Reset

There are 340 results on the current subject filter

Arenas vs. City of San Carlos (Pangasinan)

5th April 1978

82 SCRA 318, 172 Phil. 306, No. L-34024
Summary
This case involves Isidro G. Arenas, the City Judge of San Carlos City, who filed a petition for mandamus to compel the city government to pay his salary differential as mandated by Republic Act No. 5967. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition, affirming the lower court's ruling that the salary of a city judge should not exceed that of the city ma
Background
Isidro G. Arenas, serving as City Judge of San Carlos City, claimed entitlement to a higher salary based on Republic Act No. 5967. The city government refused to pay the differential, citing that the law mandates the judge's salary to be lower than the mayor's. Arenas filed a mandamus petition, which was dismissed by the Court of First Instance.
Statutory Construction

Arianza vs. Workmen’s Compensation Commission

28th February 1978

81 SCRA 698, 171 Phil. 616, No. L-43352
Summary
Manuel Arianza, an employee of Central Azucarera de la Carlota, Inc., filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act after developing liver cirrhosis, which he alleged was aggravated by his working conditions. The Workmen’s Compensation Commission dismissed his claim, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling that his illness was compensable as it was aggravated by his employment.
Background
Arianza worked for Central Azucarera de la Carlota, Inc. from 1960, performing various physically demanding tasks, including packing and piling bagasse and working as a water tender in the fire-room. He developed liver cirrhosis, which he claimed was aggravated by his work conditions. His claim was initially dismissed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commission but was later reversed by the Supreme Court.
Philosophy of Law

Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. vs. Hontanosas

31st August 1977

168 Phil. 608, G.R. No. L-35951
Summary
This case involves a petition for certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals' decision which upheld the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu's order declaring petitioners in default for failing to attend a second pre-trial and the subsequent judgment awarding damages to respondents. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, nullified the CFI's default order and decision, holding that the second pre-trial was improperly called, notice was insufficient as the party itself was not notified, the case was prematurely set for pre-trial as the last pleading had not been filed, the denial of the motion for postponement constituted grave abuse of discretion, appeal was not an adequate remedy under the circumstances, and the CFI of Cebu lacked jurisdiction over the claim for damages arising from an attachment issued by the CFI of Manila.
Background
The dispute originated from a collection suit filed by Allied Overseas Commercial Co., Ltd. (Allied) against Ben Uy Rodriguez in the CFI of Manila, where Allied obtained a writ of preliminary attachment secured by a bond from Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corp. (Pioneer). Although the Manila case was dismissed for improper venue, Rodriguez subsequently filed a separate action in the CFI of Cebu against Pioneer and Allied (later including Allied's assignee, Hadji Esmayaten Lucman) to claim damages for the alleged wrongful and malicious attachment.
Civil Procedure I
Pre-trial

Bagatsing vs. Ramirez

17th December 1976

74 SCRA 306, 165 Phil. 909, G.R. No. L-41631
Summary
The Supreme Court resolved a conflict between the publication requirements of Manila’s Revised City Charter (pre- and post-enactment publication) and the Local Tax Code (post-approval publication only). The Court ruled that the Local Tax Code, as a later general law, superseded the City Charter’s provisions for tax ordinances, upholding the validity of Manila’s Ordinance No. 7522.
Background
June 12–15, 1974: Manila’s Municipal Board enacted and Mayor Bagatsing approved Ordinance No. 7522, imposing fees on public market stalls. February 17, 1975: The Federation of Manila Market Vendors sued to invalidate the ordinance, claiming non-compliance with the City Charter’s publication rules. August 29, 1975: The Court of First Instance (Manila) nullified the ordinance for lacking pre-enactment publication.
Statutory Construction

Purugganan vs. Paredes

21st January 1976

69 SCRA 69, 161 Phil. 91, No. L-23818
Summary
This case concerns a dispute over an easement of drainage between neighboring landowners. The Supreme Court upheld the summary judgment of the lower court, finding that the defendants-appellants violated the terms of the easement and failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact.
Background
Plaintiff Purugganan owned lots burdened by a registered easement of drainage in favor of Defendant Paredes' adjacent property. Paredes constructed a house that exceeded the easement's specifications, causing rainwater to improperly drain onto Purugganan's property. Purugganan sued to enforce the easement, while Paredes claimed her house was pre-existing and not in violation.
Property and Land Law

