Reset

There are 340 results on the current subject filter

Barayuga vs. Adventist University of the Philippines

17th August 2011

655 SCRA 640, G.R. No. 168008
Summary
A case concerning the validity of removing a university president and determining his proper term length, where the Supreme Court affirmed that an injunctive relief only protects existing rights and dismissed the petition for lack of merit due to the petitioner's inability to prove a clear legal right to the position.
Background
The dispute arose when Petronilo Barayuga, President of Adventist University of the Philippines (AUP), was removed from his position on January 27, 2003 following audit findings of financial irregularities and management issues. He filed a suit for injunction and damages, claiming he had a five-year term and was illegally removed. While the Regional Trial Court granted him a preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The case reached the Supreme Court to determine whether he had any legal right to the position that could be protected by an injunctive writ.
Civil Procedure I

Magallona vs. Ermita

16th August 2011

655 SCRA 476, 671 Phil. 243, G.R. No. 187167
Summary
This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9522, which amended the Philippines' archipelagic baselines law to comply with UNCLOS III. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that RA 9522 is constitutional as it merely delineates the country's maritime zones and continental shelf without diminishing Philippine territory.
Background
The case arose from the need to update the Philippines' maritime baselines to comply with UNCLOS III. RA 9522 was enacted for this purpose, but it was challenged by the petitioners on constitutional grounds. The case reached the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether the new baselines law was consistent with the Philippine Constitution's definition of national territory.
Constitutional Law I

Megan Sugar Corporation vs. Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Branch 68, Dumangas, Iloilo

1st June 2011

650 SCRA 100, 665 Phil. 245, G.R. No. 170352
Summary
The case revolves around the authority of Atty. Reuben Mikhail Sabig to represent Megan Sugar Corporation (MEGAN) in proceedings before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and whether MEGAN is estopped from questioning the RTC's jurisdiction after its counsel actively participated in the proceedings and sought affirmative relief from the court.
Background
The case originated from a loan obtained by New Frontier Sugar Corporation (NFSC) from Equitable PCI Bank (EPCIB), secured by mortgages over NFSC's land and sugar mill. Due to liquidity problems, NFSC entered into agreements with various parties, leading to complex legal proceedings involving multiple corporations and their interests in the sugar mill operations.
Civil Procedure I

Navarro vs. Ermita

12th April 2011

648 SCRA 400, 663 Phil. 546, G.R. No. 180050
Summary
The Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision and upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) 9355, which created the Province of Dinagat Islands. Petitioners initially challenged the law for failing to meet population and land area requirements under the Local Government Code (LGC), but the Court validated an exemption for island provinces under the LGC’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). The ruling emphasized economic viability, local autonomy, and adherence to legislative intent.
Background
Dinagat Islands was created as a province in 2006. Petitioners argued it violated LGC criteria for population (250,000) and land area (2,000 km²). After initial nullification by the Court in 2010, the case was reopened due to post-election implications for local officials, leading to the final validation of the province.
Statutory Construction

Yusay vs. Court of Appeals

6th April 2011

647 SCRA 269, 662 Phil. 634, G.R. No. 156684
Summary
Spouses Yusay challenged a resolution by the City of Mandaluyong authorizing expropriation of their land for low-cost housing. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that certiorari and prohibition are not proper remedies to challenge a resolution authorizing expropriation, as it is a legislative act, and because expropriation requires an ordinance, not merely a resolution, to be validly initiated.
Background
Spouses Yusay owned land in Mandaluyong City, part of which they rented out. The City Council passed a resolution authorizing the City Mayor to initiate expropriation of the land for low-cost housing. The Yusays, fearing immediate action, filed certiorari and prohibition to annul the resolution.
Constitutional Law II

General vs. Urro

29th March 2011

646 SCRA 567, 662 Phil. 132, G.R. No. 191560
Summary
This case involves a quo warranto and certiorari/prohibition petition filed by Atty. Luis Mario General, questioning the constitutionality of appointments of Alejandro S. Urro, Constancia P. de Guzman, and Eduardo U. Escueta as Commissioners of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), alleging a violation of the prohibition against midnight appointments. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the petition, holding that General, as an acting appointee, lacked the cause of action to challenge the appointments of the respondents.
Background
Then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed several individuals to the NAPOLCOM, including General as an acting commissioner. Near the end of her term, she appointed Urro, de Guzman, and Escueta as permanent commissioners. General questioned these appointments, claiming they violated the ban on midnight appointments.
Constitutional Law II

Alauya vs. Limbona

22nd March 2011

646 SCRA 1, 661 Phil. 380, A.M. No. SCC-98-4
Summary
This administrative matter concerns Judge Casan Ali L. Limbona, who was accused of absenteeism and filing a certificate of candidacy (CoC) for the 1998 party-list elections while serving as a Shari'a Circuit Court Judge. Despite the Judge's denial and claim of forgery, an NBI investigation confirmed he signed the CoC. The Supreme Court found him guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty for engaging in partisan political activity and continuing his judicial functions after filing the CoC, leading to his dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits and an order to refund salaries received after filing the CoC.
Background
The case arose from complaints lodged with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Casan Ali Limbona of the 10th Shari'a Circuit Court, Tamparan, Lanao del Sur. The complaints alleged chronic absenteeism and, more significantly, that the judge had filed a certificate of candidacy as a party-list nominee for the Development Foundation of the Philippines (DFP) in the May 11, 1998 elections while remaining an active member of the judiciary and continuing to receive his judicial salary.
Constitutional Law I

