TRANSPORTATION LAW SYLLABUS (COURSE OUTLINE), PUP COLLEGE OF LAW, 2ND SEMESTER, AY 2023-2024, SATURDAYS, 10:00 AM-12:00 NN, PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

by PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

PUP COLLEGE OF LAW

2^ND SEMESTER, AY 2023-2024

SATURDAYS, 10:00 AM-12:00 NN

PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

TRANSPORTATION LAW SYLLABUS (COURSE OUTLINE)

PUP COLLEGE OF LAW

2^ND SEMESTER, AY 2023-2024

SATURDAYS, 6:00-8:00 PM

PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

WEEK 1

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMON CARRIERS

TRANSPORTATION IN GENERAL

Transportation as a component of “public utilities” and “public service”

Sec. 13(b), Commonwealth Act No. 146 or The Public Service Law (of 1936), as last amended by Republic Act No. 2677
National Power Corp. v. CA, 345 Phil. 9 [1997]

PUBLIC UTILITIES

Constitutional provisions on public utilities

Sec. 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551. July 11, 1989
Sec. 17, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., G.R. No. 155001. May 5, 2003

Leave a comment »

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 SYLLABUS (COURSE OUTLINE), WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, 2ND SEMESTER, AY 2022-2023

by PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

constitutional-law-2-syllabus-2023 Download

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »

LEGAL AND JURISPRUDENTIAL DOCTRINES

by PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

[From the Philippine Legal Lexicon (2021 Edition, Volume 1) of Atty. Alvin Claridades]

LEGAL AND JURISPRUDENTIAL DOCTRINES

[From the Philippine Legal Lexicon (2021 Edition, Volume 1) of Atty. Alvin Claridades]

