Talaan ng mga Kaso

Filter by Subject

Text Search

There are 340 results on the current subject filter

Title	Reference #s	Summary	Background	Subject Matter
Primicias vs. Fugoso (27th January 1948)	80 Phil. 71, No. L-1800	This case involves Cipriano P. Primicias, the General Campaign Manager of the Coalesced Minority Parties, who sought a permit to hold a public meeting at Plaza Miranda. The Mayor of Manila, Valeriano E. Fugoso, denied the request, citing public order concerns. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Primicias, holding that the Mayor did not have absolute discretion to refuse a permit for a peaceful assembly.	Cipriano P. Primicias requested a permit from Mayor Fugoso to hold a political rally at Plaza Miranda on November 16, 1947, to protest alleged election fraud. Initially approved by the Vice Mayor, the permit was revoked by the Mayor the next day, citing concerns over public order and the potential for unrest. Primicias filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Mayor to grant the permit.	Philosophy of Law
Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds of Manila (15th November 1947)	79 Phil. 461, No. L-630	The Supreme Court ruled in Krivenko v. Register of Deeds (1947) that residential land qualifies as “agricultural” under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, prohibiting non-citizens from acquiring such property. The decision upheld the denial of a Russian alien’s attempt to register a Manila residential lot, emphasizing that constitutional restrictions on land ownership aim to preserve national patrimony for Filipinos.	The case emerged during post-WWII Philippines amid efforts to enforce constitutional protections over national patrimony. Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution prohibited alien ownership of "agricultural land," but ambiguity arose over whether this term included residential parcels. The dispute reflected tensions between foreign investments and safeguarding Filipino resources, requiring the Court to clarify the scope of constitutional land restrictions.	Statutory Construction
People vs. Agpangan (10th October 1947)	79 Phil. 334, No. L-778	A treason case where the Supreme Court acquitted the defendant due to the prosecution's failure to satisfy the two-witness rule in proving treasonous overt acts, and due to compelling evidence that the defendant's actions were done under duress after the Japanese killed a guerrilla member in his house and threatened him with the same fate.	The case arose during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II. The defendant was accused of being a member of pro-Japanese organizations (Ganap and Pampars) and performing duties that aided the Japanese forces against Filipino and American forces between December 1944 and January 1945 in Laguna Province.	Criminal Law II
People vs. Adriano (30th June 1947)	78 Phil. 561, No. L-477	The Supreme Court reversed a treason conviction due to insufficient evidence under the two-witness rule, establishing that witnesses must testify to the same overt act rather than separate instances of similar conduct.	During the Japanese occupation of the Philippines between January and April 1945, Apolinario Adriano was accused of treason for joining the Makapili organization and allegedly participating in various activities supporting Japanese forces against the United States and Philippine Commonwealth forces.	Criminal Law II
Caraos vs. Daza (13th March 1947)	76 Phil. 681, No. L-442, G.R. No. 874	Jose Caraos, convicted of homicide in 1944, was released from prison during the Japanese occupation. After liberation, he was rearrested to serve the remainder of his sentence. Caraos claimed he was pardoned, but the court found insufficient evidence to support this claim and denied his petition for habeas corpus.	Jose Caraos was convicted of homicide in 1944 and sentenced to prison. During the Japanese occupation, he was released from jail, allegedly due to a pardon. After liberation, he was rearrested to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence. Caraos filed a petition for habeas corpus, claiming his release was due to a valid pardon.	Philosophy of Law
Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito (5th March 1947)	78 Phil. 1, G.R. No. 1123	This case involves a petition for prohibition filed by members of the Philippine Congress challenging the validity of a resolution proposing an amendment to the Philippine Constitution. Petitioners argued that the resolution was not validly adopted, as it failed to meet the constitutional requirement of approval by three-fourths of all members of the Senate and House of Representatives voting separately. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling the issue as a political question beyond judicial review.	The case arose after Congress passed a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment allowing American citizens and corporations to exploit natural resources in the Philippines, subject to a plebiscite for public ratification. Petitioners challenged this resolution, claiming it failed to meet the required three-fourths votes in both legislative chambers.	Statutory Construction