Air Transportation Office vs. Ramos

23rd February 2011

644 SCRA 36, 659 Phil. 104, G.R. No. 159402
Summary
The case involves a dispute over the payment for a portion of land owned by the Ramos spouses, which was used by the Air Transportation Office (ATO) for the Loakan Airport. The ATO failed to pay despite a deed of sale, leading to a lawsuit. The Supreme Court ruled that the ATO, being engaged in proprietary functions, is not immune from suit and must pay the Ramos spouses for the land.
Background
The Ramos spouses discovered that part of their land was being used by the ATO for the Loakan Airport. They agreed to sell the land to the ATO, but the ATO failed to pay. The Ramos spouses filed a lawsuit, and the lower courts ruled in their favor. The ATO appealed, invoking state immunity.
Philosophy of Law

League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP) vs. Commission on Elections

15th February 2011

643 SCRA 150, 663 Phil. 496, G.R. No. 176951
Summary
This case involves the consolidation of several petitions challenging the constitutionality of 16 Cityhood Laws enacted by the Philippine Congress. The Supreme Court, in a series of decisions and resolutions, ultimately upheld the validity of these laws, determining that they complied with the requirements for the creation of cities as provided in the Local Government Code and the Constitution.
Background
The controversy began when Congress passed 16 laws converting municipalities into cities. These laws were challenged on the ground that they did not comply with the requirements of the Local Government Code, particularly the income requirement. The Supreme Court's decisions in these cases have evolved over time, marked by several reversals and shifts in the Court's composition.
Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction

Gutierrez vs. The House of Representatives Committee on Justice, Hontiveros-Baraquel, et al.

15th February 2011

643 SCRA 198, 660 Phil. 271, G.R. No. 193459
Summary
The Supreme Court denied petitioner Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez’s motion for reconsideration, reaffirming that the initiation of impeachment proceedings under the Constitution requires both filing and referral of a complaint to the House Committee on Justice. The Court ruled that the “one-year bar” on impeachment proceedings begins upon the House’s referral, not mere filing, thereby dismissing Gutierrez’s claim of procedural violation.
Background
Gutierrez faced two impeachment complaints filed 11 days apart in 2010. The House referred both to its Committee on Justice. Gutierrez argued this violated the constitutional prohibition against multiple proceedings within one year.
Statutory Construction

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority vs. Heirs of Estanislao Miñoza

2nd February 2011

641 SCRA 520, 656 Phil. 537, G.R. No. 186045
Summary
This case involves a petition by Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) challenging the Court of Appeals' decision allowing intervention by the respondents (Heirs of Filomeno, Pedro, and Florencia Miñoza) in a reconveyance case originally filed by another set of heirs (represented by Leila Hermosisima) against MCIAA. The respondents claimed to be the true heirs of the original landowner, Estanislao Miñoza, and alleged fraud by the original plaintiffs' predecessors. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Regional Trial Court's denial of intervention, holding that the respondents' claims constituted an independent controversy that would unduly delay and complicate the main action, and their interest, while potentially valid, was not sufficiently direct and immediate to the specific issue of the reconveyance based on the alleged buy-back option.
Background
The dispute originated from the sale of two lots (Lots 986 and 991-A) owned by the late Estanislao Miñoza to the National Airports Corporation (NAC), MCIAA's predecessor, in the late 1940s/early 1950s for the Lahug Airport expansion project, which allegedly included an assurance that the original owners' heirs could repurchase the lots if they were no longer needed for that purpose. The airport expansion did not proceed, leading the purported heirs (represented by Leila Hermosisima) to seek reconveyance based on the alleged buy-back option over forty years later.
Civil Procedure I
Intervention

Bayan Muna vs. Romulo

1st February 2011

641 SCRA 244, 656 Phil. 246, G.R. No. 159618
Summary
The case challenges the validity of the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement which protects US and Filipino officials, employees, military personnel and nationals from being surrendered to the International Criminal Court (ICC) without the express consent of their respective governments.
Background
The case stems from the Philippines' signing of the Rome Statute establishing the ICC on December 28, 2000, followed by the execution of a bilateral Non-Surrender Agreement with the US on May 13, 2003 through an Exchange of Notes.
Philosophy of Law

Heirs of Domingo Valientes v. Hon. Reinerio (Abraham) B. Ramas, et al.

