Torts and Damages

Cases:

1. Glan People's Lumber and Hardware vs IAC
   

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Here's an incomplete list of cases for Problem Areas in Legal Ethics under Dean Quitain:

1. Chavez vs Philippine Estates Authority
2. Chavez vs NHA
3. Boracay case digest
4. Boracay Case
   
5. Province of North Cotabato vs The Government of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain

EN BANC

[G.R. No.164527, July 01, 2008]

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ VS. NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY ET AL.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated July 1, 2008

“G.R. No.164527 (Francisco I. Chavez vs. National Housing Authority et al.).- Petitioner filed with this Court a Motion for Reconsideration [Re: Decision dated 15 August 2007] dated September 13, 2007.^[1] In the motion, petitioner raises the following issues:

I

Contrary to this Honorable Court’s Decision, the distinctions laid out by this Honorable Court between the present case and its ruling in Chavez vs. PEA-Amari are, with due respect, clearly baseless.

II

This Honorable Court gravely erred when it ruled NHA may validly undertake the reclamation of the subject lands, for:

1. The power to reclaim lands cannot be implied from NHA’s powers to undertake and develop housing projects.
   
   
2. Presidential Decree No. 3-A, which supposedly allows the nation government to undertake reclamation of lands, does not legalize NHA’s act of reclaiming the subject lands.
   

III

Contrary to this Honorable Court’s ruling, the required DENR approval cannot be implied from the presidential approval of the project.

IV

This Honorable Court erred in ruling that the reclaimed lands had already been declared alienable and disposable for neither Memorandum Order No. 415 nor Proclamation Nos. 39 and 465 converted the subject lands to alienable and disposable for the very simple reason that, at the time they were issued, the alleged reclaimed lands were still inexistent.

V

Contrary to this Honorable Court’s ruling, the mere fact that subject lands may be sold to the Smokey Mountain dwellers does not imply that they are no longer needed for public use. In fact, that opportunity proves that the subject lands are needed for public use.

VI

This Honorable Court erred in ruling that there was a public bidding of the reclaimed lands.

VII

Despite the effectivity of the BOT law, R-II Builders, being a private corporation is still barred from acquiring lands of the public domain.

VII

The Operative Fact Doctrine is an equitable doctrine which could not be used to countenance an inequitable result that is contrary to its proper office.

VIII

At the very least, the denial of the instant petition is premature as this Honorable Court granted petitioner’s prayer for Mandus to compel respondents to disclose all documents and information relating to the project.^[2]

An examination of the issues raised in the Motion for Reconsideration reveals that they are substantially the same issues which have been sufficiently passed upon, extensively discussed, and resolved in the assailed Decision. Thus, further discussion of the points raised in the Motion for Reconsideration would be a mere repetition of the Decision already rendered.

Notably, the last issue raised by petitioner, which is the only new issue in the Motion for Reconsideration, still does not imbue the motion with any merit. Petitioner argues that the denial of the underlying petition was premature after this Court ruled that the National Housing Authority (NHA) must disclose all information and papers regarding the Project.

Such assertion must fail.

The argument all the more serves to confirm this Court’s findings that the petition is without merit. Petitioner is saying will be supported by the information that will revealed from the records of the NHA. Such should not be the case. Petitioner must have a cause of action as basis for filing a petition with this Court anchored on undisputed facts. With the admission that the facts to prop up the petition will still have to be procured from the NHA, then the petition is clearly baseless for want of factual support.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner‘s Motion for Reconsideration is, for lack of merit, DENIED with finality.

Carpio and Reyes, JJ, no part. Nazario, J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 1455-1503.

^[2] Id. at 1458-1460.