Laurel vs. Misa (30th January 1947)	77 Phil. 856, No. L-409	This case addresses the issue of whether Filipino citizens who adhered to the enemy during the Japanese occupation can be prosecuted for treason. The Supreme Court denied the petition for habeas corpus, ruling that allegiance to the legitimate government was not suspended during enemy occupation.	Anastacio Laurel, facing treason charges for his actions during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, sought relief through a habeas corpus petition. He challenged the validity of his prosecution, arguing that the concept of treason did not apply during the period of enemy occupation.	Constitutional Law I Criminal Law II Statutory Construction
Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff (20th August 1946)	75 Phil. 875, No. L-533	This case addresses the jurisdiction of military courts-martial over former Philippine Army and Constabulary members who joined guerrilla forces during the Japanese occupation. The Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the court-martial, rejecting arguments that military law was suspended during enemy occupation and affirming that guerrilla forces were part of the Philippine Army subject to military law.	The case revolves around the military trial of former Philippine Constabulary and Army members who joined guerrilla forces during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II. After allegedly killing a superior officer, the petitioners were brought to trial before a General Court Martial. They challenged the jurisdiction of the military court, arguing that they were not subject to military law at the time of the alleged offense due to the enemy occupation. The case made its way to the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether the petitioners were still subject to military jurisdiction despite the circumstances of war and occupation.	Constitutional Law I
United States vs. Causby (27th May 1946)	[]	This article analyzes the landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Causby, which significantly altered common law property rights regarding airspace. It examines how the Causby decision recognized an "aerial easement" as a form of taking under the Fifth Amendment when government aircraft flights at low altitudes interfere with the use of private property. The article further explores the implications of Causby for aviation law, eminent domain, and the balance between individual property rights and national defense, particularly in the context of military air operations and the evolving concept of airspace ownership.	Historically, common law adhered to the doctrine cujus est solum ejus usque ad coelum et ad infernos, granting property owners rights to the heavens and to the depths below. However, the advent of aviation in the 20th century rendered this archaic rule impractical and necessitated a re-evaluation of airspace rights. Early courts initially resisted change, but the necessity of flight for transportation and national defense forced a legal evolution recognizing that the airspace above "usable heights" was not exclusively owned by the landowner.	Constitutional Law II
People vs. Cruz (21st February 1946)	76 Phil. 169, G.R. No. L-52	A criminal case involving robbery in band where the appellant Teodoro De La Cruz y Tojos was found guilty of robbing a drug store with three other armed men. The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction despite his denial of participation, based on positive identification by witnesses.	On June 25, 1945, four armed men robbed Dr. Gregorio B. Sison's drug store in Manila. The appellant was identified as one of the robbers who kept watch over the victims while they were forced to lie face down. The case primarily centered on the positive identification of the appellant by two witnesses.	Philosophy of Law
Yamashita vs. Styer (19th December 1945)	75 Phil. 563, No. L-129	This case involves General Tomoyuki Yamashita, who was tried by an American Military Commission for war crimes committed during World War II in the Philippines. Yamashita filed a petition for habeas corpus and prohibition, challenging the jurisdiction of the military tribunal and the legality of his detention and trial. The Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the jurisdiction of the Military Commission.	After Japan's surrender in World War II, General Yamashita was captured and detained by the United States Army. He was charged with war crimes for failing to control his troops, who committed atrocities in the Philippines. Yamashita sought relief from the Philippine Supreme Court, claiming violations of his rights under international and domestic law.	Philosophy of Law
