Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from September, 2016

Abdula vs. Guiani

Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Post a Comment
Read more

Manosca v. Court of Appeals

Manosca v. Court of Appeals GR No. 106440, January 29, 1996 FACTS: Petitioners inherited a piece of land located at P. Burgos Street, Calzada, Taguig. Metro Manila, with an area of about four hundred ninety-two (492) square meters.  Manosca v. Court of Appeals The parcel has been the birthsite of Felix Y. Manalo, the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. Because of that, the Naitional Historical Institute (NHI) passed a resolution declaring  the land to be a national historical landmark which was then approved by the Minister of Education, Culture and Sports. Regional Trial Court: The Republic, through the OSG instituted a complaint for expropriation alleging that the land is a public purpose. RTC then ordered the Republic to take over the property after fixing the provisional market and assessed value of the property.  Manosca v. Court of Appeals Court of Appeals: The petition for certiorari and prohibition was dismissed. Read: Belen v. Court of Appeals ISSUE: Whether
Post a Comment
Read more

Belen v. Court of Appeals

Belen v. Court of Appeals GR No. 76182, 195 SCRA 59 - March 11, 1991 FACTS: A small portion of land (Lot No. 10, Block 18 at Sunog Apog, Tondo, Manila) measuring a hundred (100) square meters, more or less, belonging to the Manotoc Services, Inc., was leased to Pedro M. Belen, which the latter has built a house. Respondents Alfredo Juliano and his family occupied a portion of the said land and later on bought a house standing thereon, not belonging to Belen and moved in without the latter's knowledge. On learning of this, Belen had a talk with Juliano, and they came to an agreement that Juliano could continue staying on the land temporarily and would pay one-half of the rental to Manotok Realty, Inc.  Belen v. Court of Appeals Later a fire razed both Belen's and Juliano's houses to the ground. Belen told Juliano not to build anything on the land any more. However, on Juliano's pleas, Belen acceded to Juliano's continued stay on the land on the explici
Post a Comment
Read more

Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) vs. Bel-Air

MMDA vs. Bel-Air GR No. 135962 - March 27, 2000 FACTS: Petitioner MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery of basic services in Metro Manila.  Respondent Bel-Air Village Association, Inc. (BAVA) is a non-stock, non-profit corporation whose members are homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private subdivision in Makati City.  MMDA vs. Bel-Air Respondent BAVA is the registered owner of Neptune Street, a road inside Bel-Air Village. On December 30, 1995, respondent received from petitioner, through its Chairman, a notice dated December 22, 1995 requesting respondent to open Neptune Street to public vehicular traffic starting January 2, 1996.  MMDA vs. Bel-Air Read: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila ISSUES: Does the MMDA have the mandate to open Neptune Street to public traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers? HELD: No. The petition is denied.  MMDA vs. Bel-Air Under the 1987 Constitution, the local government units bec
Post a Comment
Read more

Lim v. Pacquing

Lim v. Pacquing GR No. 115044, January 27, 1995 - 240 SCRA 649 FACTS: Sec 3 of the Presidential Decree No. 771 expressly revoked all existing franchises and permits to operate all forms of gambling facilities (including the jai-alai) issued by local governments. Judge Pacquing had earlier issued the following orders which were assailed by the Mayor of the City of Manila, Hon. Alfredo S. Lim: order directing Manila mayor Alfredo S. Lim to issue the permit/license to operate the jai-alai in favor of Associated Development Corporation (ADC). order directing mayor Lim to explain why he should not be cited for contempt for non-compliance with the order dated 28 March 1994. order reiterating the previous order directing Mayor Lim to immediately issue the permit/license to Associated Development Corporation (ADC).  Lim v. Pacquing ISSUE: Whether or not PD 771 is constitutional.  Lim v. Pacquing Read: Brillantes v. Concepcion HELD: Yes. PD No. 771 is valid and const
Post a Comment
Read more

Popular posts from this blog

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary G.R. No. L-36142, March 31 1973 - 50 SCRA 33 FACTS: On January 20, 1973, just two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite cases, Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935 Constitution. This is a petition filed by him as a Filipino citizen and a qualified and registered voter and as a class suit, for himself and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated. Javellana also alleged that the President had announced the immediate implementation of the new constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents including. Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed constitution upon ground the that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies; without power to approve proposed constitution; wi
Read more

TECSON VS. COMELEC

GR No. 161434, March 3 2004 FACTS: Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate of candidacy on 31 December 2003 for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines in the forthcoming national elections.  In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a petition to disqualify FPJ and cancel his certificate of candidacy by claiming that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his parents were foreigners: his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.  The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. ISSUE: Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born
Read more

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO G.R. NO. 73748, May 22, 1986 FACTS: President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 on February 25, 1986 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines." Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate. HELD: Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics  where only the people are the judge. The Supreme Court further held that: The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in eff
Read more