PLDT refused.	The Petition for Review is granted; the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution are set aside; the action for forcible entry is deemed to have prescribed, and the Municipal Trial Court in Cities had no jurisdiction over the case.	Property and Land Law
Philippine Textile Research Institute vs. Court of Appeals (9th October 2019)	AK832138 922 SCRA 623 , 864 Phil. 993 , G.R. No. 223319 , G.R. No. 247736	E.A. Ramirez, a construction company, entered into a contract with PTRI for the rehabilitation of electrical facilities. Shortly after work began, E.A. Ramirez alleged that PTRI's consultant demanded a bribe, which E.A. Ramirez refused. Subsequently, E.A. Ramirez claimed to encounter various difficulties in completing the project, including frequent changes in instructions and rejection of their work. When E.A. Ramirez requested an extension, PTRI instead terminated the contract. E.A. Ramirez then filed a lawsuit against PTRI for breach of contract. PTRI sought to dismiss the case, citing state immunity and lack of jurisdiction. The case made its way through the court system, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.		Constitutional Law I
Ang Nars Party-List v. Executive Secretary (8th October 2019)	AK585185 G.R. No. 215746	The case arose after the issuance of Executive Order No. 811, which downgraded the entry-level salary of government nurses to Salary Grade 11, contrary to Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9173. Ang Nars Party-List and PSLINK filed the petition, asserting that the downgrade was unconstitutional and beyond the authority of the Executive.	The Supreme Court declared Section 32 of Republic Act No. 9173 valid, and voided and declared unconstitutional the provisions of Joint Resolution No. 4 and Executive Order No. 811 that purported to amend or repeal Section 32. However, the Court refused to compel the government to implement Section 32 due to the absence of an appropriation law.	Statutory Construction
JESUS NICARDO M. FALCIS, III vs. CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL (3rd September 2019)	AK852327 861 Phil. 388 , G.R. No. 217910	The case arose from petitioner Falcis's challenge to the Family Code's provisions (Articles 1 and 2) defining marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman, which effectively prohibits same-sex marriage in the Philippines. Falcis, identifying as a homosexual man, sought judicial intervention to invalidate these provisions and related articles on grounds of alleged violations of fundamental constitutional rights, despite not having personally applied for and been denied a marriage license.	The Court held that a petition challenging the constitutionality of laws must satisfy the stringent requirements for judicial review, including the existence of an actual case or controversy and legal standing, neither of which petitioner Falcis possessed, thus warranting the dismissal of the petition without ruling on the substantive issue of the constitutionality of the Family Code's definition of marriage.	Constitutional Law II Equal Protection
Arreza vs. Toyo (1st July 2019)	AK116312 906 SCRA 588 , G.R. No. 213198	Genevieve Rosal Arreza, a Filipino citizen, and Tetsushi Toyo, a Japanese citizen, were married in the Philippines. After 19 years of marriage, they jointly obtained a divorce by agreement in Japan. Subsequently, Genevieve filed a petition in a Philippine Regional Trial Court to have the foreign divorce recognized and to be declared capacitated to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. The core of the legal dispute arose from the trial court's assessment of the evidence presented to prove the existence and validity of the Japanese law that served as the basis for the divorce.	Foreign judgments and laws are not subject to judicial notice by Philippine courts and must be pleaded and proven as facts in accordance with the Rules of Evidence, specifically Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, before their legal effects can be recognized and extended to a Filipino spouse.	Persons and Family Law
People vs. Tulagan (12th March 2019)	AK362964 896 SCRA 307 , 849 Phil. 197 , G.R. No. 227363	The case arose from two separate incidents where the accused-appellant, Salvador Tulagan, sexually abused his nine-year-old neighbor, AAA. The first incident involved Tulagan inserting his finger into AAA's vagina (sexual assault), and the second involved Tulagan having sexual intercourse with AAA (statutory rape). These acts prompted the filing of criminal charges, leading to a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court, necessitating a clarification of the complex interplay between different penal laws concerning child sexual abuse.	The Supreme Court established comprehensive guidelines for the Bench and Bar regarding the applicable laws, nomenclature of crimes, and imposable penalties for acts of lasciviousness, sexual assault, and rape, particularly when the victim is a minor, by reconciling R.A. No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997) which amended the RPC, and R.A. No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Court held that Article 266-B of the RPC (imposing reclusion perpetua for rape) prevails over Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 in cases of sexual intercourse with a child 12 years of age or below 18, but for sexual assault against a child under 12, the penalty under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 (reclusion temporal in its medium period) applies if higher than the RPC penalty.	Criminal Law II Rape, Child Abuse