15th December 2010

653 Phil. 111, G.R. No. 157852
Summary
This case involves a petition for certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals' decision which affirmed the dismissal of the petitioners' complaint for cancellation of title and reconveyance. Petitioners, heirs of Domingo Valientes, claimed their ancestor's land was fraudulently transferred to the predecessors of respondent Minor, who obtained a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). Although the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court's dismissal ground (forum shopping), it upheld the dismissal based on prescription and laches, finding that the action for reconveyance based on an implied trust, filed over 28 years after the TCT issuance, was time-barred as petitioners were not in possession of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that prescription applies and the appellate court could dismiss the case *motu proprio* on this ground.
Background
The dispute originated from a parcel of land initially owned by Domingo Valientes under an Original Certificate of Title (OCT). In 1939, Valientes mortgaged the land to the spouses Belen. Later, the Belens allegedly used a forged "VENTA DEFINITIVA" to obtain a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-5,427) in their names in 1969. Valientes' heirs attempted but failed to retrieve the property in the 1950s and filed an adverse claim in 1970. Upon the Belens' death, their heirs sold the property to respondent Vilma Minor, who currently possesses it. This led to conflicting legal actions initiated by both Minor (to cancel the adverse claim) and the Valientes heirs (to cancel the TCT and recover the property).
Civil Procedure I
Motion

Espina vs. Zamora

21st September 2010

631 SCRA 17, 645 Phil. 269, G.R. No. 143855
Summary
This case involves a petition filed by members of the House of Representatives challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 8762, the Retail Trade Liberalization Act of 2000. Petitioners argued that the law, which allows foreign participation in the retail trade sector under certain conditions, violates the constitutional mandate for a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutionality of R.A. 8762, finding that while the Constitution promotes economic nationalism, it does not prohibit Congress from allowing foreign investment in certain sectors as a matter of policy and within the bounds of police power, and that the specific constitutional provisions invoked are largely non-self-executing principles.
Background
Prior to R.A. 8762, Republic Act No. 1180 (Retail Trade Nationalization Act) enacted in 1954 absolutely prohibited foreign nationals and corporations from engaging in the retail trade business in the Philippines. R.A. 8762, signed into law in 2000, expressly repealed R.A. 1180 and liberalized the retail trade sector by allowing foreign investment under specific capitalization thresholds and categories, prompting constitutional challenges based on economic nationalism principles enshrined in the 1987 Constitution.
Constitutional Law II
Due Process

Pormento vs. Estrada

31st August 2010

629 SCRA 530, 643 Phil. 735, G.R. No. 191988
Summary
A petition for disqualification against former President Joseph Estrada seeking reelection was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to lack of an actual controversy, as the issue had become moot when he lost the 2010 presidential election, leaving no specific relief that could benefit any of the parties.
Background
The case centered on the interpretation of the constitutional provision prohibiting presidential reelection, specifically as it applied to former President Joseph Estrada's attempt to run for president again in 2010, having previously served as president from 1998.
Constitutional Law I

Lokin, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

22nd June 2010

621 SCRA 385, 635 Phil. 372, G.R. Nos. 179431-32, G.R. No. 180443
Summary
The case concerns the substitution of party-list nominees under the Party-List System Act (R.A. No. 7941). The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the COMELEC overstepped its authority by issuing a rule that allowed such substitutions beyond the circumstances explicitly provided in the law. The Court ultimately invalidated Section 13 of COMELEC Resolution No. 7804, restoring Luis K. Lokin, Jr. as the second nominee of CIBAC.
Background
CIBAC submitted its list of nominees for the 2007 elections, which included Lokin as the second nominee. Subsequently, CIBAC's president filed an amended list replacing Lokin and others with new nominees. COMELEC relied on Section 13 of Resolution No. 7804 to approve this substitution. Lokin challenged the substitution and sought to be proclaimed as CIBAC's second nominee.
Statutory Construction

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Kudos Metal Corporation

5th May 2010

620 SCRA 232, 634 Phil. 314, G.R. No. 178087
Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed the invalidity of tax assessments issued by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) against Kudos Metal Corporation for taxable year 1998, ruling that the waivers extending the prescriptive period were defective. The BIR failed to comply with procedural requirements for waivers under RMO 20-90 and RDAO 05-01, and the doctrine of estoppel did not apply.
Background
The BIR issued deficiency tax assessments against Kudos Metal Corporation for 1998 on September 26, 2003, after conducting an audit prompted by suspected tax fraud. The corporation contested these assessments, arguing they were issued beyond the three-year prescriptive period under the Tax Code.
Statutory Construction

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party vs. Commission on Elections

8th April 2010

618 SCRA 32, 632 Phil. 32, G.R. No. 190582
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ang Ladlad, an LGBT organization, allowing them to participate in the party-list system. The Court held that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) violated the constitutional rights of Ang Ladlad by denying their registration based on moral and religious grounds, emphasizing the importance of equal protection, freedom of expression, and non-discrimination.
Background
Ang Ladlad, an organization representing the LGBT community, applied for accreditation under the party-list system. The COMELEC denied their application, citing moral grounds and religious beliefs. Ang Ladlad challenged this decision, arguing that the denial violated their constitutional rights.
Philosophy of Law

Reyes-Mesugas vs. Reyes

22nd March 2010

616 SCRA 345, 630 Phil. 334, G.R. No. 174835
Summary
This case involves a dispute over the cancellation of a notice of lis pendens on a property that was part of an inheritance settlement. The Supreme Court ruled that once a compromise agreement in an estate settlement is approved by the court, the notice of lis pendens should be cancelled as the probate proceedings have ended.
Background
The case arose from the settlement of the estate of Lourdes Aquino Reyes. The property in question was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 24475, which had a notice of lis pendens annotated on it during the estate proceedings. After a compromise agreement was reached and approved by the court, the petitioner sought to cancel the lis pendens annotation, which the respondent opposed due to an alleged unfulfilled side agreement regarding a right of way.
Civil Procedure I

Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong vs. People, et al.