Business Organization 2 Cases for Prelims

1. ARB Corporation vs Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 427 (2000)
2. Yutivo vs Court of Tax Appeals, 1 SCRA 160 (1961)
3. Land Bank of the Philippines vs Commission on Audit, 190 SCRA 154 (1990)
4. Saw vs Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 740 (1991)
5. Lyceum Philippines vs Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 610 (1993)
6. People's Aircargo vs Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 170 (1998)

Prelims. Cases

Get your own at Scribd or explore others:

Wills and Succession

Notes from last semester

Conditions for the transmission of successional rights:

1. That indeed, there has been death

2. That the rights or properties are indeed transmissible or descendible

3. That the transferee is still alive (no predecease), willing (no repudiation, and is capacitated to inherit

When may a person’s estate be opened for succession in cases involving presumptive death?

It depends on whether there is ordinary or extraordinary absence.

In case or ordinary absence, the estate may be opened for succession at the end of ten years from the time of absence. However, in case he disappeared at the age of seventy-five (75), he shall be presumed dead for the purpose of opening his succession at the end of five years from the time of disappearance

In case of extraordinary or qualified absence, a person shall be presumed dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs after four years.

What is the effect of the absentee’s return or reappearance?

If the absentee appears, or his existence is proved, he shall recover his property in the condition it may be found, and the price of any property which may have been alienated or the property acquired therewith; but he cannot claim either fruits or rent.

Essential elements and characteristics of a will (S³E²AT²DUF)

1. Statutory

2. Solemn or formal

3. Strictly a personal act

4. Effective mortis causa

5. Essentially revocable

6. An individual act

7. There must be animus testandi

8. Testator must be capacitated to make a will

9. Disposes of the testator’s estate

10. Unilateral

11. Free from vitiated consent

Requirements of a NOTARIAL or ordinary will (NAAWrLaSSS)

1. All pages shall be Numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page

2. There must be an Attestation clause

3. Acknowledgment before a notary public

4. The will must be in Writing

5. It must be executed in a Language or dialect known to the testator

6. It must be Subscribed at the end of every page thereof by the testator himself or by the testator’s name written by another person in the presence and by the express direction of the testator

7. It must be attested and Subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another

8. The testator or the person requested by him to write his name, and the instrumental witnesses of the will shall Sign each and every page thereof, except the last, on the left margin

What shall the Attestation Clause state?

1. The number of pages used upon which the will is written

2. That the testator signed, or expressly caused another to sign, the will and every page thereof in the presence of the instrumental witnesses

3. That the instrumental witnesses witnessed and signed the will in the presence of the testator and of one another

Rules when the testator is deaf or deaf-mute:

1. If he cannot read the will, two persons must communicate it to him

2. The two persons designated need not be the attesting witnesses

Rule if the testator is blind

1. The will shall be read to the testator twice: once by one of the subscribing witnesses and once by the notary public.

Formalities required for a Holographic Will (WrLaSAAD)

1. The will must be entirely Written by the hand of the testator himself

2. The Language must be known to the testator

3. The will must be Signed by the testator himself

4. There must be Animus Testandi

5. It must executed at the time that holographic will are Allowed

6. The will must be Dated

Requisites for the validity of documents incorporated by reference (SIDE)

1. It must be Signed by the testator

2. It must be Identified by clear and satisfactory proof as the document or paper referred to therein

3. The will must clearly Describe and identify the same, stating among other things the number of pages thereof

4. The document or paper referred to in the will must be in Existence at the time of the execution of the will

Determination of the Formalities required in making a will

1. Filipino Abroad (815)

a. The place of execution

b. Philippine laws

2. Foreigner in a foreign country (816)

a. The place of nationality (lex nationalii)

b. The place of domicile or residence

c. Philippine law

d. The place of execution

3. Foreigner in the Philippines (817)

a. The law of the place of his nationality (lex nationalii)

b. The law of the Philippines

*Joint wills executed by foreigners abroad and valid in accordance with Art. 816 is considered valid in the Philippines.

What is the Principle of Instanter?