People vs. Noah (6th March 2019)	AK526523 895 SCRA 399 , 848 Phil. 680 , G.R. No. 228880	Lina Achieng Noah was apprehended at Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 1 upon arrival from Kenya via Dubai. Customs Examiner Landicho became suspicious of her luggage, leading to a further inspection in an exclusion room. This inspection revealed packages of shabu concealed within a laptop bag inside her luggage. Noah claimed the luggage was given to her and denied knowledge of the drugs.	The Supreme Court held that Lina Achieng Noah is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegally transporting dangerous drugs, affirming her conviction and life imprisonment sentence, as the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized shabu and proved all elements of the crime.	Criminal Law II
Zabal vs. Duterte (12th February 2019)	AK457180 846 Phil. 743 , G.R. No. 238467	Boracay Island, a prime tourist destination, suffered severe environmental degradation due to factors like inadequate sewage infrastructure, improper waste disposal, illegal structures, high tourist influx, and violations of environmental laws, leading the President to describe it as a "cesspool" and necessitating government intervention for rehabilitation.	Proclamation No. 475, ordering the temporary closure of Boracay Island for rehabilitation, is a valid exercise of the State's police power, reasonably necessary to address the environmental degradation and protect public health, safety, and the general welfare, and does not unconstitutionally impair the right to travel or the right to due process.	Constitutional Law II Liberty of Abode
AAA vs. People (28th November 2018)	AK706237 844 Phil. 213 , G.R. No. 229762	The petitioner, AAA, and the private complainant, BBB, were married for 19 years with two children. Petitioner worked abroad and sent money to BBB, who was a full-time housewife. BBB used this money to buy household items. The dispute arose from BBB incurring debts, using their television and refrigerator as collateral, which led to a heated argument and the petitioner's subsequent actions.	The act of a husband taking conjugal properties against his wife's will, accompanied by verbal and physical abuse, thereby causing her mental or emotional anguish, constitutes psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262; the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is not applicable if the victim-wife committed no unlawful act sufficient to produce such a state of mind in the offender.	Criminal Law II VAWC
People vs. Bandojo, et al. (17th October 2018)	AK427547 842 Phil. 511 , G.R. No. 234161	The case arose from the recruitment of a 17-year-old girl, AAA, into prostitution due to her family's financial difficulties. Accused-appellant Kenny Joy Villacorta Ileto initially offered AAA "rakets" (slang for paid sexual encounters). AAA eventually agreed due to financial need. Separately, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received information about a Facebook account, "Under One Roof," allegedly offering sexual services of minors, leading them to accused-appellant Ludivico Patrimonio Bandojo, Jr. An entrapment operation was planned involving both accused-appellants and AAA.	The conviction for Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of R.A. No. 9208 is affirmed when all elements of the crime are established, particularly the recruitment of a minor for prostitution; the victim's minority automatically qualifies the offense, and the consent of the minor victim or the accused's lack of knowledge of the victim's minority is not a defense.	Criminal Law II Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act
People vs. Suico (10th September 2018)	AK454553 880 SCRA 32 , 840 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 229940	Police officers set up a checkpoint for a "no plate, no travel" policy based on information about a person transporting marijuana on a specific motorcycle. Jimboy Suico, matching the description, approached the checkpoint and attempted to evade it, leading to his arrest and the discovery of marijuana in his backpack and sack.	The warrantless arrest and seizure of marijuana from Jimboy Suico were valid as incidental to a lawful arrest based on probable cause. The prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, thus proving the corpus delicti and the appellant's guilt for illegal transportation of dangerous drugs under RA 9165.	Criminal Law II
