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 foun...
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...
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 lo...
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 v...
Post a Comment
Read more

Popular posts from this blog