Session 8: Reasons and

Policies
Assignment: Pair Work.
Deadline: Wednesday, July 18
Restricted 6-Paragraph Essay. Case
Title and Case Citation, center title
place
Use the format: Facts, Law, Issue,
Holding, Reasons, Policy
1. Republic of the Philippines vs. Sereno, G.R.
No. 237428 (June 19, 2018)

2. Romeo A. Almario vs. Atty. Dominica Llera-

Agno, A.C. No. 10689 (January 8, 2018)

3. International Academy of Management and

Economics vs. Litton and Company, Inc., G.R.
No. 191525 (December 13, 2017)
Reasons are the steps in the logical
process a court uses in arriving at
its holding.

Reasons can be simple

explanations of how a legal rule is
applicable or inapplicable to a case,
or they can be more involved
explanations of why the analysis
from one area of the law is
applicable to an entirely different
area of the law.
Policies are the underlying
purposes of legal rules.
They are broader than
reasons.

Policies are important

because they define the
future direction of the law.
 The easiest way to identify
the policies is TO FIRST
IDENTIFY THE HOLDING.

Then look for the social

justification for the court’s
decision.
Reasons indicate how
the court arrived at its
holding; policies show
why this holding is
socially desirable.
 Facts: What happened?
Law: State the Law
Issue: Does the law apply to
these
facts?
Holding: The law does or does
not
apply to these facts
Reason and Policies: Why does
the law apply or does not apply to
these facts?
 AB v. City Government
AB owned a parcel of land. He applied to the City
Zoning Commission to rezone his land from
residential to commercial. The Commission
denied his application, finding that all surrounding
lands are zoned for and contained single family
homes.

Following the denial of his application, AB filed

this action alleging that the city had taken his
property without compensation. The Commission
argued that to demonstrate a taking, the
challenger to a zoning classification has the
burden of presenting clear and convincing
evidence that he had suffered a significant
detriment.
The trial court dismissed AB’s complaint
because he failed to meet this burden. Merely
showing a disparity in the market value of the
property as currently valued versus its value if
rezoned is not, by itself, sufficient to establish a
significant detriment. Because AB did not
attempt to sell the property at an asking price
consistent with its value under current zoning,
no significant detriment has been shown. We
must bear in mind that zoning ordinances exist
to ensure the greater good of the community
even though specific zoning may not always be
in the best interest of an individual.
Facts: AB applied for a rezoning of his property,
which was located in a residential land
containing single family homes. The City Zoning
Commission denied his request even though
his property would have been worth more under
the new zoning. AB did not attempt to sell his
property under the existing zoning classification.
Subsequently, the city took his property for
public use. AB sued the city alleging an
unconstitutional taking. The trial court dismissed
his complaint.
LAW. The city government may not take the property without
just compensation.

ISSUE: Has AB suffered a significant detriment?

HOLDING: No, AB has not suffered a significant detriment

unless he sells his property at a price consistent with its value
under the current zoning.

REASONS: A significant detriment does not occur when the

landowner is deprived of a potential increase in property value.
A difference in market value depends on such variables as how
the land is sold.

POLICY: Zoning may not always serve the best interest of the
individual, but it serves the greater good of the community.