People vs. Romy Lim y Miranda (4th September 2018)	AK331437 839 Phil. 598 , G.R. No. 231989	Following a tip from a confidential informant (CI) regarding alleged drug selling activities by "Romy" in Cagayan de Oro City, agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office X planned and executed a buy-bust operation targeting the accused-appellant, Romy Lim y Miranda, at his residence.	The conviction of Romy Lim y Miranda is reversed and set aside; he is acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to prove compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 concerning the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, specifically the absence of required insulating witnesses during inventory and the lack of justifiable grounds for such non-compliance, thereby failing to establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.	Criminal Law II
Re: Show Cause Order in the Decision Dated May 11, 2018 in G.R. No. 237428 (Republic of the Philippines v. Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno) (17th July 2018)	AK333299 836 Phil. 166 , A.M. No. 18-06-01-SC	The administrative case originated as an offshoot of the quo warranto proceedings (G.R. No. 237428) filed by the Solicitor General against then-Chief Justice Sereno, questioning her eligibility for the position. Prior to the quo warranto case, an impeachment complaint had also been filed against her in the House of Representatives. During the pendency of both the impeachment and quo warranto matters, the Court observed that Sereno engaged in numerous public appearances and statements regarding the cases.	Lawyers, including Justices, remain bound by the high standards of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the New Code of Judicial Conduct even when acting as litigants in their own cases; they cannot segregate their personality and must always maintain respect for the courts, refrain from actions that undermine judicial integrity or influence proceedings (including observing the sub judice rule), and such ethical violations are subject to administrative discipline separate from contempt proceedings and the "clear and present danger" test.	Constitutional Law I
Racho vs. Tanaka (25th June 2018)	AK473109 868 SCRA 25 , G.R. No. 199515	Rhodora Racho, a Filipina, married Seiichi Tanaka, a Japanese national, in the Philippines. After nine years of living together in Japan, they obtained a divorce by agreement according to Japanese law. To be able to remarry, Racho needed to have the foreign divorce recognized in the Philippines to have it annotated on her Certificate of Marriage. However, her attempts to register the divorce with Philippine authorities were unsuccessful without a court order, prompting her to file a petition for judicial recognition.	A foreign divorce can be judicially recognized in the Philippines regardless of which spouse initiated the proceeding, including divorces obtained by mutual agreement, as long as it is proven that the divorce was validly obtained according to the national law of the foreign spouse and that said law allows for the absolute dissolution of the marriage. A duly authenticated Certificate of Acceptance of the Report of Divorce is sufficient and admissible proof of the fact of a foreign divorce.	Persons and Family Law
Republic vs. Manalo (24th April 2018)	AK627716 862 SCRA 580 , G.R. No. 221029	Philippine law, under the nationality principle of Article 15 of the Civil Code, does not permit absolute divorce for its citizens. However, Article 26, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code provides an exception for a Filipino spouse married to a foreigner. Historically, this exception was strictly interpreted to apply only when the foreign spouse initiated and obtained the divorce. This case arose from the need to address the "absurd situation" where a Filipino remains married to a foreign ex-spouse who, by virtue of a foreign divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino and is free to remarry.	A foreign divorce decree, whether initiated by the Filipino or the alien spouse, is recognizable in the Philippines, provided it was validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry; the Filipino spouse shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.	Legal Research and Writing Persons and Family Law
People vs. Tomawis (18th April 2018)	AK721106 862 SCRA 131 , 830 Phil. 385 , G.R. No. 228890	This is a criminal case involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case originated from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). The central issue revolves around the procedural compliance of law enforcement in handling seized drug evidence and protecting the accused’s rights within the context of the anti-drug campaign.	The Supreme Court acquitted Basher Tomawis, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, thus failing to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal drug sale.	Criminal Law II