Padua vs. Robles

29th August 1975

66 SCRA 485, No. L-40486
Summary
This case arose from the tragic death of Normandy Padua, a 10-year-old boy struck by a taxi owned by Bay Taxi Cab and driven by Romeo Punzalan. Initially, civil liability was imposed solely on Punzalan, but when execution proved futile due to his insolvency, the boy’s parents pursued subsidiary liability against the taxi owner, Gregorio N. Robles, under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. The lower court dismissed their case, prompting an appeal that reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the dismissal, recognizing Robles’ subsidiary liability.
Background
On January 1, 1969, a taxi owned by Bay Taxi Cab, driven by Romeo Punzalan, hit and killed 10-year-old Normandy Padua in Olongapo City. The victim's parents (Paulino and Lucena Padua) filed a civil case against Punzalan and the Bay Taxi Cab (Civil Case No. 427-O), while Punzalan faced criminal charges for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (Criminal Case No. 1158-O). The civil court ruled in favor of the Paduas, ordering Punzalan to pay damages but absolving Bay Taxi Cab. The criminal court later convicted Punzalan and sentenced him to imprisonment, stating that his civil liability had already been determined in Civil Case No. 427-O. However, when the Paduas attempted to execute the civil judgment, Punzalan was found to be insolvent. They then filed a separate action (Civil Case No. 1079-O) to enforce Robles’ subsidiary liability. The lower court dismissed the case, ruling that there was no cause of action. The Paduas appealed, and the Court of Appeals referred the case to the Supreme Court due to the legal question involved.
Philosophy of Law

Aquino, Jr. vs. Enrile

17th September 1974

59 SCRA 183, 158-A Phil. 1, No. L-35546, No. L-35538, No. L-35539, No. L-35540, No. L-35547, No. L-35556, No. L-35567, No. L-35571, No. L-35573
Summary
The case involved multiple petitions for habeas corpus filed by prominent political figures, including Benigno S. Aquino Jr. The petitions challenged the legality of their arrest and detention under the martial law declared by President Ferdinand Marcos through Proclamation No. 1081. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the proclamation of martial law and the arrests made were valid and within the President's powers as provided by the 1935 Constitution.
Background
The case primarily revolved around the legality of arresting individuals without a court order, based solely on martial law powers. The petitioners argued that the martial law proclamation was unconstitutional, and that the arrests violated due process. The respondents maintained that the arrests were necessary for national security given the ongoing rebellion.
Constitutional Law I

Republic vs, Vda. de Castellvi

15th August 1974

58 SCRA 336, 157 Phil. 329, No. L-20620
Summary
This case involves an appeal regarding the just compensation for land expropriated by the Republic of the Philippines for the expansion of Basa Air Base. The central issues are the determination of the "taking" date for valuation purposes and the appropriate fair market value of the residential lands. The Supreme Court affirmed that the taking occurred upon the filing of the expropriation complaint and adjusted the just compensation to P5.00 per square meter, while also modifying the interest payment period for Defendant Castellvi.
Background
The Republic needed to expand the Basa Air Base and initiated expropriation proceedings against Carmen M. Vda. de Castellvi and Maria Nieves Toledo-Gozun, landowners of adjacent properties. The Republic had previously leased Castellvi’s land since 1947. Disagreement arose over the just compensation, with landowners claiming a much higher value (P15.00 per square meter) compared to the Republic's initial valuation (P0.20 per square meter).
Constitutional Law II

Cabanas vs. Pilapil

25th July 1974

58 SCRA 94, 157 Phil. 97, No. L-25843
Summary
This case resolves a dispute between a mother and an uncle over who should act as trustee for insurance proceeds meant for a minor beneficiary. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the mother, citing relevant Civil Code provisions and emphasizing the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.
Background
The case arose from a dispute over the custody of insurance proceeds intended for a minor beneficiary. The deceased, Florentino Pilapil, had named his brother Francisco as the trustee for his daughter Millian's insurance benefits. However, Millian's mother, Melchora Cabanas, sought to obtain the proceeds, arguing that as the child's mother and guardian, she was entitled to administer the funds.
Constitutional Law I

Astorga vs. Villegas

30th April 1974

56 SCRA 714, No. L-23475
Summary
This case concerns the validity of Republic Act No. 4065, which allegedly did not reflect the version of House Bill No. 9266 that was duly passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Vice-Mayor Herminio A. Astorga sought to enforce the provisions of the Act, while Mayor Antonio J. Villegas argued it never became law due to procedural defects during its enactment. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 4065 was not duly enacted and thus did not become law.
Background
The case originated from the passage of House Bill No. 9266, which sought to define the powers of the Manila Vice-Mayor. After its passage, controversy erupted when it was discovered that the version signed into law did not include substantial amendments made by Senator Tolentino on the Senate floor.
Statutory Construction

Republic vs. Villasor

28th November 1973

54 SCRA 83, 153 Phil. 356, No. L-30671
Summary
This case affirms the doctrine of state immunity from suit and establishes that public funds cannot be subject to garnishment proceedings, even if the state has given consent to be sued and liability has been adjudged. The Supreme Court nullified an order declaring a decision final and executory, as well as an alias writ of execution against the funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Background
The case arose from an arbitration award against the Republic of the Philippines. When the respondents sought to execute the judgment, they obtained an order from Judge Villasor declaring the decision final and executory. This led to the issuance of an alias writ of execution and notices of garnishment against funds of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The Republic then filed this petition to challenge the validity of the order and execution.
Constitutional Law I

Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary

31st March 1973

50 SCRA 30, 151-A Phil. 35, 69 OG 7975, No. L-36142
Summary
This case involves multiple petitions questioning the validity of the 1973 Constitution's ratification via Citizens Assemblies and its implementation, arguing that it violated the 1935 Constitution. The Supreme Court addresses the justiciability of such issues, the validity of Proclamation No. 1102, and the authority to implement the new Constitution.
Background
Following the declaration of Martial Law and the drafting of a new Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, President Marcos submitted the proposed constitution for ratification via Citizens Assemblies, bypassing a traditional plebiscite. This prompted several legal challenges questioning the process and the President's authority.
Constitutional Law I Constitutional Law II

Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals

31st January 1972

43 SCRA 192, 150 Phil. 222, No. L-33471
Summary
The Supreme Court annulled the Court of Tax Appeals’ (CTA) resolutions ordering the release under bond of foodstuffs imported without a Central Bank release certificate, ruling the importation was prohibited by law and thus ineligible for bond release under the Tariff and Customs Code.
Background
Eusebio Dichoco’s shipment of 438 packages of foodstuffs was seized by customs for lacking a Central Bank release certificate. The CTA initially allowed release under bond, reversed itself, then reinstated the bond order. The Commissioner of Customs challenged this via certiorari.
Statutory Construction

Tumalad vs. Vicencio

30th September 1971

41 SSCRA 143, 148-B Phil. 625, No. L-30173
Summary
This case, certified from the Court of Appeals, resolves whether a house built on rented land can be validly subjected to a chattel mortgage. The Supreme Court ruled that parties can agree to treat a house on rented land as personal property for chattel mortgage purposes, especially when explicitly stated in the contract. The court also addressed the issue of rent payment during the redemption period after extrajudicial foreclosure, ruling that the mortgagor is not obligated to pay rent to the purchaser during this period unless the purchaser has taken legal steps to gain possession.
Background
Defendants-Appellants executed a chattel mortgage over their house, built on rented land, to Plaintiffs-Appellees to secure a loan. Upon default, Plaintiffs-Appellees extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and purchased the house at auction. Plaintiffs-Appellees then filed an ejectment case against Defendants-Appellants in the municipal court to recover possession and collect rent.
Property and Land Law

Edu vs. Ericta

24th October 1970

35 SCRA 481, 146 Phil. 469, No. L-32096
Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Reflector Law and its implementing administrative order, ruling that the law was a valid exercise of police power to promote public safety and that the administrative order did not constitute an improper delegation of legislative power.
Background
Respondent Teddy Galo challenged the Reflector Law and Administrative Order No. 2 (requiring vehicles to install reflectors) as violations of due process and non-delegation. The lower court issued a preliminary injunction against the order, prompting the petitioner to seek Supreme Court review.
Statutory Construction

Sta. Maria vs. Lopez

18th February 1970

31 SCRA 637, No. L-30773
Summary
The case involves the transfer of Felixberto C. Sta. Maria from his position as Dean of the College of Education at the University of the Philippines (UP) to a Special Assistant role in the Office of the UP President. Sta. Maria challenged the transfer, arguing it was a removal without due process. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the transfer was effectively a removal and violated his right to security of tenure.
Background
Sta. Maria was appointed Dean of the College of Education at UP for a five-year term. Due to student protests and demands for his resignation, UP President Salvador P. Lopez transferred him to a Special Assistant role. Sta. Maria argued this was a removal without cause or due process.
Philosophy of Law

Automotive Parts & Equipment Company, Inc. vs. Lingad

31st October 1969

30 SCRA 248, 140 Phil. 580, No. L-26406
Summary
This case revolves around the interpretation of the Minimum Wage Law and the obligations of employers regarding wage payments. The Automotive Parts & Equipment Company sought to reduce its monthly wage liability for employees, arguing that the law did not apply retroactively to newly established businesses. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that the company must comply with the minimum wage requirements.
Background
The petitioner, Automotive Parts & Equipment Company, was incorporated in 1961 and had been paying its employees on both daily and monthly bases. Following the enactment of Republic Act No. 4180 in 1965, which amended the minimum wage law, the Secretary of Labor mandated an increase in monthly wages to a minimum of P180.00. The company contested this requirement, seeking a declaratory relief to interpret its obligations under the law.
Statutory Construction