11th February 2010

612 SCRA 272, 626 Phil. 177, G.R. No. 181409
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that the relationship by affinity between a surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse continues after death, but the absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code does not apply to the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents.
Background
Mediatrix Carungcong, administratrix of her mother Manolita’s estate, accused her brother-in-law William Sato of estafa for fraudulently inducing Manolita (blind and elderly) to sign a falsified Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to sell her properties. Lower courts dismissed the case based on Article 332’s exemption for relatives by affinity.
Statutory Construction

Office of the Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land

18th September 2009

600 SCRA 617, 616 Phil. 587, G.R. No. 177056
Summary
This case concerns whether shopping mall operators can be compelled to provide free parking to their patrons and the general public under the National Building Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that there is no legal basis to oblige mall operators to provide free parking, as the National Building Code and its IRR do not explicitly mandate it and such a mandate would constitute unlawful taking of private property.
Background
The case arose from a Senate investigation into the legality of shopping malls charging parking fees. The Senate Committees concluded that charging parking fees was contrary to the National Building Code and recommended the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to enjoin the practice. Subsequently, the OSG filed a petition seeking to prohibit mall operators from collecting parking fees, arguing that the National Building Code impliedly mandates free parking.
Constitutional Law II

Pobre vs. Defensor-Santiago

25th August 2009

597 SCRA 1, A.C. No. 7399
Summary
Antero J. Pobre filed a disbarment complaint against Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago for allegedly disrespectful and contemptuous remarks made against the then Chief Justice and the Supreme Court during a Senate speech regarding her non-inclusion in the list of nominees for Chief Justice by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). While the Supreme Court acknowledged the offensive nature of the Senator's language and her violation of the lawyer's oath and duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility, it ultimately dismissed the complaint, citing the constitutional protection of parliamentary immunity for speeches delivered in the Senate.
Background
The case arose following Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago's privilege speech on the Senate floor where she expressed extreme frustration and used insulting language directed at the Supreme Court and its members, particularly then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, after the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) effectively excluded non-incumbent justices, like herself, from nomination for the position of Chief Justice.
Constitutional Law I

Matthews vs. Taylor

22nd June 2009

590 SCRA 394, 608 Phil. 193, G.R. No. 164584
Summary
This case involves a petition to nullify a lease agreement entered into by a Filipina wife, Joselyn Taylor, without her British husband, Benjamin Taylor's consent. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the petitioner, Philip Matthews, upholding the validity of the lease agreement. The Court held that Benjamin, as an alien, had no standing to question the lease because the Boracay property was exclusively owned by his Filipino wife, and the Constitution prohibits aliens from owning land in the Philippines.
Background
Benjamin Taylor, a British citizen, and Joselyn Taylor, a Filipina, were married. Joselyn purchased a property in Boracay using funds allegedly provided by Benjamin and developed it into a resort. Later, without Benjamin's express consent, Joselyn leased the property to Philip Matthews. Benjamin filed a case to nullify the lease agreement arguing it was void without his consent as the property was community property and his funds were used for its acquisition.
Property and Land Law

In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, et al.

21st May 2009

588 SCRA 98, 606 Phil. 82, G.R. Nos. 168992-93
Summary
Monina P. Lim sought to adopt two children she and her deceased spouse had raised as their own after simulating their births. The Regional Trial Court dismissed her petitions because she remarried and failed to file jointly with her new husband, as required by RA 8552. The Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that joint adoption by spouses is mandatory unless exceptions apply.
Background
Monina and her late husband Primo Lim raised three abandoned children (including Michelle and Michael) as their own, simulating their births. After Primo’s death, Monina remarried an American citizen, Angel Olario. She later sought to legitimize the children’s status through adoption under RA 8552’s amnesty provision for simulated births.
Statutory Construction

Soriano vs. Laguardia

29th April 2009

587 SCRA 79, 605 Phil. 43, G.R. No. 164785
Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board's (MTRCB) decision to suspend Eliseo Soriano from his television program "Ang Dating Daan" for three months due to his use of offensive and obscene language on air. The Court ruled that this suspension did not constitute prior restraint on freedom of expression, but rather a valid exercise of the MTRCB's regulatory powers over television broadcast.
Background
Eliseo Soriano, host of "Ang Dating Daan," made offensive remarks about Michael Sandoval and the Iglesia ni Cristo on his television program. This led to complaints filed with the MTRCB, which subsequently issued a preventive suspension and later a three-month suspension on Soriano. Soriano challenged these actions in the Supreme Court, arguing that they violated his right to freedom of expression.
Constitutional Law I

Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Technische Zusammenarbeit vs. Court of Appeals

16th April 2009

585 SCRA 150, 603 Phil. 150, G.R. No. 152318
Summary
This case involves the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) claiming immunity from suit in a labor case filed by its former employees. The Supreme Court ruled that GTZ failed to establish its entitlement to immunity, emphasizing the importance of securing proper certification from the Department of Foreign Affairs to support such claims.
Background
The case revolves around the employment dispute between GTZ and its former employees who worked on the SHINE project. After their dismissal, the employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. GTZ claimed immunity from suit as an implementing agency of the German government. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the employees, and GTZ sought to challenge this decision through various legal channels, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Law I

