Reset

There are 472 results on the current subject filter

Ichong vs. Hernandez

31st May 1957

ak330887
101 Phil. 1155 , G.R. No. L-7995
Primary Holding
Republic Act No. 1180, which effectively nationalizes the retail trade business by prohibiting aliens (except US citizens and those already engaged in the business as of May 15, 1954, under specific conditions) from participating, constitutes a valid exercise of the State's police power and does not infringe upon the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection, nor does it violate treaty obligations or the constitutional requirement that the subject of a bill be expressed in its title.
Background
The 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

American Bible Society vs. City of Manila

30th April 1957

ak332493
101 Phil. 386 , G. R. No. L-9637
Primary Holding
A municipal ordinance imposing license fees on the sale of merchandise, when applied to the distribution and sale of bibles and religious literature by a non-profit religious corporation, constitutes an unconstitutional restraint on the free exercise of religion and the dissemination of religious beliefs, as it is not a nominal fee for regulation but a tax on a constitutional privilege. However, an ordinance requiring a Mayor's permit for businesses, trades, or occupations, if generally applicable and not imposing a charge on the enjoyment of a constitutional right or taxing religious practices, is not per se unconstitutional but may be inapplicable if the underlying activity it seeks to regulate (through related tax ordinances) is constitutionally protected from such taxation.
Background
The American Bible Society (ABS), a non-profit religious missionary corporation, had been distributing and selling bibles and religious materials in the Philippines since 1898. In 1953, the City Treasurer of Manila informed ABS that it was considered to be conducting the business of "general merchandise" and required it to secure a Mayor's permit and pay license fees for the period from the 4th quarter of 1945 to the 2nd quarter of 1953, based on City Ordinances. ABS paid the assessed amount under protest and filed suit to challenge the legality and constitutionality of these ordinances as applied to its activities.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

Tañada vs. Cuenco

28th February 1957

ak454462
103 Phil. 1051 , G. R. No. L-10520
Primary Holding
The Senate may not validly elect as members of the Senate Electoral Tribunal Senators who have not been nominated by the political parties specified in Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution; the party having the largest number of votes in the Senate is entitled to nominate three members, and the party having the second largest number of votes has the exclusive right to nominate the other three Senator-members. Any nomination for these constitutionally allocated party slots made by an entity other than the designated political party is null and void.
Background
The dispute originated from the organization of the Senate Electoral Tribunal after the 1955 general elections. At that time, the Senate was overwhelmingly dominated by the Nacionalista Party, which had 23 Senators, while the Citizens Party, represented solely by Senator Lorenzo M. Tañada, was the party with the second largest number of votes. The constitutional provision for the Senate Electoral Tribunal requires six Senators as members: three to be nominated by the party with the largest number of votes and three by the party with the second largest number of votes. The conflict centered on how these nominations, particularly for the minority slots, should proceed given this significant disparity in party representation.
Constitutional Law I

Espique vs. Espique

28th June 1956

ak645404
99 Phil. 448 , No. L-8029
Primary Holding
An invalid donation of immovable property, while not transferring title, can serve as a valid basis for acquisitive prescription if accompanied by open, continuous, adverse, and public possession in the concept of owner for the period required by law.
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

ak350868
99 Phil. 1031 , G.R. No. L-8670
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

ak018322
98 Phil. 788 , No. L-8257
Primary Holding
The original owner of a movable property, who was unlawfully deprived of it due to fraud, has a better right to recover possession than a subsequent purchaser, even if the latter acted in good faith and for value.
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

ak105250
97 Phil. 94 , No. L-8238
Primary Holding
Article 33 of the Civil Code permits a civil action for physical injuries to proceed independently of a criminal case, regardless of whether the offense is classified as physical injuries, frustrated homicide, or another crime involving bodily harm.
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

ak641009
94 Phil. 534
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court declared Republic Act No. 972 unconstitutional, except for the portion relating to bar examinations from 1953 to 1955, which remained valid due to a lack of unanimity in the decision.
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

ak286628
93 Phil. 696 , 146 Phil. 469 , Nos. L-6355-56
Primary Holding
Section 13 of Republic Act No. 590 is unconstitutional because taxing judicial salaries violates the constitutional prohibition against diminishing judicial compensation, and Congress cannot legislate to override the judiciary’s constitutional interpretation.
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