National Marketing Corp. vs. Tecson

27th August 1969

29 SCRA 70, 139 Phil. 584, No. L-29131
Summary
The Supreme Court resolved whether an action for the revival of a judgment filed exactly ten calendar years after its finality was barred under the statute of limitations in light of the Civil Code provision defining a "year" as 365 days. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the case, ruling that the ten-year limitation had already lapsed due to the inclusion of leap years, which made the total time span exceed 3,650 days.
Background
The Price Stabilization Corporation obtained a final judgment in 1955 against Miguel Tecson. Years later, the National Marketing Corporation, as its successor, attempted to revive this judgment in 1965. The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the action was filed beyond the ten-year prescription period. The only issue on appeal was whether the action to revive had prescribed.
Statutory Construction

People vs. Lava

16th May 1969

28 SCRA 72, No. L-4974,, No. L-4975,, No. L-4976, No. L-4977, No. L-4978
Summary
The case involves multiple criminal charges against members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB), formerly known as Hukbalahap. The defendants were accused of rebellion complexed with multiple murders, arsons, and robberies. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that rebellion could not be complexed with other common crimes like murder and arson.
Background
The accused, high-ranking members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB), were charged with rebellion for engaging in armed attacks, raids, and assassinations aimed at overthrowing the government. The trial court found them guilty of rebellion with multiple murders, arsons, and robberies, sentencing several to death or life imprisonment. On appeal, the Supreme Court re-evaluated the conviction under established jurisprudence.
Philosophy of Law

City of Baguio vs. Marcos

28th February 1969

27 SCRA 342, 136 Phil. 569, No. L-26100
Summary
This case revolves around the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Baguio to reopen cadastral proceedings under Republic Act (R.A.) 931. Petitioners challenged the reopening petition filed by Belong Lutes, arguing they had standing as lessees of the disputed public land. The Supreme Court ruled that lessees have legal personality to oppose reopening under R.A. 931 and upheld the cadastral court’s jurisdiction.
Background
The case originated from a 1912 cadastral proceeding (Civil Reservation Case No. 1) declaring the land public in 1922. In 1961, Belong Lutes petitioned to reopen the case, claiming ancestral possession. Petitioners, as tree farm lessees, opposed the reopening but were dismissed by lower courts. The Supreme Court reversed these rulings.
Statutory Construction

Republic vs. PLDT

27th January 1969

136 Phil. 20, 26 SCRA 620, No. L-18841
Summary
This case concerns the right of the Republic of the Philippines, through the Bureau of Telecommunications, to interconnect its government telephone system with the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company's (PLDT) network. The Supreme Court ruled that while the Republic cannot compel PLDT to enter into a contract on mutually agreeable terms, it can, through eminent domain, require interconnection for public interest, subject to just compensation.
Background
The Bureau of Telecommunications, a government entity, sought to interconnect its Government Telephone System (GTS) with PLDT's telephone network to provide broader telecommunication services to the public, including overseas calls. PLDT initially allowed interconnection through leased trunk lines but later severed these connections, citing unauthorized commercial use and competition from the Bureau. The Republic then filed suit to compel interconnection.
Constitutional Law II
Eminent Domain

Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy

15th April 1968

23 SCRA 29, No. L-21450
Summary
A landmark case establishing the doctrine of laches in Philippine jurisprudence, where a party was barred from questioning the court's jurisdiction after actively participating in proceedings for an extended period. The case emphasizes that jurisdiction questions must be raised at the earliest opportunity.
Background
The case originated from a civil suit to recover money where attachment was issued but later discharged upon posting of a counter-bond by defendants through Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. After judgment and failed execution against defendants, plaintiffs sought to execute against the surety bond. The surety company raised jurisdictional questions only after adverse decisions and nearly 15 years of proceedings
Civil Procedure I

Province of Zamboanga del Norte vs. City of Zamboanga

28th March 1968

22 SCRA 1334, 131 Phil. 446, No. L-24440
Summary
This case involves a dispute over the ownership of 50 real properties initially owned by the defunct Zamboanga Province and located within Zamboanga City. Republic Act 3039 transferred these properties to Zamboanga City for free, amending Commonwealth Act 39 which had originally required the city to purchase them. The Supreme Court had to determine whether these properties were public or patrimonial to decide if the free transfer was constitutional, ultimately ruling that some were public and validly transferred, while others were patrimonial and could not be transferred without just compensation to Zamboanga del Norte, the successor-in-interest of the defunct province.
Background
The Municipality of Zamboanga was the capital of Zamboanga Province. Commonwealth Act 39 converted the Municipality into Zamboanga City and stipulated that the City would purchase provincial properties in Zamboanga City when the capital moved. The capital moved to Dipolog, and later Republic Act 711 divided Zamboanga Province into Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga del Sur. Republic Act 3039 later amended Commonwealth Act 39 to transfer the properties to Zamboanga City for free, leading to this legal challenge by Zamboanga del Norte, seeking payment for its share of the properties.
Property and Land Law

Gonzales vs. Commission on Elections

9th November 1967

21 SCRA 774, 129 Phil. 7, No. L-28196, No. L-28224
Summary
Petitioners sought to prohibit the enforcement of Republic Act No. 4913, which submitted two constitutional amendments (increasing House representatives and allowing legislators to join a constitutional convention) for ratification during the November 1967 general elections. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the law’s constitutionality but with strong concurring opinions criticizing the sufficiency of public information.
Background
Congress passed Resolutions 1 and 3 (proposing amendments) and Resolution 2 (calling a future constitutional convention) on March 16, 1967. RA 4913 scheduled the plebiscite during the 1967 general election. Petitioners argued the amendments were rushed and inadequately publicized.
Statutory Construction

Lidasan vs. Commission on Elections

25th October 1967

21 SCRA 496, 128 Phil. 526, No. L-28089
Summary
The Supreme Court declared Republic Act (RA) 4790 unconstitutional for violating the constitutional requirement that a law’s title must reflect its subject. The law created the Municipality of Dianaton in Lanao del Sur but included barrios from Cotabato without mentioning them in the title, misleading legislators and the public.
Background
RA 4790 aimed to create Dianaton from barrios in Lanao del Sur and Cotabato. The Office of the President urged suspending its implementation, but COMELEC enforced it. Petitioner Bara Lidasan, a Cotabato resident, challenged the law’s validity.
Statutory Construction

Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. vs. City Mayor of Manila

31st July 1967

20 SCRA 849, 128 Phil. 473, No. L-24693
Summary
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision, upholding the constitutionality of Manila Ordinance No. 4760, which regulated the operations of hotels and motels. The Court emphasized the presumption of validity of ordinances, the necessity of evidence to challenge such validity, and the broad scope of police power to promote public morals and welfare.
Background
The Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association challenged Ordinance No. 4760, arguing it was unconstitutional and beyond the powers of the Manila Municipal Board. They claimed the ordinance violated due process by imposing unreasonable fees and regulations, invading privacy, and lacking certainty. The City Mayor defended the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power to curb immorality.
Constitutional Law II

Caltex (Philippines), Inc. vs. Palomar

29th September 1966

18 SCRA 247, 124 Phil. 763, No. L-19650
Summary
Caltex planned a promotional contest requiring participants to estimate gas pump output for prizes, with no purchase or fee required. The Postmaster General deemed it a prohibited lottery under the Postal Law and threatened a fraud order. The Supreme Court ruled the contest legal, as it lacked consideration, a key element of lotteries.
Background
Caltex designed the “Caltex Hooded Pump Contest” in 1960 to boost sales. Participants estimated gas pump output for prizes. The Postmaster General blocked mail use for the contest, calling it a lottery. Caltex sought declaratory relief to affirm its legality.
Statutory Construction

Bolinao Electronics Corporation vs. Valencia

30th June 1964

11 SCRA 486, 120 Phil. 469, No. L-20740
Summary
Three broadcasting companies challenged the Secretary of Public Works and Communications' authority to investigate their license renewal applications after late submissions, arguing violations were condoned by a departmental circular. The Supreme Court ruled the investigation lacked legal basis and upheld the broadcasters' rights to operate on contested channels.
Background
The Secretary of Public Works and Communications improperly initiated license renewal investigations after condoning late filings through an official circular. The Philippine Broadcasting Service (PBS) unlawfully attempted to operate a TV channel in Luzon despite budgetary restrictions.
Statutory Construction

People vs. Hernandez

30th May 1964

11 SCRA 223, No. L-6025, No. L-6026
Summary
This case involves multiple individuals, including Jose Lava and other high-ranking members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), who were charged with rebellion complexed with multiple murders, arson, and robberies. The Supreme Court reviewed the case on appeal and determined that the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with other common crimes. As a result, the Court ruled that the proper charge should be simple rebellion instead of the complex crime originally imposed by the lower court.
Background
The accused were leaders or members of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB), formerly known as Hukbalahap (Huks). The government alleged that they conspired to overthrow the government through armed rebellion, organizing violent raids, ambushes, and assassinations. The trial court sentenced several defendants to death or life imprisonment, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Philosophy of Law

De Ramas vs. Court of Agrarian Relations

29th May 1964

11 SCRA 171, 120 Phil. 168, No. L-19555
Summary
The case involves a petition to declare Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199 unconstitutional, which allows tenants to change their tenancy contract from share to leasehold. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the provision, ruling that it is a valid exercise of police power aimed at promoting social justice and improving the economic condition of tenants.
Background
Geronimo B. Ramos, a tenant of Mateo de Ramas, sought to change their tenancy agreement from share to leasehold under Section 14 of Republic Act No. 1199. De Ramas refused, leading Ramos to file a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations, which ruled in favor of Ramos. De Ramas appealed, challenging the constitutionality of Section 14.
Philosophy of Law

Republic vs. La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas

28th February 1961

1 SCRA 646, 111 Phil. 230, No. L-12792
Summary
This case involves the Republic of the Philippines' attempt to expropriate a portion of land owned by La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas (San Beda College) to extend Azcarraga Street and ease traffic congestion. The trial court dismissed the expropriation case based on a perceived lack of necessity. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding that the necessity of expropriation is a factual issue requiring evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Background
To alleviate traffic congestion on Legarda Street, the government planned to extend Azcarraga Street. This extension required acquiring a portion of land owned by La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas, where San Beda College is located. Negotiations failed, leading the government to initiate expropriation proceedings.
Constitutional Law II

Caltex (Phil.) Inc. vs. Felias

30th June 1960

108 Phil. 873, No. L-14309
Summary
This case involves a dispute over the ownership of a land parcel levied and sold to Caltex to satisfy the debt of Felisa Felias's husband. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the land was Felisa Felias's paraphernal property, not conjugal, and therefore not liable for her husband's debt, as it was donated to her before the conjugal dwelling was built.
Background
Caltex sought to enforce a judgment against Felisa Felias's husband, Simeon Sawamoto, by levying and selling a land parcel (Lot No. 107) originally owned by Felisa Felias's parents and later donated to her. Caltex claimed the land became conjugal property due to the construction of a conjugal house on it during the marriage and was thus subject to levy for the husband’s debt.
Property and Land Law

Commissioner Internal Revenue vs. Filipinas Compañia de Seguros

29th April 1960

107 Phil. 1055, No. L-14880
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that the amended real estate dealer’s fixed annual tax under Republic Act No. 1612 could not be applied retroactively to 1956, as the respondent had already paid the tax in full under the original law. The Court affirmed the prospective application of tax laws absent clear legislative intent for retroactivity.
Background
Respondent Filipinas Compañía de Seguros, a real estate dealer, paid P150 as the 1956 fixed annual tax under the original National Internal Revenue Code. RA 1612 (effective August 24, 1956) introduced graduated rates. The Commissioner later demanded an additional P350, claiming retroactive application. The Court of Tax Appeals ruled for the respondent, prompting the Commissioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Construction

Gerona, et al. vs. Secretary of Education, et al.

12th August 1959

106 Phil. 2, No. L-13954
Summary
The case involves Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to participate in the flag ceremony at public schools, citing religious beliefs. The Supreme Court upheld the Department of Education's requirement for all students to participate in the flag ceremony, ruling that it does not violate religious freedom under the Constitution.
Background
Petitioners, members of Jehovah's Witnesses, refused to let their children participate in the flag ceremony at public schools, citing religious beliefs. The children were expelled, leading to a legal challenge against the Department of Education's order mandating the flag ceremony.
Philosophy of Law

Evangelista vs. Alto Surety & Ins. Co., Inc.

23rd April 1958

103 Phil. 401, No. L-11139
Summary
This case concerns a dispute over ownership of a house built by a lessee on leased land. The Supreme Court determined whether the house should be considered movable or immovable property for purposes of attachment and execution. The Court ruled that a house is immovable property regardless of who built it or the agreements between private parties, and thus, Evangelista's prior attachment, properly executed for immovable property, prevailed over Alto Surety's later sale.
Background
Santos Evangelista sued Ricardo Rivera for a sum of money and obtained a writ of attachment on a house Rivera built on leased land. Later, Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. claimed ownership of the same house based on a prior auction sale resulting from a separate case against Rivera. Evangelista sued to establish his title and gain possession.
Property and Land Law

Ichong, etc., et al. vs. Hernandez

31st May 1957

101 Phil. 1155, G.R. No. L-7995
Summary
This case involves a petition challenging the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 1180, known as the Retail Trade Nationalization Law, which prohibited aliens (with certain exceptions) from engaging in the retail business in the Philippines. Petitioner, an alien retailer, argued the Act violated due process, equal protection, treaty obligations, and constitutional requirements regarding the title of bills. The Supreme Court upheld the law's constitutionality, concluding it was a valid exercise of the State's police power aimed at achieving economic independence and protecting the nation from perceived alien dominance in the retail sector, and that the distinctions made by the law were based on reasonable grounds.
Background
he enactment of Republic Act No. 1180 stemmed from a deep-seated nationalistic concern, present since the 1935 Constitutional Convention and amplified over time, regarding the perceived economic dominance and control exerted by aliens, particularly in the vital retail trade sector, which was viewed as a threat to the Philippines' economic independence, national security, and the welfare of Filipino retailers and consumers.
Constitutional Law II
Due Process

Espique vs. Espique

28th June 1956

99 Phil. 448, No. L-8029
Summary
Plaintiffs sued for partition of land, claiming common ownership. Defendant countered that the land was donated to him propter nuptias in 1906 and he possessed it adversely for 44 years. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the partition suit, ruling that although the donation was invalid for lack of a public document, it served as a valid basis for acquisitive prescription given the defendant's long, adverse, and continuous possession.
Background
The case stemmed from a partition action where plaintiffs claimed common ownership of land and sought damages for lost profits. The defendant asserted sole ownership based on a donation propter nuptias received in 1906 and his subsequent adverse possession for over 40 years, arguing for prescription and lack of cause of action for partition.
Property and Land Law

Bermoy, et al. vs. Philippine Normal College

18th May 1956

99 Phil. 1031, G.R. No. L-8670
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Normal College, as a juridical entity with the power to sue and be sued, could not be dismissed from a lawsuit for salary differentials and overtime pay filed by its employees. The Court held that the state had given consent for the College to be sued by investing it with express power to be sued in courts.
Background
The case revolves around employees of the Philippine Normal College seeking compensation for salary differentials and overtime pay. Their lawsuit was initially dismissed on the grounds that the college lacked the juridical capacity to be sued. This dismissal led to an appeal to the Supreme Court, where the central question became whether the Philippine Normal College could indeed be sued as a juridical entity.
Constitutional Law I

Cruz vs. Pahati

13th April 1956

98 Phil. 788, No. L-8257
Summary
This case involves a dispute over the ownership of an automobile fraudulently sold by a third party, Belizo. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the original owner, Cruz, holding that even a buyer in good faith, Bulahan, could not acquire valid title from a seller who did not have rightful ownership, as the original owner was unlawfully deprived of the vehicle through fraud.
Background
Plaintiff Cruz owned an automobile. He entrusted it to Belizo, along with a letter intended to request a new registration certificate, under the pretext that Belizo would find a buyer. Belizo, however, fraudulently altered the letter into a deed of sale and sold the car to Bulahan, who then sold it to Pahati. Cruz filed a replevin action to recover the automobile.
Property and Land Law

Carandang vs. Santiago, etc. and Valenton

25th May 1955

97 Phil. 94, No. L-8238
Summary
Petitioner Cesar Carandang filed a civil action for damages against Tomas Valenton Jr. (convicted of frustrated homicide) and his parents. The trial court suspended the civil case pending the criminal appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that under Article 33 of the Civil Code, a civil action for physical injuries proceeds independently of the criminal case, even if the crime charged is frustrated homicide.
Background
After Tomas Valenton Jr. was convicted of frustrated homicide for attacking Carandang, Carandang filed a civil suit for damages. The trial court suspended the civil case pending the criminal appeal. Carandang challenged this suspension via certiorari.
Statutory Construction

In re: Cunanan, et al.

18th March 1954

94 Phil. 534
Summary
The Supreme Court declared Republic Act No. 972 (the "Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953") unconstitutional for infringing on the Court’s exclusive authority to regulate bar admissions. The law retroactively lowered passing grades for bar exams from 1946–1952, allowing 1,094 unsuccessful candidates admission. The Court ruled it violated separation of powers and constituted arbitrary class legislation.
Background
Post-WWII bar candidates who narrowly failed petitions sought admission under RA 972, which retroactively reduced passing averages. The Court initially adjusted passing grades annually but rejected legislative interference, citing the need to protect public interest in legal practice standards.
Statutory Construction

Endencia and Jugo vs. David

31st August 1953

93 Phil. 696, 146 Phil. 469, Nos. L-6355-56
Summary
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 13 of Republic Act No. 590, which allowed income taxation of judicial salaries, was unconstitutional. The Court held that taxing judges’ salaries constitutes a “diminution” of compensation prohibited by the Constitution and affirmed the judiciary’s exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution.
Background
Judges Pastor M. Endencia and Fernando Jugo sued for refunds of income taxes withheld from their salaries. The lower court ruled in their favor, citing Perfecto v. Meer. The Collector of Internal Revenue appealed, arguing Congress’s enactment of RA 590 validated the taxation.
Statutory Construction

People vs. Alvero

11th April 1950

86 Phil. 58, No. L-820
Summary
This case involves charges of treason against Aurelio Sevilla Alvero based on his collaboration with Japanese forces during World War II through economic, political, and military activities.
Background
Aurelio Alvero was charged with 22 counts of treason before the People's Court for various collaborative activities with Japanese forces during the occupation of the Philippines in World War II. These activities included business dealings through ASA Trading, membership in pro-Japanese organizations, and military collaboration through groups like MAKAPILI and Bisig Bakal Ng Tagala.
Criminal Law II

People vs. Paar

31st March 1950

85 Phil. 864, No. L-2318
Summary
This case is an appeal from a judgment of the now-defunct People’s Court, which found Teofilo Paar guilty of treason and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua along with a fine of PHP 10,000 and costs. The Supreme Court modified the sentence, reducing it to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of reclusion temporal. The conviction was based on evidence proving his collaboration with the Japanese Kempei Tai during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines.
Background
The case arose from allegations that Teofilo Paar actively assisted the Japanese Military Police (Kempei Tai) in identifying, arresting, and interrogating individuals suspected of being part of the underground resistance movement. The prosecution pursued only four counts out of the original fifteen, focusing on Paar’s overt acts of treasonous collaboration with the enemy.
Criminal Law II

Guido vs. Rural Progress Admlnistration

31st October 1949

84 Phil. 847, No. L-2089
Summary
The case involves a petition for prohibition filed by Justa G. Guido to prevent the Rural Progress Administration (RPA) from expropriating her commercial land in Maypajo, Caloocan, Rizal. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Guido, holding that the expropriation was not for public use and thus unconstitutional.
Background
The RPA sought to expropriate two adjoining commercial lots owned by Justa G. Guido in Maypajo, Caloocan, Rizal, to resell them to tenants. Guido challenged the expropriation, arguing that the land was commercial and thus excluded from the purview of Commonwealth Act No. 539, which allows expropriation for agrarian reform.
Philosophy of Law

Sunripe Coconut Product Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations

30th April 1949

83 Phil. 518, No. L-2009
Summary
This case revolves around whether parers and shellers working under the "pakiao" system at Sunripe Coconut Products Co., Inc. are considered employees entitled to labor benefits like sick leave. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Industrial Relations' decision affirming their status as employees, citing the degree of control exercised by the company over these workers.
Background
The case arose when the Sunshine Coconut Workers' Union filed a claim on behalf of parers and shellers seeking sick leave benefits. Sunripe Coconut Products Co., Inc. contested the claim, arguing these workers were independent contractors. The dispute reached the Court of Industrial Relations, which ruled in favor of the workers. Sunripe appealed to the Supreme Court.
Philosophy of Law

Bustos vs. Lucero

20th October 1948

81 Phil. 640, No. L-2068
Summary
A landmark case addressing the scope of an accused's right to cross-examine witnesses during preliminary investigation, where the Supreme Court upheld the discretionary nature of this right rather than treating it as an absolute constitutional guarantee.
Background
The case arose from a criminal proceeding where the accused sought to cross-examine witnesses during preliminary investigation. After being denied this opportunity, he attempted to have the case remanded back to the justice of the peace court to exercise this right.
Civil Procedure I

Sayo vs. Chief of Police of Manila

12th May 1948

80 Phil., 859, No. L-2128
Summary
This case questioned whether delivering a person arrested without a warrant to the City Fiscal of Manila qualifies as a "judicial authority" under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court ruled that the term "judicial authority" refers only to courts or judges empowered to issue an arrest or commitment order. The continued detention of petitioners without proper judicial process was deemed illegal, and their release was ordered.
Background
Petitioners Melencio Sayo and Joaquin Mostero were arrested on April 2, 1948, for alleged robbery, based on a complaint by Bernardino Malinao. They were detained without a warrant and brought to the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila. When no proper court process was issued for their continued detention after six hours, they filed a petition for habeas corpus.
Criminal Law II

Vargas vs. Rilloraza

26th February 1948

80 Phil. 297
Summary
The case challenges the constitutionality of Section 14 of the People's Court Act (Commonwealth Act No. 682), which disqualifies Supreme Court Justices who held office under the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Executive Commission or the Philippine Republic from sitting in treason cases. The petitioner argues that the provision violates the Constitution, while the respondents defend its validity.
Background
The case arose from a motion filed by Jorge B. Vargas, challenging the constitutionality of Section 14 of the People's Court Act. This provision disqualified certain Supreme Court Justices from participating in treason cases related to the Japanese occupation, allowing the President to designate lower court judges to temporarily sit in the Supreme Court.
Philosophy of Law

People vs. Prieto

29th January 1948

80 Phil. 138, No. L-399
Summary
The case involves Eduardo Prieto, who was prosecuted for treason on seven counts in the People's Court. After initially pleading not guilty to all counts, he later changed his plea to guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, and 7. The Supreme Court modified the death penalty to reclusion perpetua, finding him guilty of treason as charged in counts 1, 2, 3, and 7, with one aggravating circumstance offset by his plea of guilty.
Background
The case arose from actions committed during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in 1944-1945. The accused, Eduardo Prieto, acted as an undercover agent for the Japanese Military Police, participating in various activities against suspected guerrillas and their supporters.
Criminal Law II
« 1-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-340 »