You are on page 1of 18

Tinio, et al. v. Frances, et al.

Case No. 290


G.R. No. L-7747 (November 29, 1955)
Chapter III, Page 90, Footnote No.61
FACTS:
Sergio Nicolas applied for a parcel of land in Nueva Ecija and was approved
in 1917. In 1943, the final proof was approved by the Director of Lands who
issued a
patent in his favor, but because Sergio Nicolas died, he was substituted by
his heirs,
represented by his widow. In 1947, the heirs transferred their rights to the
homestead
to the Defendants, with approval by the Secretary of Agriculture and
Commerce,
and secured the issuance of a homestead patent in their favor. In 1953, heirs
of the
deceased Sergio Nicolas wanted to annul the sale of a homestead and to
recover
the land, together with the fruits of the land as damages.
ISSUE:
W/N the sale or transfer of right of the heirs of Sergio Nicolas over the parcel
of
land was valid.
HELD:
No. Conveyances made by the heirs of the homesteader to the Defendants
do not comply with the first requirement of Sec. 20 of the Public Lands Act
that the
Director of lands is satisfied from proofs submitted by the homesteader that
he could
not continue with his homestead through no fault of his own, and that the
conveyance must be made with the prior or previous approval of the
Secretary of
Agriculture and Commerce. Thus the conveyance made by the heirs of
Nicolas was
null and void.

LAUREL vs. ABROGARFacts:


On or about September 10-19, 1999, or prior thereto in Makati City, the accused,
conspiringandconfederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one
another, with intenttogain and without the knowledge and consent of the Philippine
Long Distance Telephone(PLDT),did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take, steal and use thei n t e rn a t i o n a l l o n g d i s t a n c e c a l l s b e l o n g i n g t o
P L D T b y c o n d u c t i n g I n t e rn a t i o n a l S i m p l e Resale (ISR), which is
amethod of routing and completing international long distance callsusing
lines, cables, antenae,and/or air wave frequency which connect directly to the local
or domestic exchange facilities of the country where the call is destined, effectively
stealing thisbusiness from PLDT while using itsfacilities in the estimated amount of
P20,370,651.92 to thedamage and prejudice of PLDT, inthe said amount.
Issue:
Whether international long distance calls and the
b u s i n e s s o f p r o v i d i n g telecommunication ortelephone services are
considered as personal properties subjected totheft.
Held:
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e a c t o f
c o n d u c t i n g I S R o p e r a t i o n s b y i l l e g a l l y
c o n n e c t i n g variousequipmentor apparatusto private respondentPLDTstelephone
system, throughwhichp e t i t i o n e r i s a b l e t o re s e l l o r re - r o u t e
i n t e rn a t i o n a l l o n g d i s t a n c e c a l l s u s i n g re s p o n d e n t PLDTs
facilitiesconstitutes all three acts of subtraction mentioned above.
ACCORDINGLY
,
t h e
m o t i o n
f o r
r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n
i s
GRANTED
.
T h e
a s s a i l e d D e c i s i o n
i s
RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE
. The Decision of the Court
o f Appeals affirming the Orderissued by Judge Zeus C.
Abrogar of the Regional TrialC o u r t o f M a k a t i C i t y , w h i c h
denied the Motion toQ u a s h ( W i t h M o t i o n t o
D e f e r A r r a i g n m e n t ) f o r t h e f t , i s
AFFIRMED
.
T h e
c a s e isremanded to the trial court and
the Public Prosecutor of Makati City is hereby
DIRECTED
to amend the Amended Information to show that the property subject of the theftwere
servicesand business of the private offended party.

City of Manila vs Chinese Community of Manila , GR 14355 (1D), 31 October


1919
FACTS: Petitioner (City of Manila) filed a petition praying that certain lands
be expropriated for the purpose of constructing a public improvement
namely, the extension of Rizal Avenue, Manila and claiming that such
expropriation was necessary.
Herein defendants, on the other hand, alleged (a) that no necessity existed
for said expropriation and (b) that the land in question was a cemetery,
which had been used as such for many years, and was covered with
sepulchres and monuments, and that the same should not be converted into
a street for public purposes.
The lower court ruled that there was no necessity for the expropriation of the
particular strip of land in question.
Petitioner therefore assails the decision of the lower court claiming that it
(petitioner) has the authority to expropriate any land it may desire; that the
only function of the court in such proceedings is to ascertain the value of the
land in question; that neither the court nor the owners of the land can inquire
into the advisable purpose of the expropriation or ask any questions
concerning the necessities therefor; that the courts are mere appraisers of
the land involved in expropriation proceedings, and, when the value of the
land is fixed by the method adopted by the law, to render a judgment in
favor of the defendant for its value.
ISSUE: W/N the courts may inquire into and hear proof upon the necessity
of the expropriation?
HELD: Yes. The courts have the power to restrict the exercise of eminent
domain to the actual reasonable necessities of the case and for the purposes
designated by the law. When the municipal corporation or entity attempts to
exercise the authority conferred, it must comply with the conditions
accompanying such authority. The necessity for conferring the authority
upon a municipal corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is,
without question, within the power of the legislature. But whether or not the
municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a particular case
under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a question that the
courts have the right to inquire into.