Geologistic, Inc. vs. Gateway Electronics Corporation

25th March 2009

582 SCRA 434, G.R. Nos. 174256-57
Summary
The Supreme Court reviewed a petition for certiorari filed by Geologistics, Inc., challenging a Court of Appeals decision that nullified a Regional Trial Court (RTC) order granting execution pending appeal. The case revolved around unpaid services for freight forwarding and customs brokerage, contested liabilities, and the garnishment of funds from a surety bond. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling, denying the petition and emphasizing the lack of “good reasons” for execution pending appeal, while modifying the award of interest.
Background
Geologistics, Inc. sought to recover unpaid fees from Gateway Electronics Corporation for freight forwarding services, amounting to ₱4,769,954.32 plus interest and damages. The RTC ruled in favor of Geologistics, and the petitioner moved for execution pending appeal. Gateway Electronics and its surety, First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corp., filed separate petitions to annul the execution orders, which the Court of Appeals granted.
Statutory Construction

Ruby Shelter Builders and Realty Development Corporation vs. Formaran III

10th February 2009

578 SCRA 283, 598 Phil. 105, G.R. No. 175914
Summary
A case involving the determination of proper docket fees in a real action for recovery of real property, where the Supreme Court affirmed that such cases must be computed based on the fair market value of the property rather than treating them as actions incapable of pecuniary estimation.
Background
Ruby Shelter obtained a loan of P95,700,620.00 from respondents Tan and Obiedo, secured by real estate mortgages over five parcels of land. After defaulting, they entered into a Memorandum of Agreement allowing extension of payment and requiring execution of Deeds of Absolute Sale. When Ruby Shelter failed to pay, the respondents registered the properties in their names.
Civil Procedure I

Rufloe vs. Burgos

30th January 2009

577 SCRA 264, 597 Phil. 261, G.R. No. 143573
Summary
This case involves a dispute over land ownership originating from a forged Deed of Sale. The Supreme Court determined whether subsequent buyers of the property, after the forged sale, could be considered innocent purchasers for value and thus acquire valid title, ultimately ruling against them due to the presence of a notice of adverse claim and other circumstances indicating bad faith.
Background
The case stems from a property originally owned by the Rufloe spouses. A Deed of Sale was forged, purportedly signed by the Rufloes, transferring the property to Elvira Delos Reyes. Delos Reyes then sold the property to the Burgos siblings, who later sold it to their aunt, Leonarda Burgos. The Rufloes filed a case to nullify these transactions, claiming forgery and asserting their continued ownership.
Property and Land Law

White Light Corporation vs City of Manila

20th January 2009

576 SCRA 416, 596 Phil. 444, G.R. No. 122846
Summary
This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a Manila City ordinance prohibiting short-time admission rates (or "wash-up" rates) in hotels, motels, and similar establishments. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it violated the due process rights of both the businesses and their patrons by infringing on their right to liberty and privacy.
Background
The City of Manila enacted an ordinance seeking to regulate public morals by prohibiting short-time rates in establishments often associated with illicit activities. Several businesses challenged the ordinance, arguing it infringed upon their rights and the rights of their customers. The case highlights the tension between government's power to regulate for public welfare and individual rights to liberty and privacy.
Constitutional Law II

Garcillano vs. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, Public Order and Safety, National Defense and Security, Information and Communications Technology, and Suffrage and Electoral Reforms

23rd December 2008

575 SCRA 170, 595 Phil. 775, G.R. No. 170338
Summary
The case involves two consolidated petitions concerning the controversial "Hello Garci" tapes, which allegedly contained wiretapped conversations implicating electoral fraud in the 2004 Philippine presidential elections. The first petition sought to prohibit the House of Representatives from using the tapes in its investigations, while the second petition aimed to stop the Senate from conducting a legislative inquiry on the tapes due to non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Background
The controversy arose from the release of wiretapped recordings allegedly involving then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and a Commission on Elections official discussing electoral manipulation. These tapes became a subject of public and legislative scrutiny, with both Houses of Congress initiating separate inquiries.
Constitutional Law II

Province of North Cotabato vs. Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP)

14th October 2008

568 SCRA 402, 589 Phil. 387, G.R. No. 183591, G.R. No. 183752, G.R. No. 183893, G.R. No. 183951, G.R. No. 183962
Summary
This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), focusing on issues of public consultation, right to information, and the extent of executive power in peace negotiations, ultimately finding the MOA-AD unconstitutional.
Background
The MOA-AD was a proposed agreement aimed at resolving the armed conflict in Mindanao by expanding the autonomous region and granting significant powers to the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE). However, concerns arose regarding the lack of transparency and potential constitutional violations.
Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II Philosophy of Law

Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Interport Resources Corporation