Doctrine of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor. Labor. The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital or management and employee that if there is no work performed by the employee, there can be no wage or pay, unless the laborer was able, willing, and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed, or suspended. [J.P. Heilbronn Co. v. National Labor Union, GR L-5121, Jan. 30, 1953, 92 Phil. 577].
Doctrine of abandonment. Labor. The rule requiring that the employer should exert efforts to contact the employee for the purpose of determining the legal propriety in the expected dismissal of the latter who is being cited for abandonment, and holding that the mere act of undertaking effort of locating the employee does not automatically confer legality in the exercise of management right to dismiss on the pretext of abandonment. [Metro, Transit Organization, Inc. v. NLRC, GR 119724, May 31, 1999, 307 SCRA 747307 SCRA 747].
Doctrine of absolute privilege. Remedial Law. The doctrine that protects persons from claims alleging defamation where the alleged defamatory statements were made by members of legislative assemblies while on the floor of the assembly or communications made in the context of judicial proceedings, as part of a trial.
Doctrine of absorption of common crimes. Criminal Law.The rule enunciated in People v. Hernandez [GR L-6025-26, July 18, 1956, 99 Phil. 515] that the ingredients of a crime form part and parcel of it, and hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately from it or by the application of Art. 48 of the RPC [Ponce Enrile v. Amin, GR 93335, Sep. 13, 1990, 189 SCRA 573], and that the crime of rebellion under the RPC is charged as a single offense and cannot be made into a complex crime. Also Hernandez doctrine.
Doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona. Lat. Civil Law. The doctrine that personal action terminates or dies with the person. [Santos v. Sec. of Labor, GR L-21624, 27 Feb. 1968, 22 SCRA 848].
Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction. Remedial Law. 1. The principle that, once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. 2. The doctrine holding: (a) that, even after the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it; and (b) that what the court loses is the power to amend, modify, or alter the judgment. [Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, GR 132601, Jan. 19, 1999, 301 SCRA 96]. Also Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction.
Doctrine of adherence to judicial precedents. Civil Law. The doctrine that enjoins adherence to judicial precedents and requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of its Sup. Court which becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. [Phil. Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec, GR 190529, Apr. 29, 2010, 619 SCRA 585]. Also Doctrine of stare decisis.
Doctrine of adoptive admission. Remedial Law. The doctrine pertaining to a party’s reaction to a statement or action by another person when it is reasonable to treat the party’s reaction as an admission of something stated or implied by the other person. [Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146710-15, Apr. 3, 2001, 356 SCRA 108].
Doctrine of agency by estoppel. Civil Law. The doctrine where the principal will be estopped from denying the grant of authority if 3rd parties have changed their positions to their detriment in reliance on the representations made. Also Doctrine of holding out.
Doctrine of alter ego. Corporation Law. 1.A doctrine based upon the misuse of a corporation by an individual for wrongful or inequitable purposes, and in such case the court merely disregards the corporate entity and holds the individual responsible for acts knowingly and intentionally done in the name of the corporation. 2. The doctrine which imposes upon the individual who uses a corporation merely as an instrumentality to conduct his own business liability as a consequence of fraud or injustice perpetuated, not on the corporation, but on 3rd persons dealing with the corporation. [Cited Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. v. Araneta, Inc., GR L-31061, Aug. 17, 1976, 72 SCRA 347].
Doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. Remedial Law. The doctrine that the court acquires jurisdiction of a case or controversy as an entirety and may, as incident to the disposition of the matters properly before it, possess jurisdiction to decide other matters raised by case, such as proceedings which are concerned with pleadings, processes, records, or judgments of the court in the principal case or proceedings which affect a property already in the court’s custody. [Malaloan v. CA, GR 104879, May 6, 1994, 232 SCRA 249].
Doctrine of anticipatory breach. Remedial Law. The doctrine holding that, even if the contract is divisible in its performance and the future periodic deliveries are not yet due, if the obligor has already manifested his refusal to comply with his future periodic obligations, the contract is entire and the breach total, hence, there can only be 1 action for damages. [Blossom and Co., Inc. v. Manila Gas Corporation, GR L-32958, Nov. 8, 1930 55 Phil. 226].
Doctrine of apparent authority. Civil Law.1. The doctrine under which the acts and contracts of the agent, as are within the apparent scope of the authority conferred on him, although no actual authority to do such acts or to make such contracts has been conferred, bind the principal whose liability, however, is limited only to 3rd persons who have been led reasonably to believe, by the conduct of the principal, that such actual authority exists, although none was given. [Banate v. Phil. Countryside Rural Bank, Inc., GR 163825, July 13, 2010, 625 SCRA 21]. 2. The doctrine under which the apparent authority is determined only by the acts of the principal and not by the acts of the agent. [Ibid.]. 3. The doctrine under which the principal is liable only as to 3rd persons who have been led reasonably to believe by the conduct of the principal that such actual authority exists, although none has been given. [Westmont Bank v. Inland Construction and Development Corporation, GR 123650 & 123822, Mar. 23, 2009]. Also Holding out theory; or Doctrine of ostensible agency or Agency by estoppel. See Apparent authority doctrine.
Doctrine of assignment of income. Taxation. The doctrine under which gross income from personal services must be included in the gross income of the person who rendered the services.
Doctrine of associated words. Stat. Con.The doctrine that provides that, where a particular word or phrase in a statement is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its true meaning may be made clear and specific by considering the company in which it is found or with which it is associated. [Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, GR L-5 Sep. 17, 1945, 75 Phil. 113]. See Noscitur a Sociis.
Doctrine of assumption of risk. The precept that denotes that a person who knows and comprehends the peril and voluntarily exposes himself/herself to it, although not negligent in doing so, is regarded as engaging in an assumption of the risk and is precluded from a recovery for an injury ensuing from it. Also Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria.
Doctrine of attenuation Evidence The doctrine under which evidence may be suppressed only if there is a clear causal connection between the illegal police action and the evidence, or when the chain of causation between the illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated, i.e., too thin, weak, decreased, or fragile.
Doctrine of attractive nuisance. A legal doctrine that makes a person negligent for leaving a piece of equipment or other condition on property which would be both attractive and dangerous to curious children, such as tractors, unguarded swimming pools, open pits, and abandoned refrigerators. Liability could be placed on the people owning or controlling the premises even when the child was a trespasser who sneaked on the property. See Attractive nuisance doctrine.
Doctrine of autolimitation. Polit. Law. The doctrine under which the Phils. adheres to the principles of international law as a limitation to the exercise of its sovereignty.
Doctrine of avoidable consequences. The doctrine enunciated in Art. 2203 of the Civ. Code which postulates that the party suffering a loss or injury must exercise the diligence of a good father of a family to minimize the damages resulting from the act or omission in question; otherwise, damages resulting from such avoidable consequences cannot be recovered. See also Avoidable consequences doctrine.
Doctrine of bar by prior judgment. Remedial Law. A concept of res judicata holding that when, as between the 1st case where the judgment was rendered and the 2nd case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action, the judgment in the 1st case constitutes an absolute bar to the 2nd action. [Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de Monje, GR 149624, 29 Sep. 2010, 631 SCRA 471].
Doctrine of bellum justum. A doctrine of milit. ethics the purpose of which is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. Also called Just war theory.
Doctrine of beneficial use. Taxation. 1. The doctrine pursuant to which the tax exemption carried by the property of the Rep. or its instrumentality ceases only if, as stated in Sec. 234 (a) of the LGC, the beneficial use of it has been granted, for a consideration or otherwise, to a taxable person. 2. The rule in real estate taxation that the unpaid tax attaches to the property and is chargeable against the taxable person who had actual or beneficial use and possession of it regardless of whether or not he is the owner. [Republic v. City of Kidapawan, GR 166651, Dec. 09, 2005, 477 SCRA 324].
Doctrine of benevolent neutrality. Constitutional Law. The doctrine holding that freedom to carry out a person’s duties to a Supreme Being is an inalienable right, not one dependent on the grace of legislature, and religious freedom is seen as a substantive right and not merely a privilege against discriminatory legislation. 1. The doctrine which looks upon religion with benevolence and not hostility, and under which benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances. [Estrada v. Escritor, AM P-02-1651. Aug. 4, 2003, 408 SCRA 1].
Borrowed servant doctrine. The doctrine holding that liability is imputed in a surgeon for the negligence committed by operating room personnel regardless of the identity of the employer of the latter. [Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center, CA-GR CV 45641, Feb. 6, 1998]. Compare with Doctrine of captain of the ship.
Doctrine of captain of the ship. The doctrine under which a surgeon is likened to a captain of the ship in that it is his duty to control everything going on in the operating room. [Ramos v. CA, GR 124354, Apr. 11, 2002, 380 SCRA 467]. Compare with Doctrine of borrowed servant.
Doctrine of caveat emptor. 1. A warning that notifies a buyer that the goods he/she is buying are “as is,” or subject to all defects. 2. The principle under which the buyer could not recover damages from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes, the only exception being where the seller actively concealed the latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fraud. Also Doctrine of let the buyer beware.
Doctrine of center of gravity. Conf. of Laws. The doctrine that choice of law problems are resolved by the application of the law of the jurisdiction which has the most significant relationship to or contact with the event and parties to a litigation and the issue in it. Synonymous with Most significant relationship theory.Also Grouping of contacts.
Doctrine of centralized management. The doctrine holding that the corporate powers of all corporations shall be exercised by the BoD or the individual officers or agents appointed by it. [Manila Metal Container Corporation v. PNB, GR 166862, Dec. 20, 2006, 511 SCRA 444]. Also Centralized management doctrine.
Doctrine of checks and balances. A doctrine in Constitutional law. that allows 1 Department to resist encroachments upon its powers and prerogatives by the other depts. or to rectify the mistakes or curb the excesses committed by the other depts. See also Checks and balances doctrine.
Doctrine of class suit or virtual representation. A doctrine based on the concept that members of a class who are made parties will protect their own interests which are such that, in protecting them, the interests of the persons not made parties will also be protected.
Doctrine of clean hands. 1. The principle that he who has done inequity shall not have equity. 2. A doctrine signifying that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue. [Vitug v. Abuda, GR 201264, Jan. 11, 2016, 778 SCRA609].
Doctrine of close now, hear later. Commercial Law. The doctrine holding that the law does not contemplate prior notice and hearing before the bank may be directed to stop operations and placed under receivership. Its purpose is to prevent unwarranted dissipation of the bank’s assets and as a valid exercise of police power to protect the depositors, creditors, stockholders and the general public. [Central Bank of the Phils. v. CA, GR 76118, Mar. 30, 1993, 220 SCRA 536].
Doctrine of collateral estoppel. 1. A doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. 2. The doctrine that, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision preclude(s) relitigation of the issue in a suit on a diff. cause of action involving a party to the 1st case. Also Doctrine of preclusion of issues.
Doctrine of comity. International. Law. The legal principle which dictates that a jurisdiction should recognize and give effect to judicial decrees and decisions rendered in other jurisdictions unless to do so would offend its public policy.
Doctrine of command responsibility. Criminal Law.1. The doctrine under which any government official or supervisor, or officer of the PNP or that of any other law enforcement agency shall be held accountable for Neglect of duty if he has knowledge that a crime or offense shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his subordinates, or by others within his area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, he did not take preventive or corrective action either before, during, or immediately after its commission. [Sec. 1, EO 226. Feb. 17, 1995]. 2. Elements: (a) The existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate; (b) the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be or had been committed; and (c) the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators itself.
Doctrine of comparative injury. A rule in equity which states that, although a person is entitled to injunctive relief, if the injury done to the respondent or the public would be disproportionate, then the injunctive relief must be denied.
Doctrine of comparative negligence. Civil Law.The doctrine that allows a recovery by a plaintiff whose own act contributed to his injury, provided his negligence was slight as compared with that of the defendant. [Rakes v. The Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific, Co., GR 1719, Jan. 23, 1907, 7 Phil. 359].
Doctrine of compassionate justice. The doctrine in equity stating that the harsh provisions of law and the rigid rules of procedure may sometimes be tempered and dispensed with to give room for compassion.
Doctrine of complementary contracts construed together. 1. The principle acc. to which an accessory contract must be read in its entirety and together with the principal agreement. 2. The principle used in construing contractual stipulations in order to arrive at their true meaning; certain stipulations cannot be segregated and then made to control. 3. The No-segregation principle based on Art. 1374 of the Civ. Code which provides: “The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.” [PBCom v. Lim, GR 158138, Apr. 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 714].
Doctrine of completeness. Evidence The doctrine holding that a dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself which does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the Res gestae of the subject of his statement, but that his statement of any given fact should be a full expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact. [People v. De Joya, GR 75028, Nov. 8, 1991, 203 SCRA 343].
Doctrine of conclusive finality. The comity that courts extend to the exec. branch and the recognition of the expertise of admin. agencies in dealing with particular questions of fact. [Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. Nagrama, Jr., GR 164403, Mar. 4, 2008, 547 SCRA 571].
Doctrine of conclusiveness of administrative findings of fact. The well-settled doctrine that the findings of fact by an admin. or quasi-judicial agency are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are generally accorded with great weight and respect, if not finality by the courts, by reason of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction. [Miro v. Mendoza Vda. de Erederos, GR 172532, Nov. 20, 2013, 710 SCRA 371].
Doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment. Remedial Law. 1. A concept of res judicata holding that, where there is identity of parties in the 1st and 2nd cases but no identity of causes of action, the 1st judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved in it. 2. The doctrine stating that any right, fact, or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by such judgment and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the 2 actions is the same. [Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de Monje, GR 149624, 29 Sep. 2010, 631 SCRA 471].
Doctrine of concurrent jurisdiction. The principle vesting certain agencies or bodies with equal jurisdiction to deal with the same subject matter, but with the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint exercising jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. [Fusev. Delos Santos-Puse, GR 183678, Mar. 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 500].
Doctrine of condonation. Admin. Law. 1. The doctrine that a public official cannot be removed for admin. misconduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of his previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right to remove him for it. [Aguinaldo v. Santos, GR 94115, Aug. 21, 1992, 212 SCRA 768]. 2. The doctrine which was abandoned by the SC in Morales v. CA and Binay, Jr. [GR 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015, 774 SCRA 431], but the abandonment is prospective in effect. Also Doctrine of forgiveness.
Doctrine of constitutional avoidance. The doctrine in Constitutional law prescribing that the court should refuse to rule on a Constitutional issue if the case can be resolved on another ground.
Doctrine of constitutional supremacy. 1. The doctrine that if a law or contract violates any norm of the Constitution, that law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the exec. branch, or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force and effect. 2. The doctrine that since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. [Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR 122156, Feb. 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 408].
Doctrine of constructive compliance (or fulfillment). Civil Law. 1. The principle that a party to a contract may not be excused from performing his promise by the non-occurrence of an event which he himself prevented. 2. Requisites: (a) The intent of the debtor to prevent fulfillment of the condition; and (2) the actual prevention of compliance (or fulfillment).
Doctrine of constructive compliance. Succession. The doctrine that states that if, without the fault of the heir, the modal institution cannot take effect in the exact manner stated by the testator, it shall be complied with in a manner most analogous to and in conformity with his wishes. [Art. 883, CC].
Doctrine of constructive fulfillment of suspensive conditions. Civil Law. The doctrine enunciated by Art. 1186 of the Civ. Code which applies when the ff. requisites concur, viz: (a) The condition is suspensive or one the happening of which gives rise to the obligation; (b) the obligor actually prevents the fulfillment of the condition; and (c) he acts voluntarily.
Doctrine of constructive possession. Land Titles. 1. The general rule that the possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract under claim of ownership of all is a constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse possession of another. [Ramos v. Dir. of Lands. GR 13298, Nov. 19, 1918, 39 Phil. 175]. 2. The doctrine the application of which is subject to certain qualifications, such as that particularly relating to the size of the tract in controversy with reference to the portion actually in possession of the claimant. [Lasam v. Dir. of Lands. GR 42859, Mar. 17, 1938, 65 Phil. 367].
Doctrine of constructive trust. A general principle that a person who acquires land or other property by fraud, misrepresentation, imposition, or concealment, or under any such other circumstances as to render it inequitable for him to retain the property, is in equity to be regarded as a Trustee ex maleficio of it for a person who suffers by reason of the fraud or other wrong, and is equitably entitled to the property, even though such beneficiary may never have any legal estate in it. [Magallon v. Montejo, GR 73733, Dec. 16, 1986, 146 SCRA 282].
Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction. Remedial Law. The general principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all that it can do to exercise that jurisdiction. See Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction.
Doctrine of continuous voyage. International Law. 1. The doctrine holding that a voyage, though interrupted, as in the case of transshipment of a contraband of war, is considered, in view of its purposes, as 1 single voyage. 2. The doctrine pertaining to the stoppage and seizure of goods carried by a neutral vessel either going out of or heading toward a neutral port, such that when said goods are to be transshipped to another belligerent power at some point in the voyage, the state invoking the doctrine could assert that the voyage was continuously geared toward trade with the enemy, irrespective of the period of neutral possession
Doctrine of contributory infringement. Intellectual Property. The doctrine holding that, aside from the infringer, any person who actively induces the infringement of a patent or provides the infringer with a component of a patented product or of a product produced because of a patented process, knowing it to be esp. adapted for infringing the patented invention and not suitable for substantial non-infringing use, is liable jointly and severally with the infringer as a contributory infringer: Provided, That it must be proven that the product can only be used for infringement purposes because if it can be used for legitimate purposes, the action shall not prosper.
Doctrine of corporate negligence. 1. The judicial answer to the problem of allocating hospital’s liability for the negligent acts of health practitioners, absent facts to support the application of Respondeat superior or Apparent authority. 2. The doctrine the formulation of which proceeds from the judiciary’s acknowledgment that, in these modern times, the duty of providing quality medical service is no longer the sole prerogative and responsibility of the physician considering that: (a) the modern hospitals have changed structure; and (b) hospitals now tend to organize a highly professional medical staff whose competence and performance need to be monitored by the hospitals commensurate with their inherent responsibility to provide quality medical care. [Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, GR 126297, Jan. 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 478].
Doctrine of corporate opportunity. Commercial Law.The doctrine under which a dir. of a corporation is made to account to his corporation the gains and profits from transactions entered into by him or by another competing corporation in which he has substantial interests which should have been a transaction undertaken by his corporation This s a breach of fiduciary relationship.
Doctrine of corporate responsibility. Commercial Law.The doctrine holding that a hospital has the duty to see that it meets the standards of responsibilities for the care of patients which duty includes the proper supervision of the members of its medical staff. [Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, GR 126297, Jan. 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 478].
Doctrine of corporation by estoppel. Commercial Law. 1. The doctrine under Sec. 21 of the Corporation Code which provides that all persons who assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all debts, liabilities, and damages incurred or arising as a result of it: Provided, That when any such ostensible corporation is sued on any transaction entered by it as a corporation or on any tort committed by it as such, it shall not be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate personality. 2. The doctrine that applies when a non-existent corporation enters into contracts or dealings with 3rd persons, in which case, the person who has contracted or otherwise dealt with the non-existent corporation is estopped to deny the latter’s legal existence in any action leading out of or involving such contract or dealing. [The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima (Peach Sisters of Laguna) v. Alzona, GR 224307, Aug. 06, 2018].
Doctrine of default. Civil Procedure. The doctrine based on the underlying philosophy that the defendant’s failure to answer the complaint despite receiving a copy of it, together with the summons, is attributable to 1 of 2 causes: either (a) to his realization he has no defenses to the plaintiff’s cause and, hence, resolves not to oppose the complaint, or, (b) having good defenses to the suit, to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence which prevented him from seasonably filing an answer setting forth those defenses. [Gochangco v. CFI Negros Occ., GR L-49396, Jan. 15, 1088, 157 SCRA 40].
Doctrine of deference and non-disturbance on appeal. The doctrine that the SC on appeal would not disturb the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses in view of the latter’s advantage of observing at first hand their demeanor in giving their testimony. [Teehankee, conc. op., Llamoso v Sandiganbayan, GR L-63408 & 64026, Aug. 7, 1985, 138 SCRA 92].
Doctrine of dependent relative revocation. Succession. 1. The doctrine that states that a revocation subject to a condition does not revoke a will unless and until the condition occurs. 2. The doctrine which states that where a testator revokes a will with the proven intention that he would execute another, his failure to validly make a latter will would permit the allowance of the earlier will.