Genuino vs. De Lima (17th April 2018)	AK023987 829 Phil. 691 , G.R. No. 197930 , G.R. No. 199034 , G.R. No. 199046	Prior to 2010, the DOJ issued Circular No. 17 (1998) governing HDOs and Circular No. 18 (2007) governing WLOs for persons with cases pending preliminary investigation or review. In May 2010, Acting DOJ Secretary Agra issued DOJ Circular No. 41, consolidating and revising the rules on HDOs, WLOs, and Allow Departure Orders (ADOs), expressly repealing the previous circulars. Subsequently, criminal complaints for plunder, malversation, graft, and electoral sabotage were filed against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA), her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo, and former PAGCOR officials led by Efraim Genuino, leading to the issuance of WLOs and an HDO against them under the authority of DOJ Circular No. 41 by then DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima.	Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41, series of 2010, is unconstitutional because the DOJ has no authority under the Constitution or any existing law, including the Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. 292), to issue an administrative circular that restricts the fundamental constitutional right to travel by creating mechanisms like Watchlist Orders (WLOs) and Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) based solely on the pendency of a preliminary investigation.	Constitutional Law II Liberty of Abode
Leviste Management System, Inc. vs. Legaspi Towers 200, Inc (4th April 2018)	AK149294 829 Phil. 176 , 860 SCRA 355 , G.R. No. 199353	Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. owns and operates a condominium building. Leviste Management System, Inc. (LEMANS) owned Concession 3, a unit within the building. LEMANS sought to build Concession 4 on the roof deck above Concession 3. Legaspi Towers objected, arguing the construction was illegal as it violated the Master Deed and Condominium Act and was built without proper approvals. LEMANS claimed ownership of the airspace and good faith in the construction, seeking application of Article 448 of the Civil Code.	Article 448 of the Civil Code regarding builders in good faith is not applicable in condominium settings governed by the Condominium Act, Master Deed, and By-Laws. Condominium corporations, acting through their Board of Directors, have the right to abate constructions violating the Master Deed and By-Laws, and unit owners cannot unilaterally expand their units onto common areas.	Property and Land Law
Trillanes IV vs. Castillo-Marigomen (14th March 2018)	AK317975 859 SCRA 271 , 828 Phil. 336 , G.R. No. 223451	Petitioner, Senator Trillanes, initiated a Senate investigation (P.S. Resolution No. 826) into alleged overpricing of Makati City infrastructure projects involving former VP Binay. During a hearing, former Makati Vice Mayor Mercado testified about the "Hacienda Binay," a large estate in Batangas allegedly owned by VP Binay. Private respondent Antonio Tiu subsequently claimed ownership of a portion of the estate through his company, Sunchamp Real Estate Corporation. Following Tiu's testimony and presentation of an agreement before the Senate Blue Ribbon Sub-Committee, Senator Trillanes made statements to the media describing Tiu as a "front," "nominee," or "dummy" for VP Binay regarding the estate.	Parliamentary immunity under the "speech or debate" clause (Article VI, Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution) protects only speeches, debates, and utterances made by members of Congress in the performance of their official legislative functions within Congress or its committees, and does not extend to statements made outside of congressional sessions or hearings, such as interviews with the media.	Civil Procedure I Constitutional Law I Motion
Heirs of Jose Mariano and Helen S. Mariano vs. City of Naga (12th March 2018)	AK791996 931 Phil. 369 , 858 SCRA 179 , G.R. No. 197743	In 1954, City Heights Subdivision offered to donate 5 hectares of land to the City of Naga for the City Hall, conditional on the subdivision being awarded the construction contract. The Municipal Board accepted the donation, and the City took possession and built the City Hall and other government offices. However, the construction contract was awarded to a different contractor. The landowners and their heirs later demanded the return of the property, arguing the condition for donation was not met, and the donation was not properly executed.	The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' Amended Decision and reinstated the Regional Trial Court's decision, as modified. It ordered the City of Naga to vacate the subject property, peacefully surrender possession to the petitioners, pay a monthly rental of PHP 2,500,000 (later modified to PHP 75,000 for attorney's fees), and recognized that the donation was void and the petitioners had a better right to possession based on their Torrens title.	Property and Land Law
Osorio vs. Navera (26th February 2018)	AK626610 856 SCRA 435 , 826 Phil. 643 , G.R. No. 223272	The case stems from the alleged kidnapping of two University of the Philippines students, Karen E. Empeño and Sherlyn T. Cadapan, by military personnel including SSgt. Osorio and Major General Jovito Palparan. The victims were reportedly abducted from a house in Hagonoy, Bulacan, and detained in various military facilities from June 2006 to July 2007, resulting in their continuing disappearance.	The Supreme Court held that the Regional Trial Court properly took cognizance of the kidnapping case against SSgt. Osorio, and his detention was by virtue of a valid judicial process. The remedy of habeas corpus was deemed inappropriate as the restraint had become legal.	Criminal Law II