Peralta vs. Director of Prisons (12th November 1945)	75 Phil. 285, No. L-49	A habeas corpus case challenging the validity of a life imprisonment sentence imposed by a Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created during the Japanese occupation, which ultimately led to the Supreme Court invalidating the sentence based on the court's violation of fundamental rights and due process.	William F. Peralta, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila during the Japanese occupation, was charged with robbery under Act No. 65 and sentenced to life imprisonment by a special court created under Ordinance No. 7 of the puppet Republic of the Philippines. He began serving his sentence on August 21, 1944.	Philosophy of Law
Co Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon (17th September 1945)	75 Phil. 113, No. L-5	A landmark case that determined the validity of judicial acts and proceedings conducted during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, specifically addressing whether courts established under the Japanese regime could continue their proceedings after liberation.	During World War II, the Japanese forces occupied the Philippines and established the Philippine Executive Commission and later the Republic of the Philippines. After liberation by American forces, questions arose about the validity of judicial proceedings conducted during the occupation period.	Philosophy of Law Statutory Construction
Tileston vs. Ullman (1st February 1943)	318 U.S. 44 (1943)	The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a physician challenging the constitutionality of a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives, holding that the physician lacked standing to assert the constitutional rights of his patients.	A physician brought a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that a Connecticut law banning contraception was unconstitutional. The physician argued that the law prevented him from providing necessary medical advice to patients whose lives would be endangered by pregnancy.	Constitutional Law II
Kasilag vs. Rodriguez et al. (7th December 1939)	69 Phil . 217, No. 46623	A dispute over the validity of a contract involving a homestead property, where the Supreme Court had to determine whether the agreement was a mortgage of improvements or an absolute sale disguised as a mortgage to circumvent legal restrictions on homestead alienation.	The case revolves around a homestead property dispute that began in 1932. Emiliana Ambrosio, who had been granted a homestead patent in 1931, entered into a contract with Marcial Kasilag where she received P1,000 in exchange for what was documented as a mortgage on the property's improvements (consisting of fruit trees and bamboo). The contract included provisions for a future sale if Ambrosio failed to repay within 4.5 years. After one year, when Ambrosio couldn't pay the interest or taxes, they made a verbal agreement allowing Kasilag to possess the land, collect its fruits, and make improvements in lieu of interest payments. Kasilag took possession, paid taxes, and invested P5,000 in improvements. After Ambrosio's death, her heirs (Rafaela Rodriguez and others) sued to recover the property, arguing that the original contract was actually a disguised absolute sale attempting to circumvent legal restrictions on homestead alienation. The case worked its way through the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeals before reaching the Supreme Court, where the fundamental question was whether the agreement was a legitimate mortgage of improvements or an illegal attempt to transfer a homestead property during the restricted period.	Philosophy of Law
Gold Creek vs. Rodriguez and Abadilla (28th September 1938)	66 Phil. 259, No. 45859	The Supreme Court ruled that a mining claim validly located and perfected under U.S. laws before the 1935 Philippine Constitution took effect is exempt from the constitutional prohibition on alienating natural resources, entitling the claimant to a patent upon fulfilling legal requirements.	Gold Creek Mining Corp. applied for a patent for the “Nob Fraction” mining claim, but the government refused, citing the 1935 Constitution’s prohibition on alienating natural resources. The case centered on whether pre-Constitution mining rights survived the constitutional ban.	Statutory Construction