Doctrine of discouraging the splitting of cause of action in complex crimes. Criminal Pro. The doctrine dissuading the splitting of a cause of action in complex crimes for the reason that it would work unnecessary inconvenience to the administration of justice in general and to the accused in particular, considering that it would require the presentation of substantially the same evidence in diff. courts. [People v. Cano, GR L-19660, May 24, 1966].
Doctrine of discovered peril. 1. The doctrine to the effect that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the party who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with its consequences. [See Picart v. Smith, Jr., GR L-12219, Mar. 15, 1918, 37 Phil. 809]. 2. The rule that an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against the liability sought by, another if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. [Glan People’s Lumber and Hardware v. IAC, GR 70493, May 18, 1989, 173 SCRA 464]. See Last clear chance doctrine.
Doctrine of disregarding the distinct personality of the corporation. The doctrine stating that when the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons, or in the case of 2 corporations, merge them into one, the one being merely regarded as part or instrumentality of the other. [Yutivo Sons Hardware Co. v. CTA, GR L-13203, Jan. 28, 1961, 1 SCRA 160]. The doctrine under which the separate personality of a corporation is disregarded where: (a) it is a dummy and serves no business purpose and is intended only as a blind, or an alter ego or business conduit for the sole benefit of the stockholders. [McConnel v. CA, GR L-10510, Mar. 17, 1961, 1 SCRA 722].
Doctrine of double sale. The doctrine enunciated in Art. 1544 of the Civ. Code stating that the ownership of an immovable property which is the subject of a double sale shall be transferred: (a) to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property; (b) in its default, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and (c) in its default, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.
Doctrine of dying declaration. Evidence The rule that a dying declaration, while generally inadmissible as evidence due to its hearsay character, may nonetheless be admitted when the ff. requisites concur, namely: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) at the time the declaration is made, the declarant is under a consciousness of an impending death; (c) the declarant is competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder, or parricide, in which the declarant is a victim. [People v. Santillan, GR 227878, Aug. 09, 2017, 837 SCRA 71].
Doctrine of effective nationality. International Law. The doctrine holding that a person having more than 1 nationality shall be treated as if he had only 1 – either: (a) the nationality of the country in which he is habitually and principally resident; or (b) the nationality of the country with which, in the circumstances, he appears to be most closely connected. [Frivaldo v. Comelec, GR 87193, June 23, 1989, 174 SCRA 245].
Doctrine of effective occupation. A doctrine in international law which holds that, in order for a nation to occupy a coastal possession, it also had to prove that it controlled sufficient authority there to protect existing rights such as freedom of trade and transit. See Effective occupation doctrine.
Doctrine of ejusdem generis. Stat. Con. The doctrine which states that where general terms follow the designation of particular things or classes of persons or subjects, the general term will be construed to comprehend those things or persons of the same class or of the same nature as those specifically enumerated. [Napocor v. Angas, GR 60225-26 May 8, 1992, 208 SCRA 542].
Doctrine of election of remedies. 1. A doctrine developed to prevent a plaintiff from a double recovery for a loss, making the person pursue only 1 remedy in an action. 2. The doctrine the application of which is not restricted to any particular cause of action, and which is most commonly employed in contract cases involving fraud, which is a misrepresentation of a material fact intended to deceive a person who relies on it.
Doctrine of enrolled bill. Constitutional Law.1. The doctrine that the signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President and the certification of the Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed is conclusive not only as to its provisions but also as to its due enactment. [Arroyo v. De Venecia, GR 127255, Aug. 14, 1997, 277 SCRA 268]. 2. The doctrine under which a court may not look behind a legislative bill, enrolled and certified by the appropriate officers, to determine if there are any defects. [Dis. Op., Regalado J. in Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, GR 115525, Aug. 25, 1994]. Commonly called the Enrolled bill doctrine.
Doctrine of epidermal contact. Criminal Law. The doctrine that a contact between the penis and the external layer of the victim’s vagina (the stroking or grazing of the male organ upon the female organ or the Mons pubis) categorizes the crime as Attempted rape or Acts of lasciviousness. [People v. Quarre, GR 140729-30. Feb. 15, 2002, 377 SCRA 185].
Doctrine of equality of shares. Corporation Law. The doctrine that all stocks issued by the corporation are presumed equal with the same privileges and liabilities, provided that the AOI is silent on such differences. See also Equality of shares doctrine.
Doctrine of equitable estoppel. Civil Law. 1. The doctrine that when 1 of the 2 innocent persons, each guiltless of any intentional or moral wrong, must suffer a loss, it must be borne by the one whose erroneous conduct, either by omission or commission, was the cause of injury. [Metropolitan Banking and Trust Corporation v. Cabilzo, GR 154469, Dec. 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 259]. 2. Estoppel in pais or Equitable estoppel which arises when one, by his acts, representations or admissions or by his silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts. The real office of the equitable norm of estoppel is limited to supplying deficiency in the law but should not supplant positive law. [Rimasug v. Martin, GR 160118, Nov. 22, 2005, 475 SCRA 703].
Doctrine of equitable recoupment. Taxation. The doctrine providing that a claim for refund barred by prescription may be allowed to offset unsettled tax liabilities which rule should be pertinent only to taxes arising from the same transaction on which an overpayment is made and underpayment is due.
Doctrine of equivalents. Intellectual Property. The doctrine postulating that an infringement takes place when a device appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept and, although with some modification and change, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. [Smith Kline Beckman Corporation v. CA, GR 126627, Aug. 14, 2003, 409 SCRA 33].
Doctrine of equivalents test. Intellectual Property. 1. The doctrine holding that a test established to determine infringement which recognizes that minor modifications in a patented invention are sufficient to put the item beyond the scope of Literal infringement. 2. The doctrine stating that an infringement also occurs when a device: (a) appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept; and, (b) albeit with some modification and change, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. [Godines v. CA, GR 97343, Sep. 13, 1993, 226 SCRA 338].
Doctrine of equivalents. Intellectual Property. The rule stating that an infringement also takes place when a device: (a) appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept; and, (b) although with some modification and change, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. [Smith Kline and Beckman Corporation v. CA, GR 126627, Aug. 14, 2003, 409 SCRA 33].
Doctrine of estoppel by laches. Remedial Law. 1. An equitable doctrine by which some courts may deny relief to a claimant who has: (a) unreasonably delayed; or (b) been negligent in asserting a claim. 2. The doctrine under which a person invoking laches should assert that: (a) an opposing party has slept on his/her rights; and (b) the party is no longer entitled to his/her original claim.
Doctrine of estoppel. Remedial Law. A doctrine based on grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice, the purpose of which is to forbid a person to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of a person: (a) to whom they were directed; and (b) who reasonably relied on it. [PNB v. CA, GR L-30831, Nov. 21, 1979, 94 SCRA 357].
Doctrine of executive immunity. Constitutional Law. Constitutional Law. The doctrine that the President, as chief exec. of the government, is held to be immune from any kind of suit during his incumbency which immunity extends only to his/her official acts.
Doctrine of executive privilege. Constitutional Law. The doctrine stating that the President and those who assist him must: (a) be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions; and (b) (be able) to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express, except privately, which are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for presidential communications. [Almonte v. Vasquez, GR 95367, May 23, 1995, 244 SCRA 286].
Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. 1. The general rule that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by admin. processes. 2. The doctrine postulating that the issues which admin. agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such admin. agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation. [Republic v. Lacap, GR 158253, Mar. 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255]. 3. Exceptions: (a) The question involved is purely legal; (b) the admin. body is in estoppel; (c) the act complained of is patently illegal; (d) there is an urgent need for judicial intervention; (e) the claim involved is small; (f) grave and irreparable injury will be suffered; (g) there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; (h) strong public interest is involved; (i) the subject of the controversy is private law; (j) the case involves a quo warranto proceeding; (k) the party was denied due process; (l) the decision is that of a Department Secretary; (m) resort to admin. remedies would be futile; (n) there is unreasonable delay; (o) the action involves recovery of physical possession of public land; (p) the party is poor; and (q) the law provides for immediate resort to the court.
Doctrine of exhaustion. Intellectual Property. 1. The doctrine which provides that the Patent holder has control of the 1st sale of his invention and the opportunity to receive the full consideration for his invention from his sale, hence, exhausting his rights in the future control of his invention. 2. The doctrine espousing that the patentee who has already sold his invention and has received all the royalty and consideration for the same will be deemed to have released the invention from his monopoly, thus leaving the invention open to the use of the purchaser without further restriction. Also Doctrine of first sale.
Doctrine of fair and proper submission. Constitutional Law. 1. The doctrine holding that the proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be presented to the people for the ratification or rejection all at the same time and not by piecemeal. 2. The doctrine mandating that in order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution may be validly held, it must provide the voter not only sufficient time, but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se, as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution with which it has to form a harmonious whole. [Tolentino v. Comelec, GR L-34150, Oct. 16, 1971, 41 SCRA 702].
Doctrine of fair comment. Criminal Law. A doctrine in the law of libel which means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts. [Borjal v. CA, GR 126466, Jan. 14, 1999, 301 SCRA 1].
Doctrine of fair use. Intellectual Property. The doctrine that permits a secondary use which serves the copyright objective of stimulating productive thought and public instruction without excessively diminishing the incentives for creativity. See also Fair use doctrine.
Doctrine of file wrapper estoppel. Intellectual Property. 1. The doctrine holding that: (a) a patentee is precluded from claiming as part of patented product that which he had to excise or modify in order to avoid patent office rejection; and (b) he may omit any additions which he was compelled to add by patent office regulations. 2. The doctrine which balances the Doctrine of equivalents.
Doctrine of finality of administrative action. The doctrine in polit. law that prior to the completion or finality of the action of an admin. agency, courts will not interfere with it for the reason that absent a final order or decision, power has not yet been fully and finally exercised, and there can usu. be no irreparable harm at that point.
Doctrine of finality of judgment. Remedial Law. The doctrine that once a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and may no longer be modified in any respect, (a) even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law; and (b) regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. 2. A doctrine which, being grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, holds that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality. [Gallardo-Corro v. Gallardo, GR 136228, Jan. 30, 2001, 350 SCRA 568].
Doctrine of first sale. A doctrine in which the owner of an Intellectual Property., such as a patent, loses or exhausts all his rights to the goods subject of the Intellectual Property. right after its 1st sale in the market. Also Doctrine of exhaustion.
Doctrine of forgiveness. Admin. Law. 1. A principle under which the admin. offenses of an elected official are already deemed forgiven when the public decides to re-elect him or her for another term. 2. The doctrine which was abandoned by the SC in Morales v. CA and Binay, Jr. [GR 217126-27, Nov. 10, 2015, 774 SCRA 431]. See Doctrine of condonation.
Doctrine of forum non-conveniens. Lat. The forum is inconvenient. Priv. International Law. 1. A rule designed to deter the practice of global forum shopping, that is, to prevent non-resident litigants from choosing the forum or place in which to bring their suit for malicious reasons, such as: (a) to secure procedural advantages; (b) to annoy and harass the defendant; (c) to avoid overcrowded dockets; or (d) to select a more friendly venue. 2. The doctrine under which a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. [First Phil. International Bank v. CA, GR 115849, Jan. 24, 1996, 252 SCRA 259].
Doctrine of fraudulent title becoming the root of valid title. Land Titles. The doctrine that a fraudulent or forged document of sale may become the root of a valid title if the certificate of title has already been transferred from the name of the true owner to the name of the forger or the name indicated by the forger. [Republic v. Agunoy, Sr., GR 155394, Feb. 17, 2005, 451 SCRA 735].
Doctrine of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant. From Lat. Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant which means Fraud and justice never cohabitate. 1. A doctrine stating that no person may enjoy the fruits of fraud. [Acot v. Kempis, 55 OG 16, p. 2907 (1959)]. 2. A doctrine postulating that fraud corrupts justice regardless of good faith or just intention.
Doctrine of free enterprise. Commercial Law. A doctrine holding that a capitalist economy can regulate itself in a free and competitive market through the relationship of supply and demand with a min. intervention and regulation from the state.
Doctrine of good faith. Admin. Law. 1. The doctrine that the affirmance of the disallowance of payments or disbursements does not automatically cast liability on the responsible officers when good faith could be considered as a valid defense. 2. The rule that good faith may be appreciated as a valid defense of a public official being required to refund or reimburse a disallowed payment: Provided, That he possesses a state of mind denoting honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even though technicalities of law, together with the absence of all info., notice or benefit, or belief of facts which render the transaction unconscientious. [PEZA v. COA, GR 210903, Oct. 11, 2016, 805 SCRA 618].
Doctrine of governmental immunity from suit. The doctrine that no governmental body can be sued unless it gives permission.
Doctrine of governmental interest. International Law. The doctrine that courts should apply the law of the State that has the most interest in determining the outcome of the dispute
Doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Remedial Law. 1. The doctrine which dictates that direct recourse to the SC is allowed only to resolve questions of law, notwithstanding the invocation of paramount or Transcendental importance of the action. 2. An established policy that parties must observe the hierarchy of courts before they can seek relief directly from the SC. 3. Rationale: (a) Direct resort to the SC would be an imposition upon its limited time; and (b) it would inevitably result in a delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some instances, had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because the SC is not a trier of facts. [Hinog v. Melicor, GR 140954, 12 Apr. 2005, 455 SCRA 460].
Doctrine of hierarchy of rights. Constitutional Law.The doctrine which postulates the order of preference among constitutionally guaranteed rights, giving primacy the right to life, followed by the right to liberty, and then property rights.
Doctrine of holding out. Civil Law.The doctrine under which the principal will be estopped from denying the grant of authority if 3rd parties have changed their positions to their detriment in reliance on the representations made. Also Doctrine of agency by estoppel.
Doctrine of hold-over. 1. Admin. Law. The doctrine under which a public officer whose term has expired or services have been terminated is allowed to continue holding his office until his successor is appointed or chosen and had qualified. 2. Corporation Law. A principle which states that, upon failure of a quorum at any annual meeting, the directorate naturally holds over and continues to function until another directorate is chosen and qualified. 3. The general rule that, unless the law or the charter of a corporation expressly provides that an office shall become vacant at the expiration of the term of office for which the officer was elected, such officer is allowed to hold over until his successor is duly qualified.
Doctrine of horizontal equity. Taxation. The theory which states that persons with similar income and assets should pay the same amount in taxes.
Doctrine of hot pursuit. Criminal Law. The doctrine under which a warrantless arrest may be validly effected when: (a) an offense has just been committed; and (b) the person arresting has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Doctrine of immunity from suit. International Law. 1. The doctrine the application of which has been restricted to sovereign or governmental activities (Jure imperii), and does not extend to commercial, private, and proprietary acts (Jure gestionis). [JUSMAG v. NLRC, GR 108813, Dec. 15, 1994, 239 SCRA 224]. 2. The doctrine stating that the restrictive application of State immunity is proper when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or econ. affairs. 3. The doctrine that a State may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and thus can be deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be used only when it enters into business contracts. 4. The principle which finds no application where the contract relates to the exercise of its sovereign functions. [USA v. Ruiz, GR L-35645, May 22, 1985, 136 SCRA 487].
Doctrine of immunity of state from suit. One of the universally recognized principles in international law which is commonly understood as an exemption of the State and its organs from the judicial jurisdiction of another state. [JUSMAG Phils. v. NLRC, GR 108813, Dec. 15, 1994, 239 SCRA 224].
Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment. Remedial Law. 1. The doctrine postulating that a final and executory judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, either by the court which rendered it or even by the SC. 2. The doctrine founded on considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments must become final at some definite point in time. 3. Exceptions: (a) The correction of clerical errors; (b) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party; (c) void judgments; and (d) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitable. [Temic Semiconductors, Inc. Employees Union (TSIEU)-FFW v. FFW, GR 160993, May 20, 2008, 554 SCRA 122]. 4. Two-fold purpose: (a) To avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. [Mercury Drug Corporation v. Huang, GR 197654, Aug. 30, 2017, 838 SCRA 221]. Also called Doctrine of immutability of judgment.
Doctrine of immutability of judgment. Remedial Law. A fundamental legal principle that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land. Also called Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment.
Doctrine of implications. Stat. Con. The doctrine that a meaning which is plainly implied in the language of a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed. [In Re: McCulloch Dick, GR 13862, Apr. 16, 1918, 38 Phil. 41].
Doctrine of implied conspiracy. Criminal Law. The doctrine under which 2 or more persons participating in the commission of a crime are held to be collectively liable as co-conspirators, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement to that effect, if they act in concert, showing unity of criminal intent and a common purpose.
Doctrine of implied municipal liability. Local Government The doctrine that a municipality may become obligated upon an implied contract to pay the reasonable value of the benefits accepted or appropriated by it as to which it has the general power to contract. [Prov. of Cebu v. IAC, GR 72841, Jan. 29, 1987, 147 SCRA 447].
Doctrine of implied powers. The doctrine holding that, in determining the rights and duties possessed by an organization, a court must look into the purposes and functions specified in its charter and those developed in practice.
Doctrine of implied trust. The doctrine enunciated in Art. 1456 of the Civ. Code which provides that “if property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.” [Armamento v. Guerrero, GR L-34228, Feb. 21, 1980, 96 SCRA 178].
Doctrine of imputed negligence. Civil Law. The doctrine under which a person who has not committed the act or omission which caused damage or injury to another may nevertheless be held civilly liable to the latter, either directly or subsidiarily, under certain circumstances. Also called Doctrine of vicarious liability.
Doctrine of in pari delicto. Civil Law.1. A legal principle that if 2 parties in a dispute are equally at fault, then the party in possession of the contested property gets to retain it and the courts will not interfere with the status quo. 2. A doctrine implying that a party may not claim nor be awarded damages if: (a) his action or failure to act precipitates the breach of a contract; or (b) he fails to take appropriate action, or takes inappropriate action, to limit or recoup a loss.
Doctrine of inappropriate provision. Constitutional Law. The doctrine that deals with a provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill and may therefore be singled out for veto by the President even if it is not an appropriation or revenue item.
Doctrine of incidental recognition. Civil Law. The doctrine that: (a) voluntary acknowledgment of a child may be done incidentally in a pubic document; and (b) a father’s incidental mention of a child as his in a public document executed by him deserves full faith and credit. [Javelona v. Monteclaro, GR 48464, Oct. 4, 1943, 74 Phil. 393].
Doctrine of incompatibility of public offices. Polit. Law. A doctrine concerning a potential clash of 2 incompatible public offices held by a single official which may bring about a conflict in his performance of potentially overlapping public duties.
Doctrine of incomplete testimony. Remedial Law. The doctrine holding that when the cross-examination of a witness cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to the party who offered the witness, the incomplete testimony is rendered incompetent and should be stricken from the record.
Doctrine of incorporation. International Law. 1. The doctrine which states that the rules of international law form part of the law of a particular State and that no legislative action is required to make them applicable to it. 2. The doctrine followed in the Phils., pursuant to Sec. 2. Art. II of the Constitution, which states that the Phils. adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. 3. The doctrine that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not superior to, national legislative enactments. [Sec. of Justice v. Lantion, GR 139465, Jan. 18, 2000, 322 SCRA 160]. Compare with Doctrine of transformation.
Doctrine of indefeasibility of torrens titles. Land Titles.The doctrine that a certificate of title, once registered, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged, or diminished, except in a direct proceeding permitted by law. [De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, GR 158002, Feb. 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 564].
Doctrine of indelible allegiance. International Law. The doctrine that an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality notwithstanding that he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the 2nd state whose nationality he has acquired.
Doctrine of independence. Commercial Law. The doctrine that the relationship of the buyer and the bank is separate and distinct from the relationship of the buyer and seller in the main contract such that the bank is not required to investigate if the contract underlying the L/Cs has been fulfilled or not because, in such transactions, the banks deal only with documents and not goods (BPI v. De Reny Fabric Ind., Inc., L‐2481, Oct. 16, 1970). Also called Independence principle. Compare with Fraud exception rule.
Doctrine of independent source. Evidence The doctrine under which evidence is admissible if knowledge of the evidence is gained from a separate or independent source that is completely unrelated to the illegal act of the law enforcers.
Doctrine of independently relevant statements. Evidence The doctrine holding that only the fact that statements were made is relevant, and its truth or falsity is immaterial, hence, such statements are admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Doctrine of individuality of subscription. Commercial Law. The doctrine that a subscription is 1 entire and indivisible contract which cannot be divided into portions. [Sec. 64, Corporation Code]. Also Doctrine of indivisibility of subscription.