Melgar vs. People (14th February 2018)	AK366329 826 Phil. 177 , G.R. No. 223477	The case arose from a romantic relationship between petitioner Celso Melgar and AAA, which resulted in the birth of their illegitimate child, BBB, in 1995. Melgar acknowledged paternity but later stopped providing financial support when BBB was about one year old after his relationship with AAA soured due to his affair with another woman. This led AAA to file a case for support, which was granted, but Melgar allegedly continued to refuse to provide support, prompting the filing of the criminal case for economic abuse under RA 9262.	The act of denying financial support to a child, by itself, constitutes economic abuse under Section 5(e) of RA 9262 and is specifically penalized therein, even without proof of mental or emotional anguish which is an element for psychological violence under Section 5(i) of the same Act. An accused charged under Section 5(i) can be convicted under Section 5(e) by virtue of the variance doctrine if the deprivation of support is proven.	Criminal Law II VAWC
People vs. Amarela (17th January 2018)	AK555521 852 SCRA 54 , 823 Phil. 1188 , G.R. Nos. 225642-43	The case arose from allegations that Juvy Amarela raped AAA on February 10, 2009, and that Junard Racho raped her hours later, in the early morning of February 11, 2009, in Davao City, during fiesta celebrations. Two separate Informations for rape were filed against Amarela and Racho, respectively, which were jointly tried.	A conviction for rape based solely on the testimony of the victim requires that such testimony be credible, natural, convincing, consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lingering doubts arising from material inconsistencies, testimonial improbabilities, and inconclusive medico-legal findings warrant an acquittal.	Criminal Law II Rape
AAA vs. BBB (11th January 2018)	AK337012 823 Phil. 607 , G.R. No. 212448	Petitioner AAA and respondent BBB were married in the Philippines and had two children. BBB started working in Singapore and later allegedly engaged in an extramarital affair there. AAA claimed this affair, along with other alleged abuses like lack of financial support and abandonment, caused her mental and emotional anguish while she was residing in Pasig City, Philippines.	Philippine courts may exercise jurisdiction over a charge of psychological violence under Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262, even if the act causing such violence (e.g., marital infidelity) occurred outside the Philippines, provided that the victim, who is a resident of the Philippines, experienced the resulting mental or emotional anguish within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippine court.	Criminal Law II VAWC
De Lima vs. Guerrero (10th October 2017)	AK175936 843 SCRA 1 , 819 Phil. 616 , G.R. No. 229781	Legislative inquiries into drug syndicates at the New Bilibid Prison led to complaints against Senator De Lima for illegal drug trading. These complaints were consolidated before the Department of Justice (DOJ) Panel of Prosecutors for preliminary investigation. De Lima challenged the DOJ Panel's jurisdiction, arguing that the Ombudsman had exclusive jurisdiction.	The Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is dismissed for lack of merit due to prematurity, violation of the hierarchy of courts and the rule against forum shopping, and for failure to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge. The Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 has jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 17-165.	Criminal Law II
Frondozo vs. Manila Electric Company (22nd August 2017)	AK780189 837 SCRA 378 , G.R. No. 178379	The dispute arose from labor unrest at MERALCO involving unfair labor practices, union busting allegations, and strikes by rank-and-file employees under MEWA in 1991, certified to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration by the DOLE Secretary, resulting in terminations of union officers and members for alleged illegal acts during the strikes, and subsequent illegal dismissal complaints amid ongoing conciliation efforts and certifications that enjoined further strikes and ordered return-to-work.	The Supreme Court held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting MERALCO's prayer for a preliminary injunction to suspend execution proceedings due to conflicting final and executory decisions from different Court of Appeals divisions, one of which was affirmed by the Supreme Court on the merits upholding the employees' dismissal for participating in an illegal strike; the case was remanded to the NLRC for execution of the Supreme Court's prior resolutions affirming the dismissals.	Civil Procedure II Rule 65