The revocatory clause of a second will takes effect immediately or at the instant the revoking will is made. (Art 837)

Grounds for disallowance of a will (FIFFIM)

1. If the Formalities required have not been complied with

2. If the testator was Insane at the time of its execution, or otherwise incapable of making a will at the time of execution

3. If it was executed through Force or under duress, or the influence of fear or threat (connote the idea of coercion, mental or physical)

4. It the signature of the testator is procured by Fraud (the use of insidious machinations to convince a person to do what he would not ordinarily do)

5. If it was procured by undue and improper pressure and Influence, on the part of the beneficiary or some other person (coercion by virtue of which the judgment of the testator is displaced, and he is induced to do that which he otherwise would not have done)

6. If the testator acted by Mistake or did not intend that the instrument he signed should be his will at the time of affixing his signature thereto

Requisites for Preterition

1. There is a total omission in the inheritance

2. The omission must be of a compulsory heir

3. The compulsory heir omitted must be in the direct line

Recommended Books for Law School use

The following are the recommended books for this semester:

1. Taxation 2: Vitug
2. Labor Relations: Azucena Volume II
3. Business Organization: Corporation Law by Hector de Leon
4. Insurance: Insurance Law by Hector de Leon
5. Torts and Damages: Torts and Damages by Suarez
6. Special Proceedings: Remedial Law III-A by Herrera
   

Labor Relations Cases

I was browsing the internet and I found a collection of labor relations cases which I think would be very helpful in the study of labor relations this semester.

Clicking here would bring you to Supreme Court Decisions on labor cases.

Sem break is over!

Alright law school funk people, semestral break is over. I hope you had a great time with your two-week vacation.

I just enrolled earlier today and I paid P2,750.00 as downpayment, that also applies to all third year UM Law students.

Hope to see you all at school! (--,)

Evidence 7th set of cases

1. Vesagas vs Court of Appeals
2. Diego vs Sandiganbayan

evidence2008.7thset - Upload a Document to Scribd

Taxation Cases

1. Allied Bank vs Quezon City LGU October 11, 2005
2. Light Rail Transit vs. Central Board of Assessment Appeals
3. Philippine Ports Authority vs City of Iloilo November 11, 2004
4. Philippine Ports Authority vs City of Iloilo July 14, 2003

Kulang ni ug isa ka kaso. Wa nako nakita.

Taxation Real Property Cases - Upload a Document to Scribd

Business Organization

1. LIM VS. SABAN GR# 163720, DEC. 16, 2004
2. RAMON RALLOS VS. FELIX GO CHAN AND SONS REALTY CORP. GR# L-24332, JAN. 31, 1978
3. BEJAMIN YU VS NLRC GR# 97212, JUNE 30, 1992

Business Org - Upload a Document to Scribd

Evidence 6th set of cases

1. People vs. Andan (269 SCRA 95)
2. People vs Domantay ( 307SCRA 1)

evidence2008.6thset - Upload a Document to Scribd

Evidence 5th set of cases

1. People vs Monieva
2. People vs Sanchez
3. People vs Alfon
4. People vs Lawa

evidence2008.5thset - Upload a Document to Scribd

Pp vs Bituon (case digest)

Hi,

masterblaster69 has shared some documents with you on Scribd.
Click on the following link to view them now:

http://www.scribd.com/share/upload/3589074/1ylelb3zkn9guomv0dxn?from_email_13_share_upload=1

Scribd.com is a great place to share, view, and find documents on the web.

The Scribd Team

--

PP vs Bituon - Upload a Document to Scribd

Evidence 4th set of cases

1. People vs Caraig March 28, 2003
2. Serapio vs Sandiganbayan January 28, 2003
3. People vs Abino December 11, 2001
4. People vs Reynes December 12, 2001
5. People vs Alviar 59 SCRA 136
6. People vs Cañete July 11, 2002
7. Peope vs Ganan Jr. 265 SCRA 260
8. Gutib vs Court of Appeals 312 SCRA 365
9. Comelec vs Court of Appeals January 26, 1994
10. People vs City Court of Silay 74 SCRA 247
11. People vs Mahinay July 18, 1995

evidence2008.4thset - Upload a Document to Scribd

Taxation Cases

1. Smart vs City of Davao
2. Figuerras vs CA

Download:

TAX1.Finals - Upload a Document to Scribd

Evidence Cases: 3rd Set

1. People vs Paloma September 23, 1997
2. People vs Lenantud February 22, 2001
3. People vs Sorrel August 29, 1997
4. People vs Ponferada 220 SCRA 46
5. People vs Dumanlang August 7, 2002
6. People vs Surio August 7, 2002
7. Luces vs People January 20, 2003
8. People vs Lim October 18, 1990

evidence2008.3rdset - Upload a Document to Scribd

Case Digest for Evidence

Digested by Karen Styf Javier

People vs. Ramilla May 8, 1993

Facts: Murder with Aggravating Circumstance of Treachery and Evident Premeditation.

Issue: W/N the decision is faulted by the defense for not applying the equipoise rule and for giving credence to the lone witness.

Ruling: The equipoise rule is applicable only where the evidence of the prosecution and the defense are so evenly balanced as to call for the titling of the scales in favor of the accused who is presumed innocent under the bill of rights. The evidence of the prosecution is heavier than that of the defense and has overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the appellant. Therefore, the rule is not applicable in this case because there is no equipoise.

Appeal dismissed and challenged decision is affirmed, with costs against appellant.



People vs. Plazo January 29, 2001

Facts: Murder. One Leonor Fabula witnessed the killing her son, Romeo Fabula. By herein Appellant Edison Plazo with the use of “Gatab”.

Issue: W/N Human Behavioral Response of a witness considering blood relationship be given credence in convicting the accused for the crime charged.

Ruling: Having had the opportunity to personally observe the witness demeanor and manner of testifying, the trial judge is in better position to pass judgment on their credibility. As observed, Leonor Fabula testified in straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, which is necessary for single witness to be found worthy of credence to support conviction.

Witnessing a crime is an unusual experience that elicits different reactions from the witnesses and for which no clear-cut standard form of human behavior response can be drawn when one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience.

Blood relationship between a witness and a victim does not, by itself, impair the credibility of a witness. On the contrary, relationship strengthens credibility, for it is unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely to accuse someone other than the actual culprit. The earnest desire to seek justice for a dead kin is not served should the witness abandon his conscience and prudence and bame one who is innocent of the crime.

Evidence 2nd set of cases

1. Paraffin Test

• People vs de Guzman 250 SCRA 118

2. Polygraph Test

• People vs Adoviso 309 SCRA 1

3. Res Ipsa Loquitor

• Batiquin vs CA 258 SCRA 334

4. Human Behavioral Response

• People vs Plazo 350 SCRA 433
• People vs Lilo 396 SCRA 624
• People vs Bates 400 SCRA 95

5. Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

• People vs Ducay 225 SCRA 1

evidence2008.2ndset - Upload a Document to Scribd

List of Cases for Evidence

1. Circumstantial Evidence

o People vs Santiago (398 SCRA 234)

2. Sufficient Evidence

o Ong vs People (342 SCRA 372)

o People vs Luna (395 SCRA 647)

o People vs Esperida (395 SCRA 679)

o People vs Acosta Sr. (396 SCRA 348)

3. Totality of Circumstances Test

o People vs Timon (381 SCRA 577)

4. Moral Certainty Test

o People vs Ratunil (334 SCRA 737)

5. DNA Testing

o People vs Vallejo

6. Equipoise Rule

o People vs Ramilla (227 SCRA 583)

Synopsis

7. Exclusionary Rule

o People vs Encinada (280 SCRA 72)

8. Buy-Bust Operations

o People vs Uy (327 SCRA 335)

9. Alibi

o When will it prosper?

§ People vs Ballesteros (285 SCRA 438)

o Weak and Unreliable

§ People vs Paragas (384 SCRA 664)

§ People vs Crisanto (358 SCRA 647)

Evidence 2008 - Upload a Document to Scribd