Doctrine of indivisibility of subscription. Commercial Law. The doctrine that a subscription contract is 1 entire and indivisible contract which cannot be divided into portions so that the stockholder shall not be entitled to a certificate of stock until full payment of his subscription, together with interest and expenses, if any, is due. [SEC Opinion, Apr. 11, 1994]. Also Doctrine of individuality of subscription.
Doctrine of inevitable discovery. Evidence The doctrine under which evidence is admissible, even if obtained through an unlawful arrest, search, interrogation, or violation of an exclusionary law, if it can be established, to a very high degree of probability, that normal police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery of the evidence
Doctrine of informed consent. Civil Law.1. A duty imposed on a physician to explain the risks of recommended procedures to a patient before a patient determines whether or not he/she should go forward with the procedure. 2. Essential elements: (a) The physician had a duty to disclose material risks; (b) he failed to disclose or inadequately disclosed those risks; (c) as a direct and proximate result of the failure to disclose, the patient consented to treatment he/she otherwise would not have consented to; and (d) plaintiff was injured by the proposed treatment. [Li v. Soliman, GR 165279, June 07, 2011, 651 SCRA 32]. See Informed consent doctrine.
Doctrine of inscrutable fault. Transportation. The doctrine holding that in case of a maritime collision where the vessel at fault not known, each vessel shall suffer its own losses and both shall be solidarily liable for the losses or damages on the cargo.
Doctrine of interlocking confessions. Evidence The doctrine under which extra-judicial confessions independently made without collusion which are identical with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record are admissible, as circumstantial evidence, against the person implicated to show the probability of the latter’s actual participation in the commission of the crime. [People v. Molleda, GR L-34248, Nov. 21, 1978, 86 SCRA 667].
Doctrine of inverse condemnation. Constitutional Law. The doctrine which involves the action to recover just compensation from the State or its expropriating agency even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency. [Napocor v. Sangkay, GR 165828, Aug. 24, 2011, 656 SCRA 60].
Doctrine of isolated transactions. The doctrine that foreign corporations, even unlicensed ones, can sue or be sued on a transaction or series of transactions set apart from their common business in the sense that there is no intention to engage in a progressive pursuit of the purpose and object of business transaction. [Eriks Pte. Ltd. v. CA, GR 118843, Feb. 6, 1997, 267 SCRA 567].
Doctrine of joint and several liability. Civil Law.A legal doctrine that makes each of the parties who are responsible for an injury liable for all the damages awarded in a lawsuit if the other parties responsible cannot pay. [Gacayan v. Leaño, GR L-33754, Mar. 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 260].
Doctrine of judicial admissions. EvidenceThe doctrine that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party himself and binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. [Binarao v. Plus Builders, Inc., GR 154430, June 16, 2006, 491 SCRA 49].
Doctrine of judicial estoppel. Remedial Law. The doctrine that when a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding and succeeds in maintaining it, he may not thereafter be permitted to assume a contrary position just because his interests have changed.
Doctrine of judicial hierarchy. The doctrine holding that the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus, and injunction is shared by the SC with the RTCs and the CA, such that direct invocation of the SC’s original jurisdiction to issue these writs should be allowed only when there are special and important reasons for it, clearly and specifically set out in the petition. This is an established policy necessary to avoid inordinate demands upon the SC’s time and attention which are better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction, and to preclude the further clogging of the SC’s docket. [Lim v. Vianzon, GR 137187, Aug. 3, 2006, 497 SCRA 482].
Doctrine of judicial notice. Remedial Law. The doctrine holding that courts may: (a) take cognizance of matters as true or existing without need of introduction of evidence; or (b) accept certain matters as facts even if no proof of their existence is presented.
Doctrine of judicial review. Constitutional Law. The doctrine holding that the duty of courts of justice is not merely confined to settling actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but is also inclusive of the power to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government
Doctrine of judicial stability. Remedial Law. The doctrine that no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. [Cabili v. Balindong, AM RTJ-10-2225, Sep. 6, 2011, 656 SCRA 747]. Also Doctrine of non-interference.
Doctrine of judicial supremacy. Constitutional Law. 1. The doctrine recognizing that the judiciary is vested with the power to annul the acts of either the legislative or the exec. or of both when not conformable to the fundamental law. [Association of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agra. Reform, GR 78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343]. 2. The power of judicial review under the Constitution. [Angara v. Electoral Commission, GR L-45081, July 15, 1936, 63 Phil. 139].
Doctrine of jus sanguinis. Lat. Right of blood. A principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having instead 1 or both parents who are citizens of the state or, more generally, by having state citizenship or membership to a nation determined or conferred by ethnic, cultural, or other descent or origin.
Doctrine of jus soli. Lat. Right of the soil. The doctrine recognizing the right of any person born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.
Doctrine of laches. Civil Law. 1. A doctrine based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, GR L-21450 Apr. 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29]. 2. The time-honored rule anchored on public policy that relief will be denied to a litigant: (a) whose claim or demand has become “stale;” or (b) who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time; or (c) who has not been vigilant or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly, or inattention. [Arradaza v. CA, GR 50422, Feb. 8, 1989, 170 SCRA 12]. Also Doctrine of stale demands.
Doctrine of lack of capacity to sue. 1. Corporation Law.The doctrine based on failure to first acquire a local license which is based on considerations of public policy and was never intended to favor nor insulate from suit unscrupulous establishments or nationals in case of breach of valid obligations or violations of legal rights of unsuspecting foreign firms or entities simply because they are not licensed to do business in the country. [Facilities Management Corporation v. De la Osa, GR L-38649, Mar. 26, 1979, 89 SCRA 131]. 2. Remedial Law. The rule that that a plaintiff: (a) is not in the exercise of his civ. rights; or (b) does not have the necessary qualification to appear in the case; or (c) does not have the character or representation he claims.
Doctrine of last antecedent. Stat. Con. The principle that a qualifying or relative word or clause, such as “which,” “said” and “such,” is to be construed as applying to the words, phrase, or clause next preceding, or, as is frequently stated, to the next preceding antecedent, and not as extending to or including others more remote, unless a contrary intention appears. [PLDT Co. v. Public Service Commission, GR L-26762, Aug. 29, 1975], 66 SCRA 341].
Doctrine of last clear chance. Civil Law. 1. The doctrine to the effect that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with its consequences. [PNR v. Brunty, GR 169891, Nov. 2, 2006, 506 SCRA 685]. 2. The rule that an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for the supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against liability sought by another if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. [Ibid.]. 3. A doctrine in the law of torts which states that the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the claim for damages if it is shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party, and in such cases, the person who had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap is considered in law solely responsible for its consequences. [Ong v. Metropolitan Water District, GR L-7664, Aug. 29, 1958, 104 Phil. 397]. Also Doctrine of discovered peril or Humanitarian doctrine. See Last clear chance doctrine.
Doctrine of law of the case. 1. The principle under which determination of questions of law will generally be held to govern a case throughout all its subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on a prior appeal to a court of last resort. 2. A doctrine that relates entirely to questions of law, and is confined in its operation to subsequent proceedings in the same case. [Villa v. Sandiganbayan, GR 87186, Apr. 24, 1992, 208 SCRA 283].
Doctrine of legal entity of the separate personality of the corporation. Commercial Law. The doctrine that a corporation may not be made to answer for acts or liabilities of its stockholders or those of legal entities to which it may be connected, or vice versa. [Palay, Inc. v. Clave, GR L-56076, Sep. 21, 1983, 124 SCRA 638].
Doctrine of let the buyer beware. 1. The doctrineserving as a warning that notifies a buyer that the goods he/she is buying are “as is,” or subject to all defects. 2. The principle under which the buyer could not recover damages from the seller for defects on the property that rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes, except if the seller: (a) actively concealed the latent defects; or (b) otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fraud. Also Doctrine of caveat emptor.
Doctrine of lex loci celebrationis. Civil Law. 1. The doctrine under which the law of the place where a contract was made or celebrated, as in the case of a marriage, shall govern. 2. The doctrine enshrined in Art. 26 of the Fam. Code which holds that all marriages solemnized outside the Phils. in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in the Phils., except those prohibited under Art. 35, 1, 4, 5 and 6, 36, 37 and 38 of said law.
Doctrine of lex loci delicti commissi. Civil Law. The doctrine that the substantive rights and obligations arising out of a tort controversy are determined by the law of the place of injury or the Lex loci delicti.
Doctrine of liberal application of procedural rules. Remedial Law. The doctrine which allows a relaxation in the application of the rules, as an exception to the well-settled principle that rules must be complied with for the orderly administration of justice, only in proper cases and under justifiable causes such as to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. [Magsino v. De Ocampo, GR 166944, Aug. 18, 2014, 733 SCRA 202].
Doctrine of liberal construction of retirement laws. Stat. Con. The doctrine that retirement laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended to be benefited and that all doubts as to the intent of the law should be resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve its humanitarian purposes. [Borromeo v. CSC, GR 96032 July 31, 1991, 199 SCRA 911].
Doctrine of limited liability. Mar. Insurance 1. The doctrine that applies not only to the goods but also in all cases like death or injury to passengers in which the shipowner or agent may properly be held liable for the negligent or illicit acts of the captain. [De los Santos v. CA, GR 51165, June 21, 1990, 186 SCRA 649]. 2. The doctrine that the ship agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of 3rd persons which may arise from the conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which he loaded on the vessel, but he may exempt himself from it by abandoning the vessel, with all the equipment and the freight it may have earned during the voyage. [Art. 587, Code of Comm.; Yangco v. Laserna, GR L-47447-47449, Oct. 29, 1941, 73 Phil. 330]. 3. Exceptions: (a) Repairs and provisioning of the vessel before its loss; [Art. 586, Code of Comm.]; (b) Insurance proceeds. If the vessel is insured, the proceeds will go to the persons entitled to claim from the shipowner; [Vasquez v. CA, GR L-42926, Sep. 13, 1985, 138 SCRA 553]; (c) Workmen’s Compensation cases (now Employees’ Compensation under the LC) [Oching v. San Diego, GR 775, Dec. 17, 1946]; (d) When the shipowner is guilty of fault or negligence; but if the captain is the one who is guilty, the doctrine may still be invoked, hence, abandonment is still an option; (e) Private carrier; or (f) Voyage is not maritime in character.
Doctrine of lis pendens. Lat. A pending suit. Remedial Law. The jurisdiction, power, or control which a court acquires over the property involved in a suit pending the continuance of the action and until final judgment under it. [Sps. Po Lam v. CA, GR 116220, Dec. 6, 2000, 347 SCRA 86].
Doctrine of logical relevance. Criminal Law.The rule that allows a judge to draw a reasonable inference from the appearance of an accused as his appearance is a material fact, and which inference should then be weighed in light of the other legally relevant evidence [Puno, J., Dis. Op., People v. Tapales, GR 125808, Sep. 3, 1999, 313 SCRA 610].
Doctrine of loss of confidence. Labor. Requisites: (a) Loss of confidence should not be simulated; (b) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified; (c) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; (d) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith; and (e) the employee involved holds a position of trust and confidence. [Midas Touch Food Corporation v. NLRC, GR 111639, July 29, 1996, 259 SCRA 652]. See Loss of confidence doctrine.
Doctrine of loss of confidence. Labor. The doctrine providing a ground for the dismissal of an employee who: (a) holds a position of confidence; and (b) has performed an act that would justify the loss of such and confidence.
Doctrine of loss of trust and confidence. Labor. 1. The doctrine that loss of trust and confidence, as a just cause for termination of employment, is premised on the fact that an employee concerned holds a position where greater trust is placed by management and from whom greater fidelity to duty is correspondingly expected. [Wesleyan Univ. Phils. v. Reyes, GR 208321, July 30, 2014]. 2. Requirements: (a) The employee must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and (2) there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence. [Jerusalem v. Keppel Monte Bank, GR 169564, Apr. 6, 2011, 647 SCRA 313].
Doctrine of Macalalad. The rule enunciated in US v. Macalalad [GR 2558, Oct, 8, 1907, 9 Phil. 1] that whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the commission of the crime are also guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
Doctrine of maintenance. Leg. Ethics. The doctrine directed against wanton and inofficious intermeddling in the disputes of others: (a) in which the intermeddler has no interest whatever; and (b) where the assistance rendered is without justification or excuse. [Cadavedo v. Lacaya, GR 173188, Jan. 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 397].
Doctrine of majority rule. 1. The rule that is almost universally used as a mechanism for adjusting and resolving conflicts and disagreements within the group after the members have been given an opportunity to be heard. 2. The doctrine holding that once a decision on a contentious matter is reached by a Majority vote, the dissenting minority is bound by it so that the board can speak with 1 voice, for those elected to the governing board are deemed to implicitly contract that the will of the majority shall govern in matters within the authority of the board. [Velez v. De Vera, AC 6697, BM 1227, AM 05-5-15-SC, July 25, 2006, 496 SCRA 345].
Doctrine of malicious prosecution. Civil Law. 1. The doctrine that affords a person against whom a criminal prosecution, civ. action, or other legal proceeding has been instituted maliciously and without probable cause the right to bring an action for damages against the complainant or plaintiff after the termination of such prosecution, suit, or other proceeding in favor of the former. [Yasoña v. De Ramos, GR 156339, Oct. 6, 2004, 440 SCRA 154]. 2. The doctrine that pertains to: (a) persecution through the misuse or abuse of judicial processes; or (b) the institution and pursuit of legal proceedings for the purpose of harassing, annoying, vexing, or injuring an innocent person. [Villanueva v. UCPB, GR 138291, Mar. 7, 2000, 327 SCRA 391].
Doctrine of management prerogative. Labor.The doctrine under which every employer has the inherent right to regulate, acc. to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including: (a) hiring; (b) work assignments; (c) working methods; (d) the time, place, and manner of work; (e) work supervision; (f) transfer of employees; (g) lay-off of workers; and (h) discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. [Rural Bank of Cantilan, Inc. v. Julve, GR 169750, Feb. 27, 2007, 517 SCRA 17].
Doctrine of mature minor. The legal principle that recognizes the capacity of some minors to consent independently to medical procedures, if they have been assessed by qualified health professionals to understand the nature of procedures and their consequences to make a decision on their own. [Sec. 3, RA 11166].
Doctrine of mechanical equivalents. Intellectual Property. The doctrine under which the patentee is protected from colorable invasions of his patent under the guise of substitution of some part of his invention by some well-known mechanical equivalent which substitution constitutes an infringement of the patent if the substitute: (a) performs the same function; and (b) was well known at the date of the patent as a proper substitute for the omitted ingredient. [Gsell v. Yap-Jue, GR L-4720, Jan. 19, 1909, 12 Phil. 519].
Doctrine of middle of the bridge. International Law.The doctrine holding that, where there is a bridge over a boundary river, the boundary line is the middle or center of the bridge.
Doctrine of mobilia sequuntur personam. Lat. Movables follow the law of the person. Taxation. 1. The doctrine under which shares of stock in a corporation have their situs or location in the state or country in which their owner resides, unless they have acquired a business situs elsewhere. 2. The general rule that intangible personal property (e.g. receivables, promissory notes, bank deposits, corporate stocks) has its situs for purposes of taxation in the domicile of the owner, subject to the ff. exceptions: (a) when the property has acquired a business situs in another jurisdiction; or (b) when the law provides for the situs of the subject of tax (E.g.: Sec. 104 of NIRC).
Doctrine of mootness. Remedial Law.A principle postulating that courts will not decide a case in which there is no longer any actual controversy (Moot case).
Doctrine of mortgagee in good faith. 1, The rule that all persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens certificate of title, as buyers or mortgagees, are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. 2. The doctrine postulating that the public interest in upholding the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as evidence of the lawful ownership of the land or of any encumbrance on it, protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied upon what appears on the face of the certificate of title. [Cavite Development Bank v. Lim, GR 131679, 1 Feb. 2000, 324 SCRA 346]. 3. The doctrine applicable to a situation where, despite the fact that the mortgagor is not the owner of the mortgaged property, his title being fraudulent, the mortgage contract and any foreclosure sale arising from it are given effect by reason of public policy. [Ibid.].
Doctrine of most significant relationship. International Law. The doctrine that courts should apply the law of the State that has the closest and most real connection with the dispute. See also Center of gravity doctrine.
Doctrine of multiple admissibility. Evidence The doctrine that the evidence may either be admissible for several purposes or not admissible for 1 purpose but may be admitted for a diff. purpose if it satisfies all the requirements of the latter.
Doctrine of mutuality of remedy. Civil Law. 1.A doctrine which states that a relief should be available to both parties to a transaction in order that either of them can obtain the same. 2. A doctrine based on the concept that 1 party should not be permitted to get from equity that which the other party could not.
Doctrine of national standard of care. International Law. The doctrine that a State must treat aliens in the same way that it treats its own nationals.
Doctrine of nationality or territoriality. Intellectual Property. An established principle in the law on trademarks stating that an earlier registration of a trademark in another State would not of itself afford protection to the plaintiff for the use by defendants in the Phils. of the same trademark for the same or diff. products. [Sterling Products International, Inc. v. Farbenfabriken Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, GR L-19906, Apr. 30, 1969, 27 SCRA 1214].
Doctrine of necessary implication. Stat. Con. 1. The doctrine which states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed. [National Association of Trade Unions-Rep. Planters Bank Supervisors Chapter v. Torres, GR 93468, Dec. 29, 1994, 239 SCRA 546]. 2. The doctrine that every statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power, right or privilege. [DENR v. United Planners Consultants, Inc. (UPCI), GR 212081, Feb. 23, 2015, 751 SCRA 389].
Doctrine of no vessel, no liability. 1.The doctrine that provides that the liability of a ship owner is limited to his interest over the vessel. In case of loss, the ship owner’s liability is also extinguished. 2. The doctrine under which the limited liability of a ship owner or agent extends to the ship’s appurtenances, equipment, freightage, and insurance proceeds, and is merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel, such that a total loss of the vessel results in the liability’s extinction. 3. The doctrine holding that vessel’s total destruction extinguishes the maritime liens because there is no longer any res (thing) to which they can attach. [Monarch Insurance v. CA, GR 92735, June 8, 2000, 333 SCRA 71]. Also Doctrine of limited liability.
Doctrine of no-estafa-in-bouncing-checks-issued-in-payment-of-preexisting-obligations. Criminal Law. The doctrine that a check issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation does not constitute estafa even if there is no fund in the bank to cover the amount of the check. [People v. Lilius, GR 38774, Dec. 23, 1933, 59 Phil. 339].
Doctrine of non-delegability of legislative power. Constitutional Law. 1. A doctrine that the Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to admin. agencies or to private organizations. 2. Exceptions: (a) Delegated legislative power to local governments which, by immemorial practice, are allowed to legislate on purely local matters [Rubi v. Prov’l Board of Mindoro, GR 14078, Mar. 7, 1919, 39 Phil. 660]; and (b) constitutionally-grafted exceptions such as the authority of the President to: (b.1) exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy in times of war or other national emergency; or (b.2) fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as Congress may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government. [Secs. 23 (2) and 28 (2), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution].
Doctrine of non-delegability of the power of taxation. The doctrine in taxation that the taxing power of the government, being vested exclusively in the Congress, is non-delegable, pursuant to the doctrine of separation of the branches of the government, in order to ensure a System of checks and balances.
Doctrine of non-delegation. Constitutional Law. 1. The principle that delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another. [US v. Barrias, GR 4349, Sep. 24, 1908, 11 Phil. 327]. 2. Exceptions: (a) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Sec. 28 (2) of Art. VI of the Constitution; (b) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Sec. 23 (2) of Art. VI of the Constitution; (c) Delegation to the people at large; (d) Delegation to local governments; and (e) Delegation to admin. bodies. [Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, GR 168056, Sep. 1, 2005, 469 SCRA 14].
Doctrine of non-estoppel. Election Law. 1.The doctrine that there can be no estoppel from questioning coerced or irregular returns despite failure of the affected candidate to attend or be represented at the canvassing or to file his objections during the canvassing. 2. A doctrine which is based on the fundamental premise in election cases that the candidates-protagonists are mere incidents and that the real party in interest is the electorate whose true will must be determined without technicalities and equivocations. [Guiao v. Comelec, GR L-68056, July 5, 1985, 137 SCRA 356].
Doctrine of non-interference. Remedial Law. The rule that a trial court has no authority to interfere with the proceedings of a court of equal jurisdiction, much less to annul the final judgment of a co-equal court. [Clark Development Corporation v. Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation, GR 150986, Mar. 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 203].
Doctrine of non-interference in ecclesiastical matters by civil courts. Constitutional Law. The doctrine that civ. authorities should generally not look into matters of discipline, excision, faith, (and) practice of religion which are aspects over which the church is supreme, they being outside the realm of secular inquiry. [Civ. Courts May Not Intervene in Ecclesiastical Issues of Churches, Mar.10, 2005, 453 SCRA 130].
Doctrine of non-interference. Remedial Law. The doctrine that the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified, or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. [Republic v. Reyes, GR L-30263-5, Oct. 3, 1987, 155 SCRA 313]. Also Doctrine of judicial stability.
Doctrine of non-suability (of the State). Constitutional Law. The basic postulate enshrined in the Constitution which is based on the very essence of sovereignty that “(t)he State may not be sued without its consent,” which reflects nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. [DA v. NLRC, GR 104269, Nov. 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 693].