Butuan Sawmill vs. Court of Tax Appeals (GR L-20601, 28 February 1966)
En Banc, Reyes JBL (J): 10 concur
Facts: During the period from 31 January 1951 to 8 June 1953, the Butuan
Sawmill Inc. sold logs to Japanese firms at prices FOB Vessel Magallanes,
Agusan (in some cases FOB Vessel, Nasipit also in Agusan). The FOB prices
included costs of loading wharfage stevedoring and other costs in the
Philippines. The quality, quantity and measurement specifications of the logs
were certified by the Bureau of Forestry. That the freight was paid by the
Japanese buyers, and the payments of the logs were effected by means of
irrevocable letters of credit in favor of Butuan Sawmill and payable through
the Philippine National Bank (PNB) or any other bank named by it.
Issue: whether or not their failure is equivalent to forfeirture
Held:Where an entity is granted a legislative franchise to operate electric
light and power, on condition that it should start operation within a specified
period, its failure to start operation within the period resulted in the forfeiture
of the franchise

Ochate vs Deling
Posted on March 5, 2013
105 PHIL 385
1959
FACTS
Ochate is the incumbent municipal Mayor of Clarin, Misamis Occidentak,
while P and Deling are the incumbent Provincial Governor of the Province and
Vice-Mayor of the said municipality, respectively.
In an administrative complaint, Ochate was charged before the Provincial
Board of: (1) organizing, participating, and tolerating illegal cockfights and
other forms of gambling; (2) committing grave public scandals and acts
unbecoming of a public official; (3) misconduct in office (in slapping his wife
and daughter inside the municipal building in front of many people); (4)
neglect of duty; and (5) oppression. On the same date that the priginal
administrative charges was filed, the Governor suspended Ochate from
office, directing the latter to turn over the same to Deling, the Vice-Mayor.
Ochate questions the legality of the administrative charges and of the order
of suspension. Hence, this action.
Under Sec.2188, Revised Administrative Code, the authority of the
Provincial Governor to receive and investigate complInys against municipal
officials rests on 2 grounds:
1.

neglect of duty, oppression, corruption or other forms of


maladministration of office, and

2.

conviction by final judgment of any crime involving moral turpitude.

Pending action by the Provincial Board, the Provincial Government may


suspend the officer concerned if in his opinion the charge is one affecting the
official integrity of the officer charged.
ISSUE
Are the administrative charges above-stated grounds for the valid
suspension of Ochate?
HELD
No. Acts charged affect only his character as a private individual.

Ochate's acts cannot be safely said or considered to be related to the


performance of his official duties and he does not have to be a Mayor to
commit the offenses charged.
Misconduct in Office is misconduct such as affects the
performance of his duties as an officer and not such as only affects his
character as a private individual.
The misconduct, misfeasance or malfeasance warranting removal of an
officer from officemust have direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of official duties amounting to
either maladministration or willful, intentional neglect and failure to
discharge the duties of the office.
In the instant case, the records fail to indicate that Ochate was motivated by
any official considerations when he committed the acts complained of. It
appears that the acts complained of were done for more personal reason.
Moreover, the alleged violation of the gambling law occurred within another
municipality. The charges of oppression seems too superficial to meet the
standard fixed in the legal definition of oppression. Ochate was accused
and convicted of slight physical injuries which did not involve moral
turpitude; he does not appear to have been convicted of the charges of
illegal cockfighting and assaults upon agents in authority. The charges
do not constitute misconduct or maladministration of office. As such, the
order of suspension was not founded on legal grounds.

Cu vs Republic
Facts:
On January 6, 1956, Justino O. Cu alias Justo Dee filed a petition for
naturalization with the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. On October 4,
1957, that court, with the Honorable Fidel Villanueva presiding approved the
petition.
Issue: whether or not applicant has the burden to prove
Held:
Yes. Burden is on the applicant justin cu to prove that he has all the
qualifications and non disqualifications enumerated in the naturalization law

Mactan Cebu Intl Airport (MCIAA) vs Judge Marcos


Facts: MCIAA, since the time of its creation, enjoyed the privilege of
exemption from payment of realty taxes in accordance with its charter. The
Office of the Treasurer of the City of Cebu, however, demanded from it the
payment of realty taxes over several parcels of land belonging to it. Mciaa
was compelled to pay under protest, thus, it filed a petition for declaratory
relief with the RTC. The latter dismissed the petition on the ground that
under Sections 193 and 234 of the Local Govt Code of 1991 (LGC), such
exemption from taxes in favor of GOCCs had been expressly
cancelled/withdrawn.
Arguments:
MCIAA: Invokes Section 133 of the LGC which puts limitations on the taxing
powers of LGUs on an instrumentality of the govt performing governmental
functions (i.e. carrying out government policies of promoting and developing
the Central Visayas and Mindanao regions as centers of intl trade & tourism
x x x)
Respondents: MCIAA is a GOCC whos tax exemption privilege had been
withdrawn by virtue of Sections 193 & 234 of the LGC.
Issue: WON MCIAA< a GOCC, is exempted from the payment of realty taxes
pursuant to Section 133 of the LGCC>
Held:
Taxation is the rule, exemption therefrom is the exception. While it may be
true that under its charter MCIAA was exempt from the payment of realty
taxes, this exemption was withgdrawn by sec 234 of the LGC

PLDT vs Province of laguna

Facts: PLDT is a holder of a legislative franchise under Act No. 3436, as


amended, to render local and international telecommunications services. The
terms and conditions of its franchise were later consolidated under Republic
Act No. 7082, Section 12 of which embodies the so-called in-lieu-of-all
taxes clause, whereunder PLDT shall pay a franchise tax equivalent to 3% of
all its gross receipts, which franchise tax shall be in lieu of all taxes.
Thereafter, the Local Government Code took effect. Section 137 of the Code,
in relation to Section 151 thereof, grants provinces and other local
government units the power to impose local franchise tax on businesses
enjoying a franchise. Invoking its authority, the Province of Laguna, through
its local legislative assembly, enacted a provincial ordinance imposing a
franchise tax upon all businesses enjoying a franchise, which includes PLDT.
In compliance with the ordinance, PLDT paid the Province of Laguna its local
franchise tax liability for the year 1998 in the amount of P1,081,212.10.
Prior thereto, Congress enacted the Public Telecommunications Policy Act of
the Philippines. Then, the Department of Finance, thru its Bureau of Local
Government Finance (BLGF), issued a ruling to the effect that PLDT, among
other telecommunication companies, became exempt from local franchise
tax. Accordingly, PLDT shall be exempt from the payment of franchise and
business taxes imposable by LGUs under Sections 137 and 143, respectively
of the Local Government Code, upon the effectivity of RA 7925. However,
PLDT shall be liable to pay the franchise and business taxes on its gross
receipts during the period that PLDT was not enjoying the most favored
clause provision of RA 7025.
PLDT then refused to pay the Province of Laguna its local franchise tax
liability for the following year and it even filed with the Office of the
Provincial Treasurer a written claim for refund of the amount it paid as local
franchise tax for the previous year.
Issue: Does Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7925 operate to exempt PLDT from
payment of franchise tax?

Ruling: applying the rule of strict construction of laws granting tax


exemptions, sec 23 of RA 7925 cannot be considered as having amended
PLDTs franchise to entitle it to exemption from imposition of local franchise
taxes.

Mobil vs Customs Arrastre


MOBIL PHILIPPINES EXPLORATION VS. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE
18 SCRA 1120
FACTS:
Four cases of rotary drill parts were shipped from abroad on S.S. "Leoville",
consigned to MobilPhilippines Exploration, Inc., Manila. The shipment was
discharged to the custody of the CustomsArrastre Service, the unit of the
Bureau of Customs then handling arrastre operations therein. TheCustoms
Arrastre Service later delivered to the broker of the consignee three cases
only of theshipment.Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc., filed suit in the Court
of First Instance of Manila against the CustomsArrastre Service and the
Bureau of Customs to recover the value of the undelivered case in the
amountof P18,493.37 plus other damages.Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that not being persons under the
law,defendants cannot be sued.Appellant contends that not all government
entities are immune from suit; that defendant Bureau of Customs as operator
of the arrastre service at the Port of Manila, is discharging proprietary
functionsand as such, can be sued by private individuals.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the defendants can invoke state immunity.
HELD:
Although arrastre function may be deemed proprietary, it is necessary
incident of governmental function of BOC, so that engaging in the same does
not necessarily render it liable to suit.

Asian trans corp. vs ca


Facts:
Petitioner, Asian Transmission Corporation, seeks via petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the 1995 Rules of Civil Procedure the nullification of the March 28, 2000
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals denying its petition to annul 1) the March 11, 1993
"Explanatory Bulletin"2 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) entitled
"Workers Entitlement to Holiday Pay on April 9, 1993, Araw ng Kagitingan and Good
Friday", which bulletin the DOLE reproduced on January 23, 1998, 2) the July 31, 1998
Decision3 of the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators ruling that the said explanatory bulletin
applied as well to April 9, 1998, and 3) the September 18, 1998 4 Resolution of the Panel
of Voluntary Arbitration denying its Motion for Reconsideration
Issue: whether or not holidays should paid even if it falls under the same date.
HELD:
art 95 of the labor code affords worker enjoyment of 10 paid regular
holidays. The fact that two holidays fall on the same date should not operate
to reduce to 9 the 10 holiday pay benefits a worker is entitled to receive. Art
4 of the labor code provides that all doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of its provisions, shall be resolved in favor of labor.

PACANAN vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 186224, August 25, 2009,597 SCRA 189)
a
Facts:
In the Order of March 17, 2008, the Comelec First Divisiondismissed the appeal for
failure to pay the correct appeal fee asprescribed by the Comelec Rules of Procedure
within the five-day reglementary period. In the assailed Resolution dated January 21,
2009, the Comelec
En Banc denied petitioners motion for reconsideration, declaring
that the Comelec did not acquire jurisdiction over the appealbecause of the nonpayment of the appeal fee on time, and thatthe Comelec First Division was correct in
dismissing the saidappeal.
Issue: whether or not comelec should have been careful in deciding the matter
Held:
Comelec should have been more cautious on dismissing petitioners appeal on mere
technicality of non-payment of the additional appl fee given the public interest involved
in election cases. Election law and rules are to be interpreted and applied in a liberal
manner so as to give effect, not to frustrate, the will of the electorate.

ORTIZ vs COMELEC
GR No. 78957, June 28, 1988

Facts:
The petitioner was appointed as COMELEC Commissioner by then President
Marcos for a term expiring on May 17, 1992. Following the installation of the
Aquino government, the petitioner submitted a "courtesy resignation" which was
accepted by President Aquino. The petitioner requested for payment of retirement
benefits by invoking RA 1568, as amended by RA 3595 and re-enacted by RA
6118, which was denied by the respondent on the ground that he is "not entitled
to retirement benefits under RA 1568, as amended" without specifying the reason
therefor.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits as provided by RA
1568 and re-enacted by RA 6118.

Decision:
YES. RA 6118 as a retirement law is remedial in character which should be
liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to benefit
thereby. This is, as it should be, because the liberal approach aims to achieve the
humanitarian purposes of the law in order that the efficiency, security and wellbeing of government employees may be enhanced.

CRESENCIO RUBEN TOLENTINO, petitioner-appellant,


vs.
CESARIO CATOY, Provincial Warden, Batangas, Batangas,
Facts:
Petitioner was a Hukbalahap and was found by the Court of First Instance of Batangas guilty of the
crime of illegal assembly held in furtherance of the Hukbalahap designs. The judgment was
promulgated on May 11, 1948.
On June 21, the President issued Proclamation No. 76 granting amnesty under certain conditions to
leaders and members of the Hukbalahap and the PKM organizations. On July 16, within the 20-day
period for surrender imposed as a condition by the amnesty, the petitioner, already serving sentence,
sent the President a petition for his release under the provisions of the proclamation. No action was
taken on this petition and the petitioner came to court with the present application.

Issue:
Whether or not amnesty proclamation no. 76 is applicable

Held:
SC ruled that amnesty proclamation no 76 is applicable to hukbalahap already
undergoing sentence upon the date of its promulgation. The avowed practical objective
of amnesty is to secure pledge of loyalty and obedience to the constituted authorities
and encourage resumption of lawful pursuits and occupation.
Duncan vs CFI
Facts: Petitioners Robin Francis Radley Duncan and Maria Lucy Christensen are husband and
wife, the former a British national residing in the Philippines for the last 17 years and the latter an
American citizen born in and a resident of the Philippines. Having no children of their own but having
previously adopted another child, said spouses filed a petition with respondent court (Sp. Proc. No.
5457) for the adoption of a child previously baptized and named by them as Colin Berry Christensen
Duncan. The petition is filed and denominated as Sp. Proc. No. 5457.

Issue: whether or not consent is needed


Held: having declared that the child was an abandoned one by an unknown parent,
there appears to be no more legal need to the adoption. In adoption of children, dura lex
sed lex this should be softened so as to apply the law with less severity for adoption is
more for the benefit of unfortunate children, than those born with silver spoon in their
mouths.

Phil Rabbit vs Galauran