Rodriguez, Sr vs. Gella

2nd February 1953

ak552707
92 Phil. 603 , G. R. No. L-6266
Primary Holding
The emergency powers delegated to the President by Congress under Commonwealth Act No. 671, pursuant to Article VI, Section 26 of the Constitution, ceased to be operative because the "time of war" and the "total emergency" declared therein (referring to World War II) had ended, and Congress had subsequently demonstrated its readiness and ability to legislate on matters, including appropriations, thereby effectively withdrawing such delegated powers.
Background
Commonwealth Act No. 671 was enacted in 1941, declaring a state of total emergency due to World War II and authorizing the President to promulgate rules and regulations to meet this emergency. Years after the war, on November 10, 1952, the President issued Executive Orders Nos. 545 and 546, appropriating significant sums for public works and disaster relief, citing the continued effectivity of C.A. No. 671. This exercise of emergency powers, long after the cessation of hostilities and during a period when Congress was actively functioning, led the petitioners to challenge the validity of these Executive Orders.
Constitutional Law I

People vs. Alvero

11th April 1950

ak350120
86 Phil. 58 , No. L-820
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court found Alvero guilty of treason and affirmed the sentence of reclusion perpetua but increased the fine from ₱10,000 to ₱20,000.
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

ak008848
85 Phil. 864 , No. L-2318
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court upheld Paar’s conviction for treason, finding that his actions demonstrated adherence to the enemy. However, due to the lack of evidence proving that his actions led to the execution of individuals, the penalty was reduced from reclusion perpetua to a lesser term of imprisonment.
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

ak713211
84 Phil. 847 , No. L-2089
Primary Holding
The expropriation of private commercial land by the RPA for resale to tenants does not constitute public use and is therefore unconstitutional under Commonwealth Act No. 539 and the Philippine Constitution.
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

ak046797
83 Phil. 518 , No. L-2009
Primary Holding
Parers and shellers under the "pakiao" system are considered employees or laborers entitled to statutory benefits despite being paid on a piecework basis.
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

ak135112
81 Phil. 640 , No. L-2068
Primary Holding
An accused person is not entitled, as a matter of fundamental right, to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses during the preliminary investigation stage after the issuance of an arrest warrant; while the investigating judge has the discretion to grant such an opportunity, Section 11 of Rule 108 does not mandate it, and the constitutional right to confront witnesses applies specifically to the trial proper.
Background
The petitioner, Dominador B. Bustos, was accused in a criminal case and underwent a preliminary investigation before the Justice of the Peace (JP) of Masantol, Pampanga. After the JP found probable cause and issued a warrant based on the complainant's and witnesses' initial testimony, the case was set for the second stage of the preliminary investigation where the accused could present evidence.
Civil Procedure I

Sayo vs. Chief of Police of Manila

12th May 1948

ak914931
80 Phil., 859 , No. L-2128
Primary Holding
The term "judicial authority" in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) refers exclusively to judges or courts, not to a city fiscal. Detaining an individual beyond the prescribed period, without delivering them to a proper judicial authority, is unconstitutional and illegal.
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

ak301504
80 Phil. 297
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court declared Section 14 of the People's Court Act unconstitutional, as it violates the constitutional provisions on the appointment and qualifications of Supreme Court Justices and undermines the independence of the judiciary.
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

ak237843
80 Phil. 138 , No. L-399
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court held that when murder or physical injuries are charged as overt acts of treason, they cannot be regarded separately under their general denomination. The brutality of killing or physical injuries may be considered an aggravating circumstance but not as a separate crime.
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