Doctrine of non-suability of the President. Constitutional Law. The implied constitutional doctrine that the President cannot be sued while he is in office for the reason that any suit will degrade the dignity necessary for the operations of his office and will additionally provide either a hindrance or distraction from the performance of his official duties and functions. [Leonen, J. conc. op., Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., GR 208566, Nov. 19, 2013, 710 SCRA 1].
Doctrine of operative fact. Constitutional Law.The doctrine that nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be ignored, as the past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. 2. A doctrine which is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law. [Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, GR 166006, 14 Mar. 2008, 548 SCRA 485]. See also Operative fact doctrine.
Doctrine of ostensible agency. Civil Law. The doctrine that imposes liability, not as the result of the reality of a contractual relationship, but rather because of the actions of a principal or an employer in somehow misleading the public into believing that the relationship or the authority exists. [Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, GR 126297, Jan. 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 478]. See Doctrine of ostensible authority.
Doctrine of ostensible authority. Commercial Law.The doctrine holding that if a corporation knowingly permits 1 of its officers, or any other agent, to do acts within the scope of an apparent authority, and thus holds him out to the public as possessing power to do those acts, the corporation will, as against any person who has in good faith dealt with the corporation through such agent, be estopped from denying his authority. [Prudential Bank v. CA, GR 108957, June 14, 1993, 223 SCRA 350]. Also Doctrine of apparent authority.
Doctrine of outside appearance. Commercial Law.The doctrine that states that a corporation is bound by a contract entered into by an officer who acts without, or in excess of his actual authority, in favor of a person who deals with him in good faith relying on such apparent authority.
Doctrine of overbreadth. Constitutional Law. 1. The doctrine permitting, as an exception to the prohibition against 3rd-party standing, a person to challenge a statute on the ground that it violates the free speech rights of 3rd parties not before the court, even though the law is Constitutional as applied to that defendant. 2. The doctrine which provides that, given a case or controversy, a litigant whose own activities are unprotected may nevertheless challenge a statute by showing that it substantially abridges the (free speech) rights of other parties not before the court. Compare with Doctrine of void for vagueness.
Doctrine of parens patriae (father of his country). Constitutional Law. 1. The doctrine referring to the inherent power and authority of the state to provide protection of the person and property of a person non sui juries. 2. The doctrine under which the state has the sovereign power of guardianship over persons under disability and is thus considered the Parens patriae of minors. [Government of the Phil. Islands. v. Monte de Piedad, GR L-9959, Dec. 13, 1916, 35 Phil. 728].
Doctrine of pari delicto. Civil Law. 1. The doctrine which stipulates that the guilty parties to an illegal contract are not entitled to any relief, cannot prevent a recovery, if doing so violates the public policy against Unjust enrichment. [Gonzalo v. Tarnate, Jr., GR 160600, Jan. 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 224]. 2. The doctrine under which no recovery can be made in favor of the plaintiffs for being themselves guilty of violating the law. [Ponce v. CA, GR L-49494, May 31, 1979, 90 SCRA 533].
Doctrine of part performance. Civil Law. An equitable principle holding that where 1 party to an oral contract has, in reliance on it, so far performed his part of the agreement that it would be perpetuating a fraud upon him to allow the other party to repudiate the contract and to set up the statute of frauds in justification of it, equity will regard the case as being removed from the operation of the statute and will enforce the contract by decreeing specific performance of it, or by granting other appropriate relief, such as: (a) quieting title: (b) establishing a resulting or a constructive trust; (c) enjoining interference with the possession of property; or (d) enjoining a conveyance of property. [Shoemaker v. La Tondeña, Inc., GR L-45667. May 9, 1939].
Doctrine of piercing the corporate veil. Commercial Law. 1. The principle that the corporate mask may be removed or the corporate veil pierced when the corporation is just an alter ego of a person or of another corporation. 2. The doctrine stating that, for reasons of public policy and in the interest of justice, the corporate veil will justifiably be impaled only when it becomes a shield for fraud, illegality, or inequity committed against 3rd persons. [PNB v. Andrada Electric Engineering Co., GR 142936, Apr. 17, 2002, 381 SCRA 244]. 3. Areas of application: (a) Defeat of public convenience as when the corporate fiction is used as a vehicle for the evasion of an existing obligation; (b) fraud cases or when the corporate entity is used to: (b.1) justify a wrong; (b.2) protect fraud; or (b.3) defend a crime; or (c) alter ego cases, where: (c.1) a corporation is merely a farce since it is a mere alter ego or business conduit of a person; or (c.2) the corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit, or adjunct of another corporation. [PNB v. Hydro Resources Contractors Corp, GR 167530, Mar. 13, 2013, 693 SCRA 294].
Doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity. Commercial Law. 1. The doctrine under which the legal fiction that a corporation is an entity with a juridical personality separate and distinct from its members or stockholders may be disregarded when valid grounds for it exist (and) in such cases, the corporation will be considered as a mere association of persons, and the members or stockholders of the corporation will be considered as the corporation, that is, liability will attach directly to them. [Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union-PTGWO v. Calica, GR 96490, Feb. 3, 1992, 205 SCRA 697]. The doctrine that applies (a) when the corporate fiction is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime; or (b) when it is made as a shield to confuse the legitimate issues; or (c) where a corporation is the mere alter ego or business conduit of a person; or (d) where the corporation is so organized and controlled and its affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit, or adjunct of another corporation. [Umali v. CA, GR 89561, Sep. 13, 1990, 189 SCRA 529].
Doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction. Commercial Law. The doctrine that allows the State to disregard the notion of separate personality of a corporation for justifiable reason/s, as an exception to the Doctrine of separate corporate entity.
Doctrine of plain view. Criminal Pro.The doctrine postulating that warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a suspect’s lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control such that objects in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence [People v. Musa, GR 96177, Jan. 27, 1993, 217 SCRA 597].
Doctrine of political question. Constitutional Law. The doctrine arising from the principle of separation of powers under which the judicial branch cannot decide questions in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or exec. branch of the government. [Tañada v. Cuenco, GR L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957, 103 Phil. 1051].
Doctrine of precedent. Remedial Law. A principle that requires courts to follow the rulings and determinations of higher courts where a case involves similar facts and issues.Also called Doctrine of stare decisis.
Doctrine of preclusion of claims. Civil Procedure. The doctrine which bars the re-litigation of the same claim between the parties.
Doctrine of preclusion of issues. Civil Procedure. The doctrine under which issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a diff. cause of action. [Borlongan v. Buenaventura, GR 167234, Feb. 27, 2006, 483 SCRA 405]. Also Doctrine of collateral estoppel.
Doctrine of prejudicial question. Remedial Law.1.The doctrine that comes into play generally in a situation where civ. and criminal actions are pending and the issues involved in both cases are similar or so closely related that an issue must be preemptively resolved in the civ. case before the criminal action can proceed. 2. The doctrine under which the allegation in a criminal case of the existence of a prejudicial question in a civ. case will cause the suspension of the former pending final determination of the latter. [Quiambao v. Osorio, GR L-48157, Mar. 16, 1988, 158 SCRA 674].
Doctrine of presumed-identity approach. Civil Law. The doctrine that where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. [EDI-Staffbuilders International, Inc. v. NLRC, GR 145587, Oct. 26, 2007, 537 SCRA 409]. Also Doctrine of processual presumption.
Doctrine of presumption of being always in favor of constitutionality. The doctrine that the presumption of right and legality which fortifies the exercise of the function of the legislature as being primary, and which is not to be interfered with lightly, nor by any judicial conception of its wisdom or propriety. [Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, GR 20479, Feb. 06, 1925, 47 Phil. 385].
Doctrine of presumption of regularity in favor of public documents. 1. The doctrine that a duly notarized document carries with it the presumption of regularity, authenticity, and due execution. 2. The rule that, without clear, convincing, and more than preponderant evidence to controvert, the evidentiary weight conferred upon a public document with respect to its execution, as well as the statements and the authenticity of the signatures on it, enjoy the presumption of regularity. [Liwagon v. Liwagon, GR 193117, Nov. 26, 2014, 743 SCRA 16].
Doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. Evidence The doctrine holding that every public official, absent any showing of bad faith and malice, is entitled to the presumption regularity in the performance of official duties.
Doctrine of primacy of administrative remedies. Remedial Law. 1. The rule that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the means afforded him by admin. processes. 2. The doctrine postulating that the issues which admin. agencies are authorized to decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such admin. agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation. [Republic v. Lacap, GR 158253, Mar. 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255].
Doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Remedial Law. The doctrine holding that if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills, and knowledge of the proper admin. bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an admin. proceeding before a remedy will be supplied by the courts, even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. [Industrial Ent., Inc. v. CA, GR 88550, Apr. 18, 1990, 184 SCRA 426].
Doctrine of primus tempore, potior jure. Lat. First in time, stronger in right. Civil Law. The principle which gains greater significance in case of a double sale of immovable property which, when sold twice to diff. vendees, is deemed owed by the vendee who acquires it and first records it in the Registry of Property, both in good faith. [Rosaroso v. Soria, GR 194846, June 19, 2013, 699 SCRA 232].
Doctrine of prior resort. Admin. Law. A doctrine holding that when a claim originally cognizable in the courts involves issues which, under a regulatory scheme, are within the special competence of an admin. agency, judicial proceedings will be suspended pending the referral of these issues to the admin. body for its view.
Doctrine of prior restraint. Constitutional Law. The doctrine concerning official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.
Doctrine of prior use. Intellectual Property. The principle stating that the prior use of a trademark by a person, even in the absence of a prior registration, will convert a claim of legal appropriation by subsequent users.
Doctrine of privileged communication. 1. The doctrine that utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions, and motions, belong to the class of communications that are absolutely privileged. [Sison v. David, GR L-11268, Jan. 28, 1961, 1 SCRA 60]. 2. The doctrine that statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged – that is, privileged regardless of their defamatory tenor and of the presence of malice – if the same are relevant, pertinent, or material to the cause in hand or subject of inquiry. [Tolentino v. Baylosis, GR L-15742, Jan. 31, 1961, 1 SCRA 396].
Doctrine of privity of contract. Civil Law. 1. A doctrine that provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. 2. The principle the basic premise of which is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages as such.
Doctrine of pro reo. Remedial Law. The doctrine that, where the evidence on an issue of fact is in question, or there is doubt on which side the evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. [Abarquez v. People, GR 150762, 20 Jan. 2006, 479 SCRA 225]. See Pro reo doctrine.
Doctrine of processual presumption. Civil Law. 1. The doctrine holding that where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is the same as ours. [Atci Overseas Corporation v. Echin, GR 178551, Oct. 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 528]. 2. The doctrine based on the presumption that, in the absence of anything to the contrary as to the character of a foreign law, such foreign law is the same as the domestic law on the same subject. [Lim v. Insular Coll. of Customs, GR 11759, Mar. 16, 1917, 36 Phil. 472]. Also Doctrine of presumed-identity approach.
Doctrine of promissory estoppel. Commercial Law. The doctrine under which estoppel may arise from the making of a promise, even though without consideration, if: (a) it was intended that the promise should be relied upon and in fact it was relied upon; and (b) a refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other injustice. [Ramos v. Central Bank of the Phils., GR L-29352, Oct. 4, 1971, 41 SCRA 565].
Doctrine of proprietary interest. Taxation. The doctrine that was conceived to preserve the permanence of ownership of land and other assets and encompasses the rights, profits, advantages, and ownership shares associated with full or partial ownership of an asset.
Doctrine of protection against compulsory disclosures. The doctrine that no person could be compelled to testify against himself or to answer any question which would have had a tendency: (a) to expose his property to a forfeiture; or (b) to form a link in a chain of evidence for that purpose, as well as to incriminate him. [Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr., GR L-19052, Dec. 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 1059].
Doctrine of proximate cause. Civil Law. The doctrine stating that proximate legal cause is that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. [Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Co., Inc., GR 164749, Mar. 15, 2017, 820 SCRA 301].
Doctrine of public policy. The doctrine under which, as applied to the law of contracts, courts of justice will not recognize or uphold a transaction when its object, operation, or tendency is calculated to be prejudicial to the public welfare, to sound morality, or to civic honesty. [Cui v. Arellano Univ., GR L-15127, 30 May 1961, 2 SCRA 205].
Doctrine of public trust. A doctrine which recognizes the public right to many natural resources, including the air, running water, the sea and its shore, and requires the sovereign or State to hold in trust designated resources for the benefit of the people.
Doctrine of purposeful hesitation. The doctrine that charges every court, including the SC, with the duty of a purposeful hesitation before declaring a law unconstitutional, on the theory that the measure was first carefully studied by the exec. and legislative depts. and determined by them to be in accordance with the fundamental law before it was finally approved. [Drilon v. Lim, GR 112497, Aug. 4, 1994, 235 SCRA 135].
Doctrine of qualification. Conf. of Laws. The doctrine which established the process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule, or simply the process of characterization the purpose of which is to enable the court of the forum to select the Proper law. See Characterization.
Doctrine of qualified political agency. Polit. Law. 1. The principle that the President’s power of control is directly exercised by him over the members of the Cabinet who, in turn, and by his authority, control the bureaus and other offices under their respective jurisdictions in the exec. Department. [Berdin v. Mascariñas, GR 135928, July 6, 2007, 526 SCRA 592]. 2. The rule that the acts of a subordinate bears the implied approval of his superior, unless actually disapproved by the latter. [Perez v. Sandiganbayan, GR 166062, Sep. 26, 2006, 503 SCRA 252]. 3. The doctrine holding that, as the President cannot be expected to exercise his control powers all at the same time and in person, he will have to delegate some of them to his Cabinet members who, in turn and by his authority, control the bureaus and other offices under their respective jurisdictions in the exec. Department. [Carpio v. Exec. Sec., GR 96409, Feb. 14, 1992, 206 SCRA 290].
Doctrine of quantum meruit. Lat. As much as one deserves. Civil Law. The doctrine that prevents undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain benefit without paying for it. [See Soler v. CA, GR 123892, 21 May 2001, 358 SCRA 57].
Doctrine of qui facit per alium. Lat. He who acts through another. Civil Law. The doctrine holding that, if in the nature of things, the master is obliged to perform the duties by employing servants, he is responsible for their acts in the same way that he is responsible for his own acts. See Doctrine of respondeat superior.
Doctrine of ratification in agency. Civil Law. 1. The doctrine pertaining to the adoption or confirmation by 1 person of an act performed on his behalf by another without authority. 2. The doctrine the substance of which is confirmation after conduct, amounting to a substitute for a prior authority. [Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan, GR 151319, Nov. 22, 2004, 443 SCRA 377].
. Criminal Law. The doctrine which presupposes the consideration not only of the nature and quality of the weapons used by the defender and the assailant but of the totality of circumstances surrounding the defense vis-à-vis the unlawful aggression. [Espinosa v. People, GR 181071, Mar. 15, 2010, 615 SCRA 446]. 2. The doctrine that the reasonable necessity of the means employed (to repel the unlawful aggression) does not imply material commensurability between the means of attack and defense but what the law requires is rational equivalence in the consideration of which will enter the principal factors of: (a) the emergency; (b) the imminent danger to which the person attacked is exposed; and (c) the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels the defense, and its proportionateness (which) does not depend upon the harm done but rests upon the imminent danger of such injury. [People v. Gutual, GR 115233, Feb. 22, 1996, 254 SCRA 37].
Doctrine of regularity of performance of official duty. The doctrine establishing the evidentiarypresumption that public officers have performed their duties regularly. [Miro v. Carpio, GR 170697, Apr. 30, 2010, 619 SCRA 653].
Doctrine of rejection of the second placer. Election Law. 1. The doctrine enunciated in Labo, Jr. v. Comelec [GR 105111, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 297] and applied in other cases that the candidate obtaining the 2nd highest number of votes for the contested office could not assume the office despite the disqualification of the 1st placer because the 2nd placer was “not the choice of the sovereign will” and because the judgment declaring the 1st placer candidate’s disqualification had not become final before the elections. 2. The doctrine clarifying the rule in Labo, Jr. v. Comelec stating that the 2nd-placer cannot be proclaimed winner if the 1st-placer is disqualified or declared ineligible should be limited to situations where the certificate of candidacy of the 1st-placer was valid at the time of filing, but subsequently had to be cancelled because of a violation of law that took place, or a legal impediment that took effect, after the filing of the CoC. [Jalosjos, Jr. v. Comelec, GR 193237, Oct. 09, 2012, 683 SCRA 1]. Compare with Qualified second placer rule.
Doctrine of relation. The rule that all parts and ceremonies necessary to complete conveyance shall be taken together as 1 act, and operate from the substantial part by relation. [Comilang v. Buendia, GR L-24757, Oct. 25, 1967, 21 SCRA 486].
Doctrine of relation back. 1. A principle that something done today will be treated as if it were done earlier. 2. The doctrine applied under certain circumstances such as a document held in escrow and then delivered later which will be treated as if delivered when it was put into escrow. Also Doctrine of relations back or Relation back doctrine.
Doctrine of relations back. 1. The principle of law by which an act done at 1 time is considered by a fiction of law to have been done at some antecedent period. 2. A legal fiction invented to promote the ends of justice or to prevent injustice and the occurrence of injuries where otherwise there would be no remedy. 3. The doctrine which, when invoked, must have a connection with an actual fact and must be based on some antecedent lawful rights. [Allied Banking Corporation v. CA, GR 85868, Oct. 13, 1989, 178 SCRA 526]. Also Doctrine of relation back or Relation back doctrine.
Doctrine of renvoi. Fr. Refer back. Conf. of Laws. 1. The doctrine pertaining to the process by which a court adopts the rules of a foreign jurisdiction with respect to any conf. of laws that arises. 2. The principle under which, in some instances, the rules of the foreign state might refer the court back to the law of the forum where the case is being heard.
Doctrine of res gestae. Lat. Things done. Evidence The doctrine which is a recognized exception to the rule against hearsay evidence based on the belief that, because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously, and without deliberation during the course of an event, they leave little room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else, i.e., by the witness, who will later repeat the statement to the court, and thus the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility.
Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Lat. Civil Law. The thing itself speaks. A doctrine of law that a person is presumed to be negligent if he had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury, even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and, without negligence, the accident would not have happened.
Doctrine of res judicata. Lat. Remedial Law. The thing adjudged. The doctrine which has the ff. aspects: (a) The effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a 2nd action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action; and (b) The preclusion of the relitigation of a particular fact or issues in another action between the same parties on a diff. claim or cause of action. [Lopez v. Reyes, GR L-29498, Mar. 31, 1977, 76 SCRA 179].
Doctrine of res perit domino. Lat. Civil Law. The thing perishes with the owner. The doctrine that states that when a thing is lost or destroyed, it is lost to the person who was the owner of it at that time.
Doctrine of residual jurisdiction. Remedial Law. The doctrine that the residual jurisdiction of trial courts is available at a stage in which the court is normally deemed to have lost jurisdiction over the case or the subject matter involved in the appeal, which stage is reached upon: (a) the perfection of the appeals by the parties; or (b) the approval of the records on appeal, but prior to the transmittal of the original records or the records on appeal. In either instance, the trial court still retains its so-called residual jurisdiction to: (b.1) issue protective orders; (b.2) approve compromises; (b.3) permit appeals of indigent litigants; (b.4) order execution pending appeal; and (b.5) allow the withdrawal of the appeal.
Doctrine of residual powers. Constitutional Law. 1. The doctrine that, unless Congress provides otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested in the President which are provided for under the laws and which are not specifically enumerated in Title I, Book III of the Admin. Code of 1987 (EO 292), or which are not delegated by the President in accordance with law. [Sec. 20, Chap. 7, Title I, Book III, EO 292]. 2. The doctrine that the residual powers of the President contemplated under Sec. 20, Chap. 7, Title I, Book III of the Admin. Code of 1987 (EO 292) can operate only within the context of a pre-existing law and cannot stand independent of a valid legislative act.
Doctrine of respect for administrative or practical construction. The doctrine which the courts apply by referring to several factors such as: (a) the respect due the governmental agencies charged with administration, their competence, expertness, experience, and informed judgment and the fact that they frequently are the drafters of the law they interpret; (b) the fact that the agency is the one on which the legislature must rely to advise it as to the practical working out of the statute; and (c) the practical application of the statute presents the agency with unique opportunity and experiences for discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies, or improvements in the statute. [Asturias v. Comm. of Customs, GR L-19337, Sep. 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 617].
Doctrine of respondeat superior. Lat. Let the master answer. Civil Law. A legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment.
Doctrine of restitution. 1. Civil Law. The doctrine providing for a remedy correlated with unjust enrichment in which the funds recovered are generally based on the gain of the defendant rather than on the loss of the plaintiff. 2. Criminal Law. The rule pertaining to a partial or full compensation to a victim for a loss that is paid by the criminal.
Doctrine of restrictive foreign sovereign immunity. The doctrine of international law under which a State or its instrumentality is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State, except with respect to claims arising out of activities of the kind that may be carried on by private persons.