6th October 2008

567 SCRA 354, 588 Phil. 651, G.R. No. 135808
Summary
The case involves the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigating Interport Resources Corporation (IRC) and its directors for alleged violations of the Revised Securities Act, particularly insider trading and failure to disclose material information. The Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of IRC, declaring the SEC's actions void due to the absence of implementing rules. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that the SEC had the authority to investigate and that the absence of implementing rules did not invalidate the provisions of the Revised Securities Act.
Background
In 1994, IRC entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Ganda Holdings Berhad (GHB) to acquire 100% of Ganda Energy Holdings, Inc. (GEHI). IRC also planned to acquire 67% of Philippine Racing Club, Inc. (PRCI). The SEC alleged that IRC failed to disclose these negotiations promptly and that some directors traded IRC shares using insider information. The SEC initiated an investigation, but the Court of Appeals issued an injunction, halting the SEC's actions.
Philosophy of Law

Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima

14th August 2008

562 SCRA 251, 584 Phil. 246, G.R. No. 166715
Summary
The case challenges the constitutionality of Republic Act (RA) 9335, also known as the Attrition Act of 2005, which establishes a rewards and sanctions system for officials and employees of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to optimize revenue collection. Petitioners argue that the law violates the equal protection clause, unduly delegates legislative power, and infringes on the separation of powers by creating a congressional oversight committee. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of RA 9335 except for the provision creating the Joint Congressional Oversight Committee, which was declared unconstitutional.
Background
RA 9335 was enacted to improve the revenue collection performance of the BIR and BOC by creating a rewards and incentives fund and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board. The law provides rewards for exceeding revenue targets and sanctions for failing to meet them. Petitioners, representing the Abakada Guro Party List, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of the law, arguing that it violated several constitutional principles.
Statutory Construction

In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. Amado P. Macasaet Published in Malaya Dated September 18, 19, 20 and 21, 2007

8th August 2008

583 Phil. 391, A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC
Summary
This case involves a contempt charge against Amado Macasaet, a newspaper columnist, for publishing articles alleging bribery within the Supreme Court. The Court found Macasaet guilty of indirect contempt for publishing false and baseless allegations, which were deemed to undermine the integrity of the judiciary.
Background
Amado Macasaet, a columnist for the newspaper Malaya, published a series of articles in September 2007 alleging that a Supreme Court Justice had received bribes in connection with a case involving a Filipino-Chinese businessman. The articles were based on information from confidential sources and claimed that five boxes containing ₱10 million were delivered to the Court. The Court initiated contempt proceedings against Macasaet for publishing unverified allegations that damaged the Court's reputation.
Philosophy of Law

Figueroa vs. People

14th July 2008

558 SCRA 63, 580 Phil. 58, G.R. No. 147406
Summary
This case revolves around the issue of whether a litigant may be estopped by laches from questioning the jurisdiction of a tribunal. Petitioner Venancio Figueroa was convicted by the RTC for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. He later raised the lack of jurisdiction of the RTC only on appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that jurisdiction can be questioned at any stage and granted the petition, dismissing the criminal case.
Background
Figueroa was accused of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide after a bus he was driving struck and killed a pedestrian. He was convicted by the RTC of Bulacan and sentenced to imprisonment. On appeal, he questioned the trial court's jurisdiction, arguing that the MTC, not the RTC, had jurisdiction over the case based on the imposable penalty.
Civil Procedure I

Gobenciong vs. Court of Appeals

31st March 2008

550 SCRA 502, 573 Phil. 613, G.R. No. 159883
Summary
This consolidated case addresses whether the Ombudsman's orders for preventive suspension are immediately executory, whether the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority is merely recommendatory, and whether the Ombudsman's powers under RA 6770 constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority or violate the equal protection clause.
Background
Dr. Pedro Gobenciong, an administrative officer at a regional hospital, was administratively charged for falsification of public documents and misconduct related to the allegedly anomalous purchase of a hemoanalyzer, leading to preventive suspension and subsequent disciplinary action by the Ombudsman.
Constitutional Law II

Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Heirs of Fortunato Doronio

27th December 2007

541 SCRA 479, 565 Phil. 766, G.R. No. 169454
Summary
This case involves a dispute over land ownership between the heirs of two brothers, Marcelino and Fortunato Doronio. The petitioners, heirs of Marcelino, claimed full ownership based on a private deed of donation propter nuptias executed in favor of their predecessors and a subsequent registration of title. The respondents, heirs of Fortunato, argued that the donation only covered half of the property and that the deed was invalid for not being a public instrument. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the donation propter nuptias void for lack of a public instrument and ordering the restoration of the original certificate of title.
Background
Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante owned a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 352. They had children, including Marcelino and Fortunato Doronio. Simeon and Cornelia executed a private deed of donation propter nuptias in favor of Marcelino and his wife Veronica Pico. The description in the deed of donation differed slightly from OCT No. 352 regarding adjacent property owners. Petitioners, heirs of Marcelino, registered the deed through a petition case without naming respondents, heirs of Fortunato, leading to a new TCT in their predecessor's name, covering the entire property. Respondents contested this, claiming only half was intended for donation and the donation was invalid.
Property and Land Law

Garcia vs. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection

17th December 2007

540 SCRA 456, 565 Phil. 193, G.R. No. 170735
Summary
This case involved Immaculada L. Garcia, the sole surviving director of Impact Corporation, who was held liable for unremitted SSS contributions and penalties amounting to millions of pesos. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Court of Appeals and Social Security Commission (SSC), holding Garcia personally liable based on specific provisions of the Social Security Law. The Court upheld the principle that corporate officers may be personally liable for legal violations resulting from their roles as directors.
Background
Impact Corporation, a manufacturer of aluminum tube containers, experienced financial difficulties in 1978, leading to labor unrest and eventual cessation of operations. Despite collecting SSS contributions from its employees, the company failed to remit them. The SSS pursued legal actions to recover the unremitted contributions.
Statutory Construction

Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. CLT Realty Development Corporation

14th December 2007

540 SCRA 304, 565 Phil. 59, G.R. No. 123346, G.R. No. 134385
Summary
This case involves two consolidated petitions concerning land ownership claims over portions of the Maysilo Estate, all tracing back to Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994. The central controversy revolves around conflicting interpretations of OCT No. 994, particularly its date of registration, with contentions arising from an apparent discrepancy between April 19, 1917 (decree issuance) and May 3, 1917 (transcription date). The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, ultimately remands the cases to the Court of Appeals for a Special Division to factually determine the validity of the contending titles, emphasizing that only titles derived from the genuine OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917 can be considered valid and that titles originating from a non-existent OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917 are void.
Background
The dispute centers on ownership claims over portions of the vast Maysilo Estate, all purportedly originating from OCT No. 994. Conflicting claims arose between Manotok Realty and Manotok Estate Corporation versus CLT Realty Development Corporation in one case, and Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. versus the Heirs of Jose B. Dimson in the other. These cases reached the Supreme Court after conflicting decisions in the lower courts and the Court of Appeals concerning the validity of the parties' titles. Prior Supreme Court decisions in MWSS v. Court of Appeals and Gonzaga v. Court of Appeals had previously addressed claims emanating from OCT No. 994, but inconsistencies and new factual evidence necessitated a re-examination.
Property and Land Law

Heirs of Marcelina Arzadon-Crisologo vs. Rañon

5th September 2007

532 SCRA 391, 559 Phil. 169, G.R. No. 171068
Summary
This case revolves around a dispute over ownership of an unregistered residential lot in Ilocos Norte. The Heirs of Arzadon-Crisologo claimed ownership through succession and prescription, while Agrifina Rañon, later substituted by her heirs, asserted ownership through extraordinary acquisitive prescription based on long-term possession and tax payments. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling in favor of the Rañons, holding that they had acquired ownership through extraordinary acquisitive prescription due to their continuous, public, and adverse possession for over thirty years, unchallenged by the petitioners.
Background
Agrifina Rañon filed a complaint against spouses Montemayor to quiet title over a residential lot, claiming ownership based on long and continuous possession since 1962. The Heirs of Arzadon-Crisologo intervened, asserting their rights as successors-in-interest of the original owners and claiming that Rañon's possession was not in good faith and did not ripen into ownership. The spouses Montemayor were later dropped as parties as they had repurchased the property from the Arzadons. The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) initially ruled in favor of the Arzadon heirs, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision, favoring the Rañons through acquisitive prescription. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.
Property and Land Law

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Primetown Property Group, Inc

28th August 2007

531 SCRA 436, 558 Phil. 182, G.R. No. 162155
Summary
The Supreme Court resolved a dispute over the computation of the two-year prescriptive period for filing tax refund claims, ruling that the 1987 Administrative Code (not the Civil Code) governs the calculation of legal periods. The Court held Primetown’s petition was timely filed.
Background
Primetown Property Group, a real estate company, suffered losses in 1997 due to the Asian Financial Crisis and sought a refund for overpaid quarterly income taxes. The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) delayed acting on the claim, leading to a judicial dispute.
Statutory Construction

Cemco Holdings, Inc. vs. National Life Insurance Company of the Philippines, Inc.

7th August 2007

529 SCRA 355, 556 Phil. 198, G.R. NO. 171815
Summary
The Supreme Court affirmed that the Mandatory Tender Offer Rule under the Securities Regulation Code applies to indirect acquisitions of shares in a publicly listed company, protecting minority shareholders. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had jurisdiction to order Cemco Holdings to conduct a tender offer after it acquired indirect control of Union Cement Corporation (UCC) through purchasing shares in its holding company.
Background
Cemco Holdings acquired shares in Union Cement Holdings Corporation (UCHC), a non-listed company holding 60.51% of Union Cement Corporation (UCC), a publicly listed firm. This indirect acquisition increased Cemco’s beneficial ownership in UCC from 17.03% to 53%. National Life Insurance, a minority UCC shareholder, demanded Cemco comply with the Mandatory Tender Offer Rule. After Cemco refused, National Life filed a complaint with the SEC.
Statutory Construction

National Electrification Administration vs. Morales

24th July 2007

528 SCRA 79, 555 Phil. 74, G.R. No. 154200
Summary
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, which had ordered the implementation of a writ of execution against the National Electrification Administration's (NEA) funds. The Court held that the original judgment was not for a specific sum of money and thus not subject to execution by garnishment, and that claims against government agencies must first be filed with the Commission on Audit (COA).
Background
The case revolves around NEA employees seeking payment of various allowances they believed they were entitled to under R.A. No. 6758. After winning in the RTC, they sought to execute the judgment through garnishment of NEA's funds. NEA resisted, citing laws protecting government funds from execution. The case then went through various stages of appeal and review, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Law I

Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD

29th June 2007

526 SCRA 130, 553 Phil. 120, G.R. No. 166494
Summary
This case is a petition for prohibition challenging the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003, which mandates a 20% discount for senior citizens on medicines, arguing that the tax deduction scheme provided as reimbursement is confiscatory and violates due process and equal protection clauses. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, ruling that it is a valid exercise of police power for the general welfare and does not constitute unjust taking of private property.
Background
Petitioners, drugstore owners, questioned the constitutionality of Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 9257, which provides senior citizens with a 20% discount on medicines, arguing that the provided tax deduction mechanism does not fully reimburse them and results in financial losses, amounting to confiscation of property without just compensation. They contended that it violates their rights to due process and equal protection and the constitutional mandate to make essential goods available at affordable cost.
Constitutional Law II
Police Power

Adasa vs. Abalos

19th February 2007

516 SCRA 261, 545 Phil. 168, G.R. No. 168617
Summary
This case involves a Petition for Review filed by Bernadette L. Adasa seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals' decision, which reversed the Department of Justice (DOJ) resolutions that had dismissed the estafa charges against her. The Court of Appeals ruled that the DOJ should not have entertained Adasa's petition for review since she had already been arraigned, and the trial court's dismissal of the case was void as it relied solely on the DOJ's resolutions.
Background
The case originated from two complaints filed by Cecille S. Abalos against Bernadette L. Adasa for estafa, alleging that Adasa encashed two checks without her consent. The Office of the City Prosecutor of Iligan City found probable cause and filed criminal cases against Adasa. Adasa sought reinvestigation, and the DOJ later reversed the prosecutor's resolution, leading to the withdrawal of the charges. The trial court dismissed the case based on the DOJ's resolution, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, prompting Adasa to file a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court.
Statutory Construction

Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

27th October 2006

505 SCRA 654, 536 Phil 511, G.R. No. 159268
Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the requirement for cooperatives to post an appeal bond when challenging labor-related decisions before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), rejecting the argument that the Cooperative Code exempts them. The exemption under Article 62(7) applies only to appeals from "inferior courts" (judicial courts), not quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC.
Background
Josefina Hipolito-Herrero was hired by Balagtas Multi-Purpose Cooperative in 1991. After closing a branch office in 1994, she resigned and later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering Balagtas to pay backwages, separation pay, and 13th-month pay. Balagtas appealed to the NLRC but refused to post the required bond, citing Article 62(7) of the Cooperative Code. The NLRC and Court of Appeals rejected this argument.
Statutory Construction

Lambino vs. Commission on Elections

25th October 2006

505 SCRA 160, 536 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 174153, G.R. No. 174299
Summary
This case involves a petition for a people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution and shift from a bicameral-presidential system to a unicameral-parliamentary government. The Supreme Court ruled against the petition, holding that it did not comply with constitutional and legal requirements, particularly the requirement that amendments must be "directly proposed by the people" through a petition containing the full text of the proposed changes. The Court also reaffirmed its ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC, declaring R.A. 6735 inadequate to implement the constitutional provision on people’s initiative.
Background
The petitioners, led by Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado, sought to amend the 1987 Constitution via a people’s initiative by collecting signatures from registered voters. They filed a petition with the COMELEC requesting a plebiscite to ratify their proposed amendments. COMELEC dismissed their petition, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC, which declared R.A. 6735 inadequate to allow an initiative for constitutional amendments. The petitioners then sought recourse with the Supreme Court.
Constitutional Law II

Aquino vs. Quezon City

3rd August 2006

497 SCRA 497, 529 Phil. 486, G.R. No. 137534, G.R. No. 138624
Summary
This case involves consolidated petitions challenging the validity of auction sales conducted by the Quezon City government due to real property tax delinquencies. Petitioners argued that their properties were sold without proper notice, violating the notice requirements under Presidential Decree No. 464 (Real Property Tax Code). The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the validity of these sales, ruling that procedural due process requirements were sufficiently met.
Background
G.R. No. 137534 (Aquino Case): The Aquino spouses' 612-square meter lot in East Avenue Subdivision, Diliman, Quezon City, was sold in 1984 for non-payment of property taxes from 1975 to 1982. They withheld payment as a protest against the Marcos regime. G.R. No. 138624 (Torrado Case): A 407-square meter property at No. 20 North Road, Cubao, Quezon City, owned by Solomon Torrado, was sold in 1983 due to unpaid property taxes from 1976 to 1982. Notices were sent to an insufficient address, "Butuan City," causing them to be undelivered.
Statutory Construction

Sevilla vs. Cardenas

31st July 2006

497 SCRA 428, 529 Phil. 419, G.R. No. 167684
Summary
This case involves a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage filed by Jaime O. Sevilla against Carmelita N. Cardenas, alleging that their marriage was void due to the absence of a valid marriage license. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, ruling that the certifications from the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan were insufficient to prove the non-issuance of the marriage license, and thus, the marriage was presumed valid.
Background
Jaime O. Sevilla and Carmelita N. Cardenas were married in civil rites on May 19, 1969, and in a church ceremony on May 31, 1969. Jaime later filed a complaint for the nullity of their marriage, claiming that no marriage license was issued for their union. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the marriage null and void, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, leading to the present petition.
Philosophy of Law
« 1-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-340 »