Philippine National Bank vs. National City Bank of New York (31st October 1936)	63 Phil. 711, G. R. No. 43596	A case involving forged checks where Philippine National Bank (PNB) sought to recover payments made on forged checks from Motor Service Company (MSC). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PNB, establishing important principles regarding bank liability for forged checks and the duty of care in check transactions.	In April 1933, Motor Service Company (MSC) accepted two checks as payment for automobile tires from unknown individuals. These checks were purportedly issued by the Pangasinan Transportation Co. and signed by J.L. Klar as Manager and Treasurer, payable to International Auto Repair Shop. MSC deposited these checks with the National City Bank of New York, which then cleared them through the Philippine National Bank (PNB). After honoring the checks, PNB discovered that J.L. Klar's signatures were forged when informed by Pangasinan Transportation Co. PNB immediately demanded reimbursement from both MSC and National City Bank, but both refused. PNB filed suit, and the case was eventually dismissed against National City Bank before trial, proceeding solely against MSC for recovery of the funds paid on the forged checks.	Philosophy of Law
Davao Saw Mill Co. vs. Castillo (7th August 1935)	61 Phil. 709, No. 40411	This case addresses whether sawmill machinery installed by a lessee on leased land becomes real property by virtue of being attached to the land for industry, or if it remains personal property, especially in light of a lease agreement excluding machinery from improvements that would accrue to the lessor. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision that the machinery remained personal property, thus upholding its levy and sale as personalty.	Davao Saw Mill operated a sawmill business on land it leased. They erected a building and installed machinery within it, some affixed to cement foundations. A lease agreement stipulated that improvements and buildings would become the property of the landowner upon lease expiration, but specifically excluded machineries from these improvements.	Property and Land Law
Sibal vs. Valdez (4th August 1927)	50 Phil. 512, No. 26278	This case addresses whether standing sugar cane should be considered personal or real property for purposes of attachment and redemption. The Supreme Court ruled that under prevailing jurisprudence and statutory modifications to the Civil Code, annually cultivated crops like sugar cane are considered personal property and thus not subject to redemption as real property. The Court modified the lower court's judgment regarding damages, adjusting the amounts for sugar cane, sugar cane shoots, and harvested palay.	This case arose from a dispute over sugar cane and palay (rice) crops planted on land previously owned by the plaintiff, Leon Sibal, but later involved in execution sales. Sibal attempted to redeem sugar cane sold to the defendant, Emiliano Valdez, and sought to prevent Valdez from harvesting palay on the same land. The core issue revolves around the classification of standing crops as either personal or real property under Philippine law.	Property and Land Law
Buck vs. Bell (2nd May 1927)	274 U.S. 200	This case involved a constitutional challenge to a Virginia state law that authorized the compulsory sterilization (salpingectomy) of individuals deemed "feeble minded" and institutionalized in state facilities. Carrie Buck, an inmate found to be "feeble minded" and the daughter of a "feeble minded" mother and mother of an illegitimate "feeble minded" child, challenged the order for her sterilization under the statute, arguing it violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Virginia statute, finding that the state's interest in preventing the procreation of "unfit" individuals outweighed Buck's personal rights, drawing an analogy to compulsory vaccination laws and concluding the procedural safeguards were adequate.	* The case arose in the context of the eugenics movement in the early 20th century, which promoted the idea that societal problems could be reduced by preventing reproduction among individuals considered genetically unfit or "defective." * Virginia enacted a statute in 1924 reflecting these views, allowing for the sterilization of inmates of certain state institutions if deemed beneficial for the patient and society, based on concerns about heredity and the societal burden of supporting "defective persons."	Constitutional Law II Due Process
Riel vs. Wright (5th August 1926)	49 Phil. 194, G. R. No. 25679	This case involves a petition for mandamus filed by Magdaleno Riel, a temporary clerk in the Philippine Senate, seeking to compel the Insular Auditor, Ben F. Wright, to approve a warrant for his salary corresponding to services rendered from February 1 to 14, 1926. The Auditor refused payment, arguing that Riel's services, performed 82 days after the legislative session ended on November 9, 1925, were not covered by the appropriation for "supplementary force" which was limited to "several days after a session" under Act No. 2935. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that "several days" could not be interpreted to mean 82 days, thus Riel had no clear legal right to the payment, and mandamus was inappropriate.	The petitioner was employed as a "temporary clerk" in the Philippine Senate. Following the adjournment of the legislative session, his services continued for an extended period. A dispute arose when the Insular Auditor refused to approve the payment warrant for services rendered significantly later than the session's close, citing limitations in the relevant appropriation act regarding temporary legislative employees. This case arose as a "test case" potentially affecting numerous similarly situated employees.	Constitutional Law I
Yu Cong Eng vs. Trinidad (6th February 1925)	47 Phil. 385, G.R. No. L-20479	Chinese merchants petitioned the Supreme Court to prohibit the enforcement of Act No. 2972 (the "Chinese Bookkeeping Law"), which required account books to be kept in English, Spanish, or a local dialect, arguing it was unconstitutional. The government defended the law as a necessary measure under police power and the power of taxation to prevent tax fraud. Applying the principle that courts should adopt a construction that upholds constitutionality if possible, the Supreme Court interpreted the Act not as a complete prohibition on keeping books in Chinese, but as requiring only those books essential for tax inspection (like sales books and specified records/returns) to be kept in one of the permitted languages. Under this construction, the Court declared Act No. 2972 constitutional and denied the petition.	* The case arose from the Philippine government's efforts to effectively collect sales and income taxes, particularly from Chinese merchants, many of whom kept their account books exclusively in Chinese, making inspection difficult for revenue agents. * An earlier attempt by the Collector of Internal Revenue to mandate bookkeeping in English or Spanish via administrative circular was invalidated by the Supreme Court (_Young vs. Rafferty_) for exceeding administrative authority, prompting the Legislature to enact Act No. 2972. * The Act faced significant opposition from the Chinese community and diplomatic channels, and its enforcement was initially suspended before being pursued, leading to the arrest of petitioner Yu Cong Eng and this challenge.	Constitutional Law II Due Process
People vs. Pomar (3rd November 1924)	46 Phil. 440, No. 22008	The Supreme Court ruled that Section 13 of Act No. 3071, which required employers to grant maternity leave with pay to pregnant women employees, was unconstitutional as it violated the constitutional right to freedom of contract protected by the due process clause.	In 1923, the Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 3071, which mandated employers to provide paid maternity leave to pregnant women workers. Under Section 13 of this law, women employees were entitled to receive wages for thirty days before and thirty days after childbirth. The case arose when Julio Pomar, managing La Flor de la Isabela tobacco factory, refused to pay such maternity benefits to Macaria Fajardo, a cigar-maker who had given birth. The prosecution filed charges against Pomar for violating the Act, leading to his conviction in the lower court. Pomar challenged the constitutionality of the law, arguing it violated fundamental rights to freedom of contract and property, ultimately bringing the case before the Supreme Court for review.	Philosophy of Law
Pensader vs. Pensader (7th February 1924)	47 Phil. 959, No. 21271	This case involves a dispute over the partition of coconut land claimed by plaintiffs as heirs of Canuto Pensader, asserting it as undivided inheritance, against defendants, Alejandra Pensader and her son Silverio Revelar, who claimed exclusive ownership via donation and adverse possession. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the defendants' long-term, adverse possession had prescribed the plaintiffs' action for partition.	The case centers on a claim of inheritance versus a claim of ownership through donation and adverse possession. The plaintiffs, nephews of the deceased Canuto Pensader, sought to partition land they considered common inheritance. The defendants, niece and grand-nephew of Canuto, asserted exclusive rights based on donations made by Canuto and decades of uninterrupted possession. The legal context is property rights, inheritance laws, donation, and the principle of prescription through adverse possession.	Property and Land Law
People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw (27th February 1922)	43 Phil. 19, No. 17958	A landmark piracy case in the Philippines where two Moro pirates were convicted for attacking a Dutch vessel, committing robbery, rape, and attempted murder. The Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction over the crime despite it occurring in foreign waters, establishing that piracy is a crime against all nations that can be tried anywhere.	The case arose from a horrific act of piracy in the Dutch East Indies where Moro pirates attacked Dutch subjects, committed robbery, rape, and attempted murder. The perpetrators later returned to the Philippines where they were arrested and tried, raising important questions about jurisdiction and the applicability of Spanish-era piracy laws.	Criminal Law II
Osorio vs. Osorio and Ynchausti Steamship Co. (30th March 1921)	41 Phil. 531, No. 16544	This case concerns the validity of a donation made by a widow, Da. Petrona Reyes, to her son, Leonardo Osorio, of her share in her deceased husband's shipping business inheritance, specifically shares of stock in Ynchausti Steamship Co. The central issue is whether the donation made before the formal adjudication of the inheritance is valid under Article 635 of the Civil Code, which prohibits donation of future property. The Supreme Court upheld the donation, finding that the widow had a vested right to her inheritance at the time of donation.	D. Antonio Osorio had a share in a shipping business with Ynchausti & Co. Upon his death, his estate, including this share, was to be partitioned among his heirs, including his widow Da. Petrona Reyes. Before the formal partition, Da. Petrona Reyes donated a portion of her expected inheritance to her son, Leonardo Osorio. This donation later became contested when the shares of stock representing the inherited business interest were inventoried as part of Da. Petrona Reyes' estate after her death.	Property and Land Law
Chartered Bank vs. Imperial and National Bank (15th March 1921)	48 Phil. 931, No. 17222	The Supreme Court ruled that secured creditors, like the Philippine National Bank (PNB), are not required to participate in insolvency proceedings and may enforce their mortgage rights independently. The case arose when PNB sought to recover mortgaged goods from an insolvent debtor, Umberto de Poli, while other creditors argued all proceedings should halt under insolvency laws.	PNB sued Umberto de Poli to recover goods under a chattel mortgage. After PNB obtained a writ of attachment, other creditors petitioned for de Poli’s insolvency. The insolvency court took control of all assets, including the attached goods. PNB argued its mortgage rights superseded insolvency proceedings. The lower court allowed PNB to proceed, prompting creditors to challenge via certiorari.	Statutory Construction
Kwong Sing vs. City of Manila (11th October 1920)	41 Phil. 103, G. R. No. 15972	This case involves a challenge by Kwong Sing, representing Chinese laundry owners in Manila, against the validity of City Ordinance No. 532, which required laundry establishments to issue duplicate receipts in English and Spanish detailing the items received. The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, ruling that it was a valid exercise of the City of Manila's police power under its charter, aimed at promoting peace, preventing fraud, and protecting the public welfare, and that it was neither discriminatory nor unreasonably oppressive despite the difficulties it posed for laundry owners unfamiliar with English or Spanish.	The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 532, which mandated that all laundries, dyeing, and cleaning establishments issue signed duplicate receipts in English and Spanish, specifying the kind and number of articles received for service, aiming to regulate the delivery and return of clothes and prevent disputes and fraud, particularly targeting issues arising from receipts issued in Chinese characters.	Constitutional Law II Due Process
City of Manila vs. Chinese Community of Manila (31st October 1919)	40 Phil. 349, No. 14355	This case concerns the City of Manila's attempt to expropriate land owned by the Chinese Community of Manila for the extension of Rizal Avenue. The central issue is whether courts can inquire into the necessity of expropriation when the city asserts its right to take private land for public use. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Chinese Community, holding that courts are not limited to simply valuing the land but can also examine the necessity and public purpose of the expropriation.	The City of Manila sought to extend Rizal Avenue and filed a petition to expropriate certain parcels of land in Binondo, Manila, owned by the Chinese Community of Manila, which included a cemetery. The Chinese Community opposed the expropriation, arguing it was unnecessary, would desecrate a cemetery, and alternative routes were available.	Constitutional Law II
Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro (7th March 1919)	39 Phil. 660, G.R. No. 14078	This landmark case addressed the constitutionality of provisions in the Administrative Code that allowed provincial officials to require "non-Christian" inhabitants to live within reservations. The Supreme Court upheld the law as a valid exercise of police power analogous to the U.S. government's policy toward American Indians.	Rubi and other Manguianes (indigenous people of Mindoro) were ordered by the provincial governor to leave their native habitats and establish residence on a reservation at Tigbao in Mindoro. One Manguian named Dabalos escaped and was imprisoned. The Manguianes filed for habeas corpus, challenging the provincial governor's authority to confine them to reservations.	Constitutional Law II
United States vs. Constantino Tan Quingco Chua (29th January 1919)	39 Phil. 552, No. 13708	The case involves Francisco Constantino Tan Quingco Chua, who was charged with usury for charging excessive interest on a loan. The court found that the transaction, disguised as a pacto de retro sale, was actually a usurious loan, and Chua was convicted under the Usury Law.	The case originated from a loan of P100 made by Chua to Pedro Andres in 1911. Over five years, the debt grew to approximately P700 due to excessive interest. The transaction was later disguised as a pacto de retro sale to evade the Usury Law.	Philosophy of Law
Manzanares vs. Moreta (22nd October 1918)	38 Phil. 821, No. 12306	A case involving a claim for damages resulting from the death of an 8-9 year old child who was run over by an automobile driven by the defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's award of P1,000 as indemnity to the mother, establishing important principles about damages in cases involving death by wrongful act.	In this landmark case from 1918, an automobile accident occurred on the morning of March 5, 1916, at the intersection of Solana and Real Streets in Manila. Rafael Moreta was driving his automobile from the southern part of Solana Street when he encountered other vehicles at Real Street. After this encounter, instead of proceeding cautiously, he continued at high speed without sounding his horn. As he entered Solana Street, his vehicle struck and fatally injured Salvador Bona, a child between 8 and 9 years old, who was crossing from the right sidewalk to the left. The impact was so severe that even after hitting the child, the automobile continued moving for about two meters. The victim's mother, Simona Manzanares, a poor washerwoman, filed a civil case seeking P5,000 in damages. The Court of First Instance awarded her P1,000 as indemnity, which Moreta appealed after his motion for a new trial was denied. The case reached the Supreme Court through a bill of exceptions, where it became a pivotal decision establishing important principles about damage compensation in cases involving wrongful death, particularly concerning minor children.	Philosophy of Law
United States vs. Guendia (20th December 1917)	37 Phil. 337, No. 12462	The case involves Simeon Guendia, who was convicted of frustrated murder by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, acquitting Guendia on the grounds of insanity at the time of the crime. The court ordered his confinement in a mental health institution instead of imposing criminal liability.	Simeon Guendia was charged with frustrated murder for attacking his querida. The lower court found him guilty, though it acknowledged his apparent insanity. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined the evidence regarding his mental state at the time of the offense and during the trial.	Philosophy of Law
The United States vs. Santos (10th September 1917)	36 Phil. 853, No. 12779	Dionisio Santos, a policeman, arrested two individuals without a warrant based on suspicious behavior late at night. The trial court convicted him of coercion, but the Supreme Court reversed the decision, acquitting Santos, holding that his actions were in good faith and within the scope of his duties as a peace officer.	Dionisio Santos, a policeman in Pateros, Rizal, was tasked with preventing pilfering in a certain area. While patrolling, he saw two individuals near an uninhabited house and arrested them without a warrant, detaining them for six to seven hours before releasing them. The trial court convicted Santos of coercion, but the Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if his actions were justified.	Philosophy of Law
Mendoza vs. De Leon (15th February 1916)	33 Phil. 508, No. 9596	This case involves an action for damages filed by Marcos Mendoza against the municipal council members of Villasis, Pangasinan, for unlawfully revoking his exclusive ferry privilege lease, awarded under Act No. 1634, and granting it to another person. The Supreme Court determined whether the council members were personally liable for damages arising from the rescission of the lease contract.	Marcos Mendoza was granted an exclusive ferry privilege by the municipality of Villasis under Act No. 1634. After operating the ferry for over a year, the municipal council, composed of the defendants, revoked his lease and awarded a franchise to another person, leading to Mendoza's forcible ejection. Mendoza then sued the individual council members for damages.	Property and Land Law
Legarda and Prieto vs. Saleeby (2nd October 1915)	31 Phil. 590, No. 8936	This case resolves a dispute arising from double registration under the Torrens system, where both the plaintiff and defendant obtained certificates of title for overlapping land portions including a wall. The Supreme Court ruled that in cases of double registration, the holder of the earlier certificate of title prevails, emphasizing the principle of indefeasibility and notice inherent in the Torrens system to ensure land title security.	Two owners of adjacent lots in Manila, Legarda and Saleeby, both registered their lands under the Torrens system. A stone wall situated on Legarda's property was mistakenly included in both their initial registration and Saleeby's subsequent registration, leading to conflicting claims over the wall and the land it occupied.	Property and Land Law
Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin (10th September 1913)	25 Phil. 245, No. 8692	A case concerning the scope and limitations of certiorari, where the Supreme Court established that certiorari cannot be used to review decisions that are merely erroneous when the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties - such errors must be corrected through appeal.	The case arose from a dispute over a cockpit license in Caloocan, where the municipal president refused to issue a license to Constancio Joaquin. The Court of First Instance issued an ex parte mandatory injunction requiring the issuance of a provisional license during the pendency of the action.	Civil Procedure I
Carlos vs. Ramil (5th September 1911)	20 Phil. 183, No. 6736	This case addresses a land dispute arising from an agreement where elderly landowners promised land to a couple in exchange for lifetime care. The Supreme Court clarified that the agreement was not a remunerative donation, but an onerous donation governed by contract law, and upheld the land transfer as the couple fulfilled their care obligations.	An elderly couple, Agustin and Juliana Carlos, needed care and made an agreement with their adopted daughter and her husband, Antonio Ramil, to give them land if they stayed and cared for them for life, fearing the husband would take the daughter away.	Property and Land Law
United States vs. Toribio (26th January 1910)	15 Phil. 85, G.R. No. 5060	The case involved the defendant, Luis Toribio, who slaughtered a carabao without a permit, violating Act No. 1147. The Supreme Court ruled that the Act prohibits the slaughter of large cattle for human consumption anywhere in the Philippines without a permit, even in municipalities without a slaughterhouse. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act, stating that it was a valid exercise of police power to protect the general welfare and prevent the depletion of work animals.	The case arose during a period when a contagious disease threatened the carabao population in the Philippines, impacting agriculture and the economy. Act No. 1147 was enacted to regulate the registration, branding, and slaughter of large cattle, aiming to protect the ownership and use of these animals.	Constitutional Law II
American Print Works vs. Lawrence (15th October 1847)	21 N.J.L. 248 (N.J. 1847)	This case involves an action of trespass brought by American Print Works against Cornelius W. Lawrence, then Mayor of New York City, for ordering the destruction of their goods during the Great Fire of 1835. Lawrence argued his actions were justified by both a New York statute and common law necessity to prevent the fire's spread and save the city. The court proceedings at the Essex Circuit in New Jersey in 1852 examined these defenses, focusing on whether Lawrence acted lawfully and whether the destruction of goods was a necessary consequence of preventing a larger catastrophe. Ultimately, the jury sided with the defendant, finding his actions justified.	In December 1835, a devastating fire broke out in New York City, rapidly spreading and threatening to consume a large portion of the city. Mayor Cornelius W. Lawrence, in consultation with city officials and military experts, ordered the destruction of several buildings using gunpowder to create firebreaks and halt the conflagration. Among the destroyed buildings were stores containing goods belonging to American Print Works.	Constitutional Law II