Doctrine of restrictive sovereign immunity. The doctrine which postulates that the immunity of the sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or Acts jure imperii of a State, but not with regard to private acts or Acts jure gestionis. [The Holy See v. Rosario, GR 101949, Dec. 1, 1994, 238 SCRA 524]. Also Restrictive theory of sovereign immunity.
Doctrine of ripeness for judicial review. Remedial Law. 1. The doctrine which determines the point at which courts may review an admin. action. 2. The principle that the judicial machinery should be conserved for problems which are real and present or imminent and should not be squandered on problems which are future, imaginary, or remote. [Mamba v. Lara, GR 165109, Dec. 14, 2009, 608 SCRA 149].
Doctrine of secondary meaning. The doctrine that a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to an article on the market, because it is geographical or otherwise descriptive, may nevertheless be used exclusively by 1 producer with reference to his article so long as, in that trade and to that branch of the purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his product. [Ang v. Teodoro, GR L-48226, Dec. 14, 1942, 74 Phil. 50].
Doctrine of self-help. The doctrine enunciated in Art. 429 of the Civ. Code which provides that the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from its enjoyment and disposal, and for this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
Doctrine of separability. Arbitration law. The doctrine that an arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract and is to be treated as a separate agreement which does not automatically terminate when the contract of which it is part comes to an end. [Gonzales v. Climax Mining Ltd., GR 161957, Jan. 22, 2007, 512 SCRA 148]. Also called Doctrine of severability.
Doctrine of separate (legal) personality. A well-settled doctrine both in law and in equity that, as a legal entity, a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from its individual stockholders or members. [Cruz v. Dalisay, AM R-181-P, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 482].
Doctrine of separate juridical personality (of corporate entities). Commercial Law. 1. The doctrine which provides that a corporation has a legal personality separate and distinct from that of the people comprising it. [Tan Uy v. International Exchange Bank, GR 166282, Feb. 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 519]. 2. The doctrine by virtue of which the stockholders of a corporation enjoy the principle of limited liability, thus, the corporate debt is not the debt of the stockholder. [PNB v. Hydro Resources Contractors Corporation, GR 167530, Mar. 12, 2013, 693 SCRA 294].
Doctrine of separate larceny. The doctrine, that when several things belonging to diff. owners are taken, there is a distinct larceny as to the property of each victim. [Santiago v. Garchitorena, GR 109266, Dec. 2, 1993, 228 SCRA 214].
Doctrine of separation of church and State. Constitutional Law. 1. The doctrine enshrined in Sec. 6, Art. II of the 1987 Phil. Constitution which provides that the separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. 2. The principle advocating the idea of delineating the boundaries between the 2 institutions (Church and State) and thus avoid encroachments by 1 against the other because of a misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions. [Austria v. NLRC, GR 124382, 16 Aug. 1999, 312 SCRA 410].
Doctrine of separation of powers. Constitutional Law. A basic postulate that forbids 1 branch of government: (a) to exercise powers belonging to another coequal branch; or (b) to interfere with the other’s performance of its constitutionally-assigned functions. [Velasco, Jr., Conc. Op., Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, GR 180643, Mar. 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 77].
Doctrine of severability. Arbitration law. 1. The doctrine that the arbitration agreement is to be treated as a separate agreement which is independent of the main contract, even if it is contained in an arbitration clause. 2. The doctrine denoting that the invalidity of the main contract does not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement. Also called Doctrine of separability.
Doctrine of shifting majority. The rule that, in order for each House of Congress to pass a bill, it requires only the votes of the majority of those present in the session, there being a quorum.
Doctrine of sole and exclusive competence of the labor tribunal. Labor. The doctrine that recognizes the Labor Arbiters’ exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the ff. cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural: (a) ULP cases; (b) Termination disputes; (c) If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rate of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; (e) Claims for actual, moral, exemplary, and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations; (f) Cases arising from any violation of Art. 264 of the LC, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and (g) Except claims for employees compensation, social security, medicare, and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding P5,000, whether or not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. [From Art. 217, LC].
Doctrine of sovereign immunity. Constitutional Law. 1. The doctrine expressly provided in Sec. 3, Art. XVI of the 1987 Constitution that the State may not be sued without its consent. 2. The doctrine holding that a sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. Also Doctrine of non-suability.
Doctrine of special facts. Corporation Law. The doctrine postulating that a dir. does not stand in fiduciary relation to the stockholder and, as such, is under legal obligation make a fair and full disclosure of pertinent official info. where special circumstances exist that give rise to the obligation to disclose such info.
Doctrine of specialty. A principle of international law included in most extradition treaties by which a person who is extradited to a country to stand trial for certain criminal offenses may be tried only for those offenses and not for any other pre-extradition offenses.
Doctrine of stale demands. Civil Law.1. A doctrine based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted. [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, GR L-21450, Apr. 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29]. 2. The time-honored rule anchored on public policy that relief will be denied to a litigant: (a) whose claim or demand has become stale; or (b) who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time; or (c) who has not been vigilant or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly, or inattention. [Arradaza v. CA, GR 50422, Feb. 8, 1989, 170 SCRA 12]. Also Doctrine of laches.
Doctrine of stare decisis. 1. The doctrine that enjoins adherence to judicial precedents and requires courts in a country to follow the rule established in a decision of its Sup. Court. 2. The rule that a decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. [Phil. Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec, GR 190529, Apr. 29, 2010, 619 SCRA 585]. 3. Instances when doctrine may be abandoned: (a) When adherence to it would result in the government’s loss of its case; (b) when the application of the doctrine would cause great prejudice to a foreign national; and (c) when it is necessary to promote the passage of a new law. Also Doctrine of adherence to judicial precedents.
Doctrine of state immunity from suit. 1. The doctrine under which a state cannot be sued in the courts of another State without its consent or waiver. [Jusmag Phils. v. NLRC, GR 108813, Dec. 15, 1994, 239 SCRA 224]. 2. The doctrine holding that a sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends. [Kawamanakoa v. Polyblank, 205 US 353, 51 L. ed. 834]. Also called Royal prerogative of dishonesty.
Doctrine of state responsibility to aliens. International Law. The doctrine postulating that a state is under obligation to make reparation to another state for the failure to fulfill its primary obligation to afford; in accordance with international law, the proper protection due to an alien who is a national of the latter state. See also State responsibility doctrine.
Doctrine of statistical improbability. Election Law. 1. The rule that any election return which on the basis exclusively of data found on its face appears to be obviously and patently false is nothing but a manufactured return which should not be accorded any prima facie value as evidence of the result of the count and should be disregarded in the canvass. [Sinsuat v. Pendatun, GR L-31501, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 630]. 2. The doctrine that is applied only where the unique uniformity of tally of all the votes cast in favor of all the candidates belonging to 1 party and the systematic blanking of all the candidates of all the opposing parties appear in the election return. [Ibid.]. Also known as Lagumbay doctrine. [Lagumbay v. Comelec, GR L-25444, Jan. 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 175].
Doctrine of stewardship. A doctrine under which private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee for the people in general, who are its real owners, and as a mere steward who must exercise his rights to the property not for his own exclusive and selfish benefit but for the good of the entire community or nation. [Mataas na Lupa Tenants Association v. Dimayuga, GR L-32049, June 25, 1984, 130 SCRA 30].].
Doctrine of stop and frisk. Criminal Pro.A doctrine dealing with the jurisprudential exception to the requirement of a search warrant which allows stoppage and bodily search of a person by police officers to prevent the occurrence of a crime, and which may be resorted to by the police when dealing with a rapidly unfolding and potentially criminal situation in the streets where there is no time to secure a search warrant. [Manalili v. CA, GR 113447, Oct. 9, 1997, 280 SCRA 400].
Doctrine of strained relations. Labor. The rule that where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient, or practical, as where reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the employer and employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement. [Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corporation, GR 126561, July 8, 1998, 292 SCRA 109].
Doctrine of strict compliance. 1. Commercial Law. A settled rule in commercial transactions involving L/Cs that: (a) the documents tendered must strictly conform to the terms of the L/C; and (b) the tender of documents by the beneficiary (seller) must include all documents required by the letter. 2. The doctrine that a correspondent bank which departs from what has been stipulated under the L/C, as when it accepts a faulty tender, acts on its own risks and it may not thereafter be able to recover from the buyer or the issuing bank, as the case may be, the money thus paid to the beneficiary. [Feati Bank and Trust Co. v. CA, GR 94209, Apr. 30, 1991, 196 SCRA 576]. 3. Land Titles. The doctrine holding that, in order to establish that the land subject of the application is alienable and disposable public land, all applications for original registration under the Property Registration Decree (PD 1529) must include both: (a) a CENRO or PENRO certification; and (b) a certified true copy of the original classification made by the DENR Sec. [Republic v. Vega, GR 177790. Jan. 17, 2011, 639 SCRA 541]. See Strict compliance doctrine.
Doctrine of strict interpretation. Taxation. 1. The doctrine that tax laws, being clearly in derogation of personal rights and property interests, are subject to strict construction and any ambiguity in their provisions must be resolved against their imposition. 2. The doctrine under which the burden is upon the Comm. of Int. Rev. to primarily prove that the new MCIT provisions of the NIRC of 1997, clearly, expressly, and unambiguously extend and apply to (a corporation), despite the latter’s existing tax exemption. [CIR v. PAL, GR 179259, Sep. 25, 2013, 706 SCRA 288].
Doctrine of strictissimi juris on tax exemptions. 1. The principle that taxation is the rule and exemption is the exception. 2. The doctrine that tax exemption must be strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the government
Doctrine of subrogation. Insurance The principle that covers a situation in which an insurer who has paid a loss under an insurance policy is entitled to all the rights and remedies belonging to the insured against a 3rd party with respect to any loss covered by the policy, and contemplates full substitution such that it places the party subrogated in the shoes of the creditor, and he may use all means that the creditor could employ to enforce payment. [Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation, GR 180880-81 & 180896-97, Sep. 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 96].
Doctrine of subsequent negligence. A principle of tort law that allows a plaintiff who committed contributory acts of negligence to recover damages against a defendant who had the last opportunity in time to avoid the damage. See Doctrine of last clear chance.
Doctrine of substantial compliance. Land Titles. A rule in land registration recognizing and affirming applications for land registration on other substantial and convincing evidence duly presented, as an exception to the general rule on strict compliance, where such applications are without any opposition from the LRA or the DENR. [Republic v. Vega, GR 177790. Jan. 17, 2011, 639 SCRA 541].
Doctrine of substitution. Civil Law. Subrogation which is an arm of equity that may guide or even force a person to pay a debt for which an obligation was incurred but which was in whole or in part paid by another. [Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Jamila & Co., Inc., GR 27427, Apr. 7, 1976, 70 SCRA 323].
Doctrine of successor-employer. Labor. 1. The doctrine that rests on the in personam character of employer-employee relationship and under which a 3rd party that buys the business of the employer: (a) does not become the new employer of the employees of the latter; and (b) is, for such reason, totally insulated from the liabilities of the latter in relation to its displaced employees. 2. The doctrine holding that transfer or absorption of employees from 1 company to another, as successor employer, may be held as valid as long as: (a) the transferor is not in bad faith; and (b) the employees absorbed by a successor-employer enjoy the continuity of their employment status and their rights and privileges with their former employer. Also called Successor-employer doctrine.
Doctrine of successorship. Labor. The doctrine holding that when a buyer takes over a unionized employer-company, the former shall be considered a successor of the latter only if a majority of its present employees previously worked for the purchased company.
Doctrine of supervening event. Remedial Law. The doctrine under which facts and events transpiring after the judgment or order had become final and executory which circumstances affect or change the substance of the judgment and render its execution inequitable would justify the suspension or nullification of such final and executory judgment or order.
Doctrine of supervening fact/s in double jeopardy. Criminal Law. 1. The rule that where, after the 1st prosecution, a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense and, together with the fact existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused cannot be said to be in 2nd jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. [Melo v. People, GR L-3580, Mar. 22, 1950, 85 Phil. 766]. 2. The doctrine in criminal law that where, after the 1st prosecution for a lesser crime, new facts have supervened which, together with those already in existence at the time of the 1st prosecution, have made the offense graver and the penalty 1st imposed legally inadequate, the accused cannot be said to be in 2nd jeopardy if indicted for the new offense. [Melo v. People, GR L-3580, Mar. 22, 1950, 85 Phil. 766]. Also called the Melo doctrine.
Doctrine of supervening negligence. Civil Law. 1. The doctrine to the effect that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of 1 is appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be attributed to the incident, the party who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with its consequences. [Picart v. Smith, GR L-12219, Mar. 15, 1918, 37 Phil. 809]. 2. The doctrine holding that an antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for supervening negligence of, or bar a defense against the liability sought by, another if the latter, who had the last fair chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. [Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Baesa, GR Nos. 79050-51, Nov. 14, 1989, 179 SCRA 384]. Also Doctrine of discovered peril.
Doctrine of tax benefit. The doctrine holding that a recovery of bad debt previously deducted from gross income constitutes a taxable income if, in the year the account was written off, the deduction resulted in a tax benefit, that is, in the reduction of the taxable income of the taxpayer.
Doctrine of Terry search. Criminal Pro.A case where a police officer approaches a person who is acting suspiciously, for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior in line with the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection. To assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him, he could validly conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. [People v. Canton, GR 148825, Dec. 27, 2002, 394 SCRA 478].
Doctrine of the proper law. Conf. of Laws. The doctrine applied in the choice of law stage of a lawsuit involving the conf. of laws where 1 or more state laws will be relevant to the decision-making process such that if the laws have substantive differences, the choice of which law to apply will produce a diff. judgment. 2. The rule in a conflicts lawsuit under which each state produces a set of rules to guide the choice of law, and 1 of the most significant rules is that the law to be applied in any given situation will be the Proper law or the law which seems to have the closest and most real connection to the facts of the case and has the best claim to be applied.
Doctrine of the real and hypothecary nature of maritime law. Mar. Insurance The rule that a ship owner’s liability is merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel, except where actual fault is attributable to the shipowner. [Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. CA, GR 121833, Oct. 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 294].
Doctrine of the third group. Commercial Law.The doctrine to the effect that the right of the owner of the shares of stock of a Phil. corporation to transfer the same by delivery of the certificate, whether it be regarded as statutory on common law right, is limited and restricted by the express provision that no transfer shall be valid, except as between the parties, until the transfer is entered and noted upon the books of the corporation. [Uson v. Diosomito, GR L-42135, June 17, 1935, 61 Phil. 535].
Doctrine of totality of conduct. Labor. 1. The culpability of an employer’s remarks were to be evaluated not only on the basis of their implicit implications, but were to be appraised against the background of and in conjunction with collateral circumstances. [Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association-NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., GR L-25291, Jan. 30, 1971, 37 SCRA 244]. 2. The doctrine under which expressions of opinion by an employer which, though innocent in themselves, frequently were held to be culpable because of the circumstances under which they were uttered, the history of the particular employer’s labor rel. or anti-union bias, or because of their connection with an established collateral plan of coercion or interference. [Ibid.].
Doctrine of transformation. International Law. The doctrine which holds that the generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon the State but must first be embodied in a legislation enacted by the lawmaking body and only when so transformed will they become binding upon the State as part of its municipal law. Compare with Doctrine of incorporation.
Doctrine of triennial cohabitation. A rule of presumption by which a husband is deemed to be impotent should the marriage remain unconsummated (the wife remains a virgin) after a cohabitation of at least 3 years.
Doctrine of unclean hands. The equitable doctrine that injunction will be denied, even though complainant shows that he has a right and would otherwise be entitled to the remedy, in case it appears that he himself acted dishonestly, fraudulently, or illegally in respect to the matter in which redress is sought, or where he has encouraged, invited, or contributed to the injury sought to be enjoined. [North Negros Sugar Co. v. Hidalgo, GR 42334. Oct. 31, 1936, 63 Phil. 664].
Doctrine of ultimate consumption. International Law. The goods intended for civilian use which may ultimately find their way and be consumed by belligerent forces, may be seized on the way. See Ultimate consumption doctrine.
Doctrine of ultimate destination. International Law. The final destination in the territory of an enemy or under its control making goods contraband under the Doctrine of continuous voyage. See Ultimate destination doctrine.
Doctrine of ultra vires. Lat. Beyond the powers. The doctrine in the law of corporations that holds that a contract entered into by a corporation that is beyond the scope of its corporate powers is illegal.
Doctrine of unforeseen events. Civil Law. 1. The doctrine enunciated under Art. 1267 of the Civ. Code which provides that (w)hen the service has become so difficult as to be manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released from it, in whole or in part. 2. The doctrine enunciated by Art. 1267 of the Civ. Code which is not an absolute application of the principle of Rebus sic stantibus that would endanger the security of contractual relations. [So v. Food Fest land, Inc., GR 183628 & 183670, Apr. 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 541].
Doctrine of unjust enrichment. Civil Law. 1. The principle embodied in Art. 22 of the Civ. Code which states that (e)very person who, through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him. 2. Elements: (a) Enrichment on the part of the defendant; (b) impoverishment on the part of the plaintiff; and (c) lack of cause. [Ponce de Leon v. Santiago Syjuco, Inc., GR L-3316, Oct. 31, 1951, 90 Phil. 311].
Doctrine of vagueness. Criminal Law. An aspect of the due process requirement of notice which holds that a law is facially invalid if persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess as at its meaning and differ as to its application.
Doctrine of verbal act. Evidence The doctrine under which the ascertainment of the complete significance of a person’s conduct by listening to what he/she said while doing the act is allowed and admits in evidence the statements that are offered to give meaning to an ambiguous act.
Doctrine of vested rights. 1. Civil Law. The doctrine postulating that rights are vested when the right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become the property of some particular person or persons as a present interest, which right must be absolute, complete and unconditional, independent of a contingency, and not a mere expectancy of future benefit, or a contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, which does not constitute a Vested right. [Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. v. Pineda, GR L-7231. Mar. 28, 1956, 98 Phil. 711]. 2. International. Law. The doctrine holding that the duty to recognize another jurisdiction’s law was not dependent on comity, with its expectation of reciprocity, but rather on the mere fact that such right had been validly created under the foreign law of their place of origin, i.e., that they were vested rights.
Doctrine of vicarious liability. Civil Law.1. A legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. Also referred to as Doctrine of imputed negligence.
Doctrine of virtual representation. Remedial Law. The doctrine which permits a party to a proceeding to represent the interests of a person. or class of persons who are not cited and not made parties to it. See Doctrine of class suit.
Doctrine of void for overbreadth. Criminal Law. 1. The doctrine that a penal statute is unconstitutional if its language is so broad that it unnecessary interferes with the exercise of constitutional rights, even though the purpose is to prohibit activities that the government may constitutionally prohibit.
Doctrine of void for vagueness. Criminal Law. 1. The doctrine that a statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. 2. The principle which can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, GR 148560, Nov. 19, 2001, 369 SCRA 394]. Compare with Doctrine of overbreadth.
Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria. Lat. To a willing person, no injury is done. Civil Law. The doctrine that self-inflicted injury or consent to injury precludes the recovery of damages by the person who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so. [Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes, GR 154259, Feb. 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 532].
Doctrine of waiver of double jeopardy. Criminal Law. The doctrine that when a case is dismissed with the express consent of the defendant, the dismissal will not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense; because his action in having the case dismissed constitutes a waiver of his Constitutional right or privilege, for the reason that he thus prevents the court from proceeding to the trial on the merits and rendering a judgment of conviction against him. [People v. Salico, GR L-1567, Oct. 13, 1949, 84 Phil. 722].
Doctrine of waiver. Civil Law. A doctrine resting upon an equitable principle that a person, with full knowledge of the facts, shall not be permitted to act in a manner inconsistent with his former position or conduct to the injury of another. [Lopez v. Ochoa, GR L-7955, May 30, 1958, 103 Phil. 950].
Doctrine of willful blindness. A doctrine in taxation that an individual or a corporation can no longer say that the errors on his/its tax returns are not his/its responsibility or that it is the fault of the accountant he/it hired.
Doctrine on circumstantial evidence. The that circumstantial evidence suffices to convict only if the ff. requisites concur: 1st, there is more than 1 circumstance; 2nd, the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and 3rd, the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. [People v. Modesto, GR L-25484, Sep. 21, 1968, 25 SCRA 36].