Primicias vs. Fugoso

27th January 1948

ak849130
80 Phil. 71 , No. L-1800
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court ruled that while the government may regulate the time, place, and manner of public assemblies, it cannot grant arbitrary discretion to a single official to deny such rights. The ordinance must be interpreted to allow regulation but not prohibition of lawful assemblies.
Background
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

ak700773
79 Phil. 461 , No. L-630
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court held that aliens are prohibited from acquiring residential land under the 1935 Constitution, as such land is classified as "agricultural" under Article XIII, Section 5, which restricts ownership of private or public agricultural land to Filipino citizens.
Background
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

ak427419
79 Phil. 334 , No. L-778
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and acquitted the appellant, finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the alleged treasonous acts under the two-witness rule requirement, and that evidence suggested the appellant acted under duress.
Background
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

ak298371
78 Phil. 561 , No. L-477
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court held that membership in Makapili, while constituting an overt act of treason, must be proven by two witnesses testifying to the same specific instance, not different occasions of membership.
Background
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

ak452149
76 Phil. 681 , No. L-442 , G.R. No. 874
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court held that there was no competent evidence to prove that Caraos was pardoned, and thus, his rearrest and continued imprisonment were lawful.
Background
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

ak966503
78 Phil. 1 , G.R. No. 1123
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court held that the validity of a constitutional amendment proposal, including whether it meets the required threshold, is a political question not subject to judicial review. The Court emphasized the "enrolled bill doctrine" and the separation of powers.
Background
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

ak294241
77 Phil. 856 , G.R. No. 409
Primary Holding
A Filipino citizen's absolute and permanent allegiance to the legitimate government of the Philippines is not suspended or abrogated by enemy occupation, and consequently, such a citizen can be prosecuted for treason under Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code for acts of adherence and giving aid and comfort to the enemy committed during said occupation.
Background
The case arose in the aftermath of World War II, specifically following the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. During this period, some Filipino citizens were alleged to have collaborated with the Japanese forces. Anastacio Laurel was one such individual accused of treason for acts committed during the occupation.
Constitutional Law I Criminal Law II Statutory Construction

Ruffy vs. Chief of Staff

20th August 1946

ak022565
75 Phil. 875 , No. L-533
Primary Holding
Members of recognized guerrilla units who were lawfully called, drafted, or ordered into, or to duty or for training in the service of the Philippine Army during wartime are subject to military law and the jurisdiction of courts-martial for offenses committed during such service, and Article 93 of the Articles of War, which allows courts-martial to impose death or life imprisonment for murder in time of war, is constitutional as courts-martial are executive, not judicial, bodies.
Background
The case arose during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines in World War II. Ramon Ruffy, a Major in the Philippine Constabulary, along with other petitioners, formed a guerrilla unit called the Bolo Combat Team in Mindoro after refusing to surrender. This unit was later recognized by and integrated into the 6th Military District of the Philippine Army, which itself was recognized by General MacArthur's Southwest Pacific Area command. The petitioners were accused of murdering Lieutenant Colonel Enrique L. Jurado, who had been sent by the 6th Military District to command the Bolo Combat Team, on October 19, 1944.
Constitutional Law I

United States vs. Causby

27th May 1946

ak120283
328 U.S. 256
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court held that flights by government aircraft at low altitudes directly over private property, which are so frequent and low as to directly interfere with the enjoyment and use of the land, constitute a "taking" of property for public use, requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. This effectively created the concept of an "aerial easement."
Background
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
Eminent Domain

People vs. Cruz

21st February 1946

ak026227
76 Phil. 169 , G.R. No. L-52
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision with the elimination of subsidiary imprisonment, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery in band based on clear and convincing witness identification.
Background
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

ak037613
75 Phil. 563 , No. L-129
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the Military Commission had been validly constituted, had jurisdiction over Yamashita and the offenses charged, and dismissed the petition for habeas corpus and prohibition.
Background
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

ak341470
75 Phil. 285 , No. L-49
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court held that Ordinance No. 7, which created the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction, was null and void ab initio, and consequently, the proceedings that resulted in petitioner's conviction were also void.
Background
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

ak116370
75 Phil. 113 , No. L-5
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court ruled that judicial acts and proceedings of courts during the Japanese occupation remained valid after liberation, but that courts needed proper enabling laws to continue proceedings from the Japanese occupation period.
Background
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

West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette

14th June 1943

ak381061
319 U.S. 624
Primary Holding
The action of a State in making it compulsory for children in public schools to salute the flag and pledge allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as it compels an affirmation of belief and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which the First Amendment reserves from all official control.
Background
Following the Supreme Court's 1940 decision in _Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis_, which upheld a similar compulsory flag salute, the West Virginia legislature amended its statutes to require courses in history, civics, and the Constitutions to foster Americanism. The West Virginia State Board of Education then adopted a resolution making the flag salute a regular part of public school activities, requiring all teachers and pupils to participate. Refusal was deemed insubordination, leading to expulsion and potential delinquency proceedings for the child, and fines or jail time for parents. This resolution directly impacted Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religious beliefs forbid them from saluting any flag, as they consider it a form of worshipping a graven image, contrary to Exodus 20:4-5.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

Tileston vs. Ullman

1st February 1943

ak624106
318 U.S. 44 (1943)
Primary Holding
A physician lacks standing to challenge a state statute prohibiting contraception on the grounds that it deprives the physician's patients of life without due process, as the right to life is personal and must be asserted by the patients themselves.
Background
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
Police Power

Minersville School District vs. Gobitis

3rd June 1940

ak913969
310 U.S. 586
Primary Holding
A state regulation requiring public school pupils to participate in a daily flag salute ceremony, on pain of expulsion, is within the scope of legislative power and does not violate the religious freedom guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, even when applied to children whose sincere religious beliefs forbid such obeisance.
Background
The case arose during a period of increasing international tension leading up to World War II, where national unity was a significant concern. The Gobitis family, members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, believed that saluting the flag was a form of idolatry, violating biblical commands. This belief clashed with a Minersville, Pennsylvania, School Board resolution requiring all students and teachers to participate in a daily flag salute ceremony.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

Cantwell vs. Connecticut

20th May 1940

ak518939
310 U.S. 296
Primary Holding
A state statute that requires individuals to obtain a certificate from a public official before soliciting for religious or charitable causes, where the official has the discretion to determine if the cause is genuinely religious, constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint on the free exercise of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Furthermore, speech that is offensive but does not create a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or other immediate threat to public safety, peace, or order is protected under the First Amendment and cannot be the basis for a common law breach of the peace conviction.
Background
The case arose from the activities of Newton Cantwell and his two sons, Jesse and Russell, who were Jehovah's Witnesses. They were engaging in proselytizing activities in New Haven, Connecticut, which involved distributing religious literature and playing phonograph records with religious messages. Their actions led to their arrest and conviction under a state statute regulating solicitation for religious causes and for the common law offense of inciting a breach of the peace. This case tested the extent to which states can regulate religious solicitation and speech, particularly when it is deemed offensive by others.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Religion

Kasilag vs. Rodriguez et al.

7th December 1939

ak490298
69 Phil . 217 , No. 46623
Primary Holding
The contract constituted a valid mortgage of improvements on the homestead land, not an absolute sale. The petitioner was deemed to be in good faith regarding possession and improvements.
Background
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

Villena vs. Secretary of the Interior

21st April 1939

ak412293
67 Phil. 451 , G.R. No. 46570
Primary Holding
The acts of the secretaries of executive departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. Therefore, the Secretary of the Interior's suspension of a municipal mayor, done with the verbal approval or acquiescence of the President, is valid.
Background
The case arose from an inquiry into the conduct of petitioner Jose D. Villena, Mayor of Makati, Rizal, by the Division of Investigation of the Department of Justice, requested by the Secretary of the Interior. This inquiry found Villena to have allegedly committed bribery, extortion, malicious abuse of authority, and unauthorized practice of law. Consequently, the Secretary of the Interior recommended Villena's suspension to the President to prevent coercion of witnesses, which the President verbally approved.
Constitutional Law I

Gold Creek vs. Rodriguez and Abadilla

28th September 1938

ak685675
66 Phil. 259 , No. 45859
Primary Holding
A perfected mining claim located before the 1935 Constitution’s adoption is not part of the public domain and thus falls outside the constitutional ban on alienating natural resources, mandating respondents to process the patent application.
Background
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

Matute vs. Hernandez

8th August 1938

ak955194
66 Phil. 68 , G.R. No. 46028
Primary Holding
The Auditor-General possesses discretionary power, not merely a ministerial duty, to examine the legality and regularity of government expenditures before countersigning treasury warrants; consequently, any novation of a government contract, such as a price increase altering a principal condition, must strictly comply with existing laws and executive orders, including requirements for public bidding and specified approvals, and failure to do so renders the novation invalid and the resulting expenditure unauthorized.
Background
Petitioner Amadeo Matute held a contract with the Commonwealth Government, secured through public bidding, to supply fresh meat at predetermined prices. Subsequent to the contract's execution, the City of Manila increased the fees at the municipal slaughterhouse, which led the petitioner to request an increase in the contract price for the meat he supplied to the government. This price increase was granted by the Acting Purchasing Agent with the approval of the Undersecretary of Finance, but without a new public bidding or other approvals later deemed necessary by the Auditor-General.
Constitutional Law I

Aglipay vs. Ruiz

13th March 1937

ak840573
64 Phil. 201 , G. R. No. 45459
Primary Holding
The issuance of postage stamps by the government, even if related to an event with religious significance, does not violate the constitutional prohibition against the appropriation of public funds for the use, benefit, or support of any sect or church, provided that the primary purpose of such issuance is secular (e.g., promoting the country, tourism, or commemorating an event of national or international interest) and any benefit accruing to a religious institution is merely incidental and not the direct aim of the governmental action.
Background
The case arose from the decision of the Director of Posts in May 1936 to issue and sell postage stamps commemorating the Thirty-third International Eucharistic Congress, an event organized by the Roman Catholic Church and scheduled to be held in Manila. This action was perceived by the petitioner, the head of another religious denomination, as an unconstitutional use of public resources to favor a specific church, leading to the legal challenge.
Constitutional Law I

Philippine National Bank vs. National City Bank of New York

31st October 1936

ak161292
63 Phil. 711 , G. R. No. 43596
Primary Holding
Payment of a check does not constitute acceptance under Section 62 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. A drawee bank can recover payments made on forged checks from negligent holders who failed to exercise due diligence in accepting the checks.
Background
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

ak655680
61 Phil. 709 , No. 40411
Primary Holding
Machinery installed in a leased building by the lessee for its own industry, which is movable by nature and not intended to be a permanent fixture belonging to the landowner, especially when the lease agreement explicitly excludes machineries from improvements passing to the lessor, retains its character as personal property and is therefore subject to chattel mortgage and execution as such.
Background
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

Near vs. Minnesota

1st June 1931

ak767235
283 U.S. 697
Primary Holding
A state statute that permits public authorities to enjoin the future publication of a newspaper or periodical found to be "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" constitutes a prior restraint on publication in violation of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and is therefore unconstitutional, particularly when applied to charges of official misconduct.
Background
The case arose under a 1925 Minnesota law, Chapter 285 of the Session Laws of Minnesota, which declared that any person engaged in the business of regularly publishing a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical" was guilty of a nuisance. The statute authorized actions in the name of the State to perpetually enjoin such publications. This law, often referred to as a "gag law," was enacted amidst concerns about yellow journalism and scurrilous publications but raised significant First Amendment issues.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

United States vs. Schwimmer

27th May 1929

ak629766
279 U.S. 644
Primary Holding
An applicant for naturalization must be willing to take up arms in defense of the United States when required by law; an unwillingness to do so, even if based on pacifist beliefs, demonstrates a lack of attachment to the principles of the Constitution and an inability to take the oath of allegiance without mental reservation, thereby disqualifying the applicant for citizenship.
Background
The case arose from Rosika Schwimmer's application for naturalization under the Naturalization Act of 1906. At the time, international tensions and the experience of World War I had heightened concerns about national loyalty and the obligations of citizenship, including the duty to defend the country. Schwimmer, a well-known lecturer and writer with strong pacifist convictions, sought U.S. citizenship, leading to a legal challenge regarding whether her refusal to bear arms was compatible with the requirements for naturalization.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

Olmstead et al. vs. United States

4th June 1928

ak928688
277 U.S. 438
Primary Holding
The interception of telephone conversations by government agents through wiretapping conducted outside the defendants' premises (without physical trespass) does not constitute a "search" or "seizure" prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, the use of such intercepted conversations as evidence in a criminal trial does not violate the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.
Background
The case arose during the Prohibition era, involving a large-scale conspiracy to import, transport, possess, and sell intoxicating liquors in violation of the National Prohibition Act, operating primarily in the Seattle, Washington area and extending to British Columbia.
Constitutional Law II
Searches and Seizures

Sibal vs. Valdez

4th August 1927

ak944731
50 Phil. 512 , No. 26278
Primary Holding
Standing sugar cane, when produced by annual crops and yearly labor, is considered personal property and is therefore not subject to redemption as real property under the provisions of the Civil Code regarding redemption of real estate.
Background
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

Whitney vs. California

16th May 1927

ak988741
274 U.S. 357
Primary Holding
A state, in the exercise of its police power, may constitutionally punish those who abuse the rights of free speech and assembly by knowingly becoming a member of, or assisting in organizing, an association that advocates, teaches, or aids and abets criminal syndicalism, defined as doctrines advocating unlawful acts of force and violence or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political change, without violating the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Background
The case arose during a period of heightened concern over radical political movements and labor unrest in the United States following World War I and the Russian Revolution. California, like several other states, enacted a Criminal Syndicalism Act to counter organizations perceived as advocating for violent overthrow of the government or unlawful industrial and political change. Ms. Whitney, a niece of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field and a social activist, became involved with the Communist Labor Party.
Constitutional Law II
Freedom of Expression

Buck vs. Bell

2nd May 1927

ak816985
274 U.S. 200
Primary Holding
A state statute permitting the compulsory sterilization of institutionalized individuals found to have hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility does not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment when adequate procedural safeguards are provided.
Background
* 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

ak274483
49 Phil. 194 , G. R. No. 25679
Primary Holding
The phrase "several days after a session" as used in Section 18, subdivision 2 of Act No. 2935, governing appropriations for "supplementary force" in the Legislature, cannot be legally construed to cover a period of eighty-two days after the adjournment of the legislative session; consequently, temporary employees rendering services during such an extended period are not legally employed under that specific appropriation and have no clear legal right to compensation.
Background
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 (US SC Case)

7th June 1926

ak944319
271 U.S. 500
Primary Holding
Act No. 2972 of the Philippine Legislature, which prohibits keeping business account books in any language other than English, Spanish, or a local dialect, is unconstitutional because it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Philippine Bill of Rights by arbitrarily interfering with the liberty and property of Chinese merchants without reasonable justification under the police power.
Background
The Philippine Legislature enacted Act No. 2972, primarily targeting Chinese merchants who constituted a significant portion of the commercial sector (around 60%) and traditionally kept their books in Chinese. The stated purpose was to facilitate tax inspection and prevent fraud, as revenue officials struggled to examine books kept in Chinese. This led to concerns about tax evasion but also significant opposition from the Chinese community, who argued the law would effectively drive them out of business due to their inability to understand or use books in the permitted languages.
Constitutional Law II
Due Process, Equal Protection
« 1-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-250 251-300 301-350 351-400 401-450 451-472 »