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »

COURSE OUTLINE (SYLLABUS) FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – 1ST SEM, AY 2022-2023, WUP COLLEGE OF LAW

by PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

COURSE OUTLINE (SYLLABUS) FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES – COLLEGE OF LAW

FIRST SEMESTER, AY 2022-2021

ATTY. ALVIN CLARIDADES

Article I. CHAPTER I

Article II. CONSTITUTION IN GENERAL

Constitution defined
1. Key objective and function of a Constitution
1. Sources of Constitutions
1. Classifications of Constitutions
1. General features of a Constitution
1. Qualities of a good written Constitution
1. Vital parts of a written Constitution
1. Modes of Constitutional interpretation or construction

Article III. CHAPTER II

Article IV. CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

2.1. Philippine Constitutions

2.2. The Malolos Constitution

2.3. The Philippine Organic Act of 1902

2.4. The Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916

2.5. The 1935 Constitution

2.6. The 1943 Constitution

2.7. The 1973 Constitution

2.8. The 1986 Freedom Constitution

2.9. The 1987 Constitution

Article V. CHAPTER III

Article VI. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

3.1. Constitutional Law

3.2. Kinds of Constitutional Law

3.3. Fundamental concepts underlying Constitutional Law

3.4. Constitutionalism

Sigre v. CA, GR 109568. Aug. 8, 2002, 387 SCRA 15

3.5. Republicanism

People v. Hernandez, GR 154218. Aug. 28, 2006, 499 SCRA 688
Concurring Opinion in Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 327 Phil. 521 (1996)

3.6. Constitutional supremacy

Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, GR 122156. Feb. 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 408
Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, GR 160261, Nov. 10, 2003, 415 SCRA 44, citing Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139 (1936)

3.7. Separation of powers

Velasco, Jr., Conc. Op., Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investig’ns, GR 180643, Mar. 25, 2008, 549 SCRA 77
US v. Ang Tang Ho, GR 17122, Feb. 27, 1922, 43 Phil. 1
Carpio, J., Dissenting Opinion in MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, GR 171947–48, Feb. 15, 2011, 643 SCRA 90

3.8. Checks and balances

3.9. Due process of law

Ledesma v. CA, GR 166780, Dec. 27, 2007, 541 SCRA 444

3.10. Judicial review

3.11. Ancillary concepts in Constitutional Law

Blending of powers
Impermissible interference with and/or assumption of executive functionsAbakada Guro Party List v. Purisima, GR 166715, Aug. 14, 2008, 562 SCRA 251
Congress may still exercise its oversight function
Congressional oversight
Judicial supremacyAngara v. Electoral Commission, GR 45081. July 15, 1936, 63 Phil. 139
Power of judicial review
Legal standing or locus standiVelarde v. Social Justice Society, GR 159357. Apr. 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 283Jumamil v. Cafe, GR 144570. Sep. 21, 2005, 470 SCRA 475
Actual case or controversyGarcia v. Exec. Secretary, GR 157584. Apr. 2, 2009, 583 SCRA 119
Political question doctrineTañada v. Cuenco, GR L-10520. Feb. 28, 1957, 100 Phil. 1101
Earliest opportunityArceta v. Mangrobang, GR 152895. June 15, 2004, 432 SCRA 136
Lis motaPeople v. Vera., GR 45685. Nov. 16, 1937, 65 Phil. 56Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, GR 152259. July 29, 2004, 435 SCRA 371
Expanded scope of judicial power
Delegation of powers
Delegation of executive powersVillena v. Secretary of the Interior., GR 46570. Apr. 21, 1939, 67 Phil. 451
Doctrine of qualified political agencyManalang-Demigillo v. TIDCORP, GR 168613. Mar. 5, 2013, 692 SCRA 359
Delegation of legislative power to administrative agencies
Carpio v. Exec. Sec., GR 96409, Feb. 14, 1992, 206 SCRA 290
US v. Barrias., GR 4349. Sep. 24, 1908, 11 Phil. 327
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. POEA, GR L-76633. Oct. 18, 1988, 166 SCRA 533
Trade Unions of the Philippines and Allied Services (TUPAS-WFTU) v. Ople, 137 SCRA 108 (1985)
Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. The Public Service Commission, 70 Phil. 221 (1940)

Article VII. CHAPTER IV

Article VIII. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

4.1. BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKDROP

4.2. MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

4.3. THE PREAMBLE

1. Meaning and function of the Preamble

Cadimas v. Carrion, GR 180394, Sep. 29, 2008, 567 SCRA 101
- People v. Manahan, GR 138924, Aug. 5, 2003, 408 SCRA 255
- Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, GR 132601, Resolution dated Jan. 19, 1999

1. Preamble of the 1987 Constitution

2. Preamble shows Constitution as a social contract between the people and the government

3. Patrimony construed

Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service Insurance System, GR 122156. Feb. 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 408-

1. Meaning of the phrase “imploring the aid of Almighty God”

Imbong v. Ochoa Jr., GR 207563. Apr. 8, 2014, 721 SCRA 146

4.4. ARTICLE I: NATIONAL TERRITORY

1. Scope of Philippine territory

2. Philippine archipelago

3. Treaty of Paris as key reference in definition of national territory

Magallona v. Ermita GR 187167. Aug. 16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476

4. Phrase “all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction” construed

5. Archipelagic principle

6. Territorial waters or territorial sea

Arigo v. Swift, GR 206510, Sep. 16, 2014

7. Seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, and other submarine areas

8. Internal waters or archipelagic

4.5. ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

1. Principles and State Policies in Article II of the Constitution

2. Principles under Article II not intended to be self-executing

Tañada v. Angara, GR 118295. May 2, 1997, 272 SCRA 18
- Kilosbayan, Incorporated v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540, July 17, 1995.

4.5.1. SECTION 1, ARTICLE II: The Philippines as a democratic and republican State

1. Democratic State

2. State as a concept of political science and public law

3. Elements of a State

4. Population

5. Population of the Philippines

6. Territory and Territoriality principle

7. Territory of the Philippines

8. Philippines’ territorial claims

9. Government distinguished from administration

10. Functions of government

Social Security System Employees Association v. Soriano, GR L-18081. Apr. 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 1016

11. Classes of government according to legitimacy

Etorma v. Ravelo, GR L-718. Mar. 24, 1947, 78 Phil. 145
- Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh, GR L-5. Sep. 17, 1945, 75 Phil. 113

12. Kinds of de facto government

13. Government of the Philippines

14. Sovereignty or imperium vis-à-vis dominium

Sep. Op., Kapunan, J., in Cruz v. Sec. of ENR, GR 135385, Dec. 6, 2000, 347 SCRA 128
- Dis. Op. of J. Brion in Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, GR 221697, Mar. 8, 2016, 786 SCRA 1

15. Concept of sovereignty

16. Types of sovereignty

17. Characteristics of sovereignty

18. Change of sovereignty; effects

· Roa v. Collector of Customs, GR L-7011. Oct. 30, 1912, 23 Phil. 315

19. Principle of jus postliminium

20. Act of State

Peralta v. Director of Prisons, GR L-49. Nov. 12, 1945
- PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, GR 124772, Aug. 14, 2007, 530 SCRA 13

21. State’s immunity from suit

22. Rationale for the doctrine of State immunity from suit

Department of Agriculture v. NLRC, GR 104269. Nov. 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 693
- Republic v. Sandoval, GR 84607. Mar. 19, 1993, 220 SCRA 124

23. Exceptions to the doctrine pf State immunity

Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR 90478. Nov. 21, 1991 204 SCRA 212

24. Non-executability of judgment against the State

United States of America v. Reyes, GR 79253. Mar. 1, 1993, 219 SCRA 192

25. Acta acts jure imperii and acta jure gestionis

US v. Ruiz. GR L-35645. May 22, 1985, 136 SCRA 487

26. Sovereign or diplomatic immunity may be invoked in a foreign suit

The Holy See v. Rosario Jr., GR 101949. Dec. 1, 1994, 228 SCRA 524

27. Limitation on State’s sovereign rights

Reagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR L-26379. Dec. 27, 1969, 30 SCRA 968

28. Sovereignty of the Philippines

29. Sovereignty vis-à-vis sovereign rights

30. International recognition

31. Theories in recognition of State

32. Effects of recognition

33. Modes of recognition

4.5.2. SECTION 2, ARTICLE II: Renunciation of war as instrument of national policy and adoption of generally accepted principles of international law

1. Renunciation of war as instrument of national policy

2. Methods of adopting generally accepted principles of international law as part of land’s law

3. Doctrine of incorporation

Kuroda v. Jalandoni, GR L-2662. Mar. 26, 1949, 83 Phil., 171

4. Treaties and International Agreements construed

5. Doctrine of transformation

Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. Duque III, GR 173034. Oct. 9, 2007, 535 SCRA 265

6. What generally accepted principles of international law include

Mijares v. Ranada, GR 139325, Apr. 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 397

7. Customary international law; elements

8. Enforceability of customary law

9. Adherence to policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations

Bayan Muna v. Romulo, GR 159618. Feb. 1, 2011, 641 SCRA 244

4.5.3. SECTION 3, ARTICLE II: Supremacy of civilian authority over military

1. Civilian President as supreme military leader

Kulayan v. Tan, GR 187298. July 3, 2012, 675 SCRA 482

2. Commander-in-Chief or calling-out powers

Lagman v. Medialdea, GR 231658. July 4, 2017, 829 SCRA 1

4.5.4. SECTION 4, ARTICLE II: Citizens’ rendition of personal, military, or civil service

Citizen’s personal, military, or civil service
Subjects of conscriptionor compulsory military service
1. Laurel v. Misa, GR L-409, Jan. 30, 1947, 77 Phil. 856
1. Parreño v. COA, GR 162224 June 7, 2007, 523 SCRA 390
Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC)

4.5.5. SECTION 5, ARTICLE II: Essentials for enjoyment by all of democracy’s blessings

4.5.6. SECTION 6, ARTICLE II: Inviolability of separation of Church and State

Free exercise of religious faith
1. Amari v. Villaflor, Jr., GR 224521, Feb. 17, 2020
  1. Reason for the doctrine
1. Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201 (1937)
1. Peralta v. Philippine Postal Corporation (PhilPost), GR 223395. Dec. 4, 2018, 887 SCRA 714
  1. Prohibition against use of public funds for religious purposes
  1. State prohibited from interfering in purely ecclesiastical affairs and Church from meddling in purely secular matters
1. Pasay City Alliance Church v. Benito, GR 226908. Nov. 28, 2019, 926 SCRA 555
  1. Church annulment of marriage not binding upon the State
1. Tilar v. Tilar, GR 214529. July 12, 2017, 831 SCRA 116
  1. Separation of Church and State not contrary to freedom of religion
1. Re: Letter of Tony Q. Valenciano, Holding of Religious Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building in Quezon City, AM 10-4-19-SC. Mar. 7, 2017, 819 SCRA 313
  1. Religion clauses in the Philippine context
1. Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, GR L-25246, Sep. 12, 1974, 59 SCRA 54
1. Estrada v. Escritor, AM P-02-1651. Aug. 4, 2003
  1. Kinds of accommodation under the religion clauses
Benevolent neutrality or accommodation

4.5.7. SECTION 7, ARTICLE II: Independent foreign policy

Matter of foreign policy Constitutional provisions and basic law on foreign policyPresident as chief architect of foreign policy
1. Pimentel, Jr. v. Office of the Executive Secretary, GR 158088. July 6, 2005, 462 SCRA 622

4.5.8. SECTION 8, ARTICLE II: Policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory; a limitation on the President’s treaty-making power

4.5.9. SECTION 9, ARTICLE II: Policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, raising standard of living, and improved quality of life for all

4.5.10. SECTION 10, ARTICLE II: Promotion of social justice in all phases of national development

1. Social justice defined

J. Laurel in Calalang v. Williams, GR 47800, Dec. 2, 1940, 70 Phil. 726

2. Social legislation to promote social justice

4.5.11. SECTION 11, ARTICLE II: Valuing dignity of every human person and guaranteeing full respect for human rights

1. Value of human dignity and human rights

2. State values the dignity of women and children

3. State guarantees full respect for human rights

4.5.12. SECTION 12, ARTICLE II: Recognition of sanctity of family life, protection of the lives of the mother and the unborn, and right and duty of parents in rearing the youth

State policies on family and marriage
1. Azcueta v. Republic, GR 180668, May 26, 2009, 588 SCRA 196, citing Ancheta v. Ancheta, GR 145370, Mar. 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 725
  1. Abortion criminalized to protect the lives of the mother and the unborn

4.5.13. SECTION 13, ARTICLE II: Recognition of the vital role of youth in nation-building

State policy on youth
1. Soriano v. Laguardia, GR 164785. Apr. 29, 2009, 587 SCRA 79
  1. Youth in Nation-Building Act
  1. Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act

4.5.14. SECTION 14, ARTICLE II: Recognition of role of women in nation-building

State policy on womenRights of working womenConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)Women in Development and Nation Building ActViolence Against Women And Their Children (VAWC) Act
1. Garcia v. Drilon, GR 179267. June 25, 2013, 699 SCRA 352
  1. Magna Carta of Women

4.5.15. SECTION 15, ARTICLE II: Protection and promotion-n of right to health

State policy on healthUniversal Health Care Act (UHCA)National Health Insurance Program (NHIP)Universally accessible cheaper and quality medicines

4.5.16. SECTION 16, ARTICLE II: Protection and advancement of the right to balanced and healthful ecology

State policy on environment
1. Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., GR 101083. July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792
1. Cordillera Global Network v. Paje, GR 215988. Apr. 10, 2019, 901 SCRA 261
  1. Intergenerational responsibility and enforceability of environmental rights
  1. Legal standing to sue for enforcement of environmental rights
1. Bersamin, J.: Sep. Op., Biraogo v. Phil. Truth Commission of 2010, GR 192935, Dec. 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 78
1. MMDA v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay, GR 171947–48, Feb. 15, 2011, 643 SCRA 90
  1. Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases (RPEC)

4.5.17. SECTION 17, ARTICLE II: Priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports

State policies on education, science and technology, arts, culture, and sports Return of Good Manners and Right Conduct (GMRC) and Values Education as core subjects in K-12 curriculumEqual opportunity to quality tertiary education in all educational institutionsScience and technology education scholarshipArts and cultureNational Commission for the Culture and the ArtsNational cultural heritageSportsPhilippine Sports Commission (PSC) as agency responsible for coordinating all amateur sports developmentNational Athletes and Coaches Benefits and Incentives ActNational Academy of Sports System for student athletes

4.5.18. SECTION 18, ARTICLE II: Protection of workers’ rights and promotion of their welfare

State policy on labor
1. Philippine Geothermal, Inc. Employees Union v. Unocal Philippines, Inc. (now known as Chevron Geothermal Philippines Holdings, Inc.), GR 190187. Sep. 28, 2016, 804 SCRA 286
  1. Employment contract or contract of service is not an ordinary agreement but is imbued with public interest
1. J. Brion, Dis. Op. in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank 627 SCRA 590 (2010)
  1. Relations between workers and employers
1. Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission, GR 117040. Jan. 27, 2000, 323 SCRA 445
  1. International Conventions on principles and rights at work

4.5.19. SECTION 19, ARTICLE II: Self-reliant and independent national economy controlled by Filipinos

State policy on national economyExtent of Filipino control
1. Espina v. Zamora, Jr., GR 143855 Sep. 21, 2010, 631 SCRA 17

4.5.20. SECTION 20, ARTICLE II: Encouragement of private enterprise and provision of incentives to needed investments

State policy on private sectorPublic-Private PartnershipPrivate sector in economic zones

4.5.21. SECTION 21, ARTICLE II: Promotion of comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform

State policy on agrarian reformComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)Key components of CARLProblems encountered in CARL implementationAchievements under CARPERExpiration of CARL

4.5.22. SECTION 22, ARTICLE II: Recognition and promotion of rights of indigenous cultural communities

State policy on indigenous cultural communitiesIndigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997Concept of ancestral lands or domainsIndigenous concept of ownershipRecognition of ancestral domain rightsOther rights of ICCs/IPs

4.5.23. SECTION 23, ARTICLE II: Encouragement of non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations

State policy on non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizationsNGOs’ role in local governanceNGO distinguished from CSO

4.5.24. SECTION 24, ARTICLE II: Recognition of vital role of communication and information in nation-building

State policy on communication and informationDepartment of Information and Communications Technology Act of 2015

4.5.25. SECTION 25, ARTICLE II: Ensuring autonomy of local governments

State policy on local governmentsLocal government Code of 1991Local government units
1. Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, GR 176970, Dec. 8, 2008, 573 SCRA 290
  1. Salient features of the LGC
1. Mandanas case [GR 199802 / GR 208488. Apr. 10, 2019
  1. Autonomous regions

4.5.26. SECTION 26, ARTICLE II: Guaranteeing equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibition of political dynasties

State policies on public service and political dynastiesAnti-political dynasty provision mere guide for Congress
1. Pamatong v. COMELEC, GR 161872, Apr. 13, 2004, 427 SCRA 96
1. Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr., GR 208566. Nov. 19, 2013, 710 SCRA 1
  1. Anti-political dynasty provision in SK Reform law

4.5.27. SECTION 27, ARTICLE II: Maintaining honesty and integrity in public service and taking measures against graft and corruption

State policy on honesty and integrity in public serviceOmbudsman
1. Zaldivar v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 843 (1988);
1. Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman, 248 SCRA 566 (1995)
  1. Sandiganbayan

4.5.28. SECTION 28, ARTICLE II: Policy of full public disclosure of all transactions involving public interest

Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, GR 72119, May 29, 1987,150 SCRA 530

4.6. ARTICLE VI: THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

4.6.1. SECTION 1, ARTICLE VI: Legislative power vested in Congress

Legislative power vested in Congress
1. SBMA v. COMELEC, GR 125416, Sep. 26, 1996, 262 SCRA 492
  1. Classifications of legislative power
  1. Legislative power directly exercised by the people
  1. Scope of legislative power
1. Vera v. Avelino, GR L-543. Aug. 31, 1946, 77 Phil. 192
  1. Limitations on the legislative power of Congress
  1. Non-delegability of legislative power
1. Defensor-Santiago v. Commission on Elections, GR 127325, Mar. 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106
1. People v. Rosenthal, GR 46076 & 46077, June 12, 1939, 68 Phil. 328
1. Gerochi v. Department of Energy, 554 Phil. 563 (2007)
1. People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 (1937)
  1. Rule on non-delegation of legislative power
  1. Powers that Congress is barred from delegating
1. Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, GR 168056. Sep. 1, 2005, 469 SCRA 14
  1. Limitations or exceptions to rule on non-delegation of legislative power
  1. Test to determine existence of undue delegation
  1. When is there no undue delegation of legislative power?
1. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas v. The Board of Public Utility Commissioners, GR 11216, 34 Phil. 136
  1. Recognized limitations or exceptions to prohibition on delegation of legislative powers
  1. Permissible delegation of legislative power
1. Lagman v. Pichay, GR 197422, Nov. 03, 2020
  1. When contingent legislation may be issued by the executive branch
  1. Power of subordinate legislation or quasi-legislative power
  1. Contemporaneous construction by officers of the rules they promulgated accorded great weight by the court
1. Adasa v. Abalos, GR 168617. Feb. 19, 2007, 516 SCRA 261
  1. Administrative rules issued pursuant to delegated power have legal force and effect
  1. Requisites for valid delegation of rule-making power
1. , GR L-23825. Dec. 24, 1965, 15 SCRA 569
  1. Tests to ascertain the validity of delegation
  1. Accepted sufficient standards
1. People v. Rosenthal, 68 Phil. 328
1. Antamok Gold Fields v. CIR, 70 Phil. 340
1. Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726
1. Cervantes v. Auditor General, 91 Phil. 359
  1. Cases involving invalid delegation
1. Cia. Gral. de Tabacos v. Board of Public Utility., GR 11216. Mar. 6, 1916
1. US v. Ang Tang Ho, GR 17122. Feb. 27, 1922, 43 Phil. 1
1. People v. Dacuycuy, GR 45127. May 5, 1989, 173 SCRA 90
  1. Legislative powers of Congress
  1. Non-legislative powers and functions of Congress

4.6.2. SECTIONS 2 TO 7, ARTICLE VI: Composition of Congress; membership and terms of office

Organization of CongressCongressional Districts; apportionment and reapportionment
1. Tobias v. Abalos, GR 114783. Dec. 8, 1994, 239 SCRA 106
  1. Legislative apportionment
1. Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC, GR 118577. Mar. 7, 1995, 242 SCRA 211
  1. Rules of legislative apportionment
  1. Equality of representation
  1. Gerrymandering
1. Conc. and Dis. Op. of J. Carpio-Morales in Aquino III v. COMELEC, GR 189793, Apr. 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 623
1. Tobias v. Abalos, GR 114783, Dec. 8, 1994, 239 SCRA 106
1. Ceniza v. COMELEC, GR L-52304, Jan. 28, 1980, 95 SCRA 763
  1. Qualifications for Senator
  1. Qualifications for Member of the House of Representatives
  1. Qualifications for Party-List Nominee
  1. Residency qualification of candidate
1. Aquino v. Commission on Elections, GR 120265. Sep. 18, 1995, 248 SCRA 400
1. Gallego v. Vera, GR 48641, Nov. 24, 1941, 73 Phil. 453
1. Aquino v. Commission on Elections, GR 120265. Sep. 18, 1995, 248 SCRA 400
  1. Residence and domicile construed
1. Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, GR 104960. Sep. 14, 1993
  1. Rules on residence or domicile
  1. Change of domicile; how effected
1. Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, GR 92191-92. July 30, 1991, 199 SCRA 692
  1. Party-list system
  1. Requirement of registration of political party, organized group of under the party-list system
  1. Party-list representative
  1. Nominations of party-list representatives
  1. Persons excluded from list of nominees
  1. Change of names or alteration of order of nominees
  1. Nominated incumbent party-list representatives in Congress need not resign
  1. Allocation of party-list seats among the winning parties
1. Veterans Federation Party v. COMELEC, 396 Phil. 419 (2000)
  1. Parameters for allocation of party-list seats
  1. Formula for computing the number of party-list seats available
1. BANAT V. COMELEC, GR 179271, Apr. 21, 2009
  1. Procedure for allocation of party-list seats
  1. Ranking of participating parties in the party-list election
  1. First round of seat allocation; “two-percenters” guaranteed a seat each
  1. First round of seat allocation
  1. Computation for the guaranteed seat
  1. Procedure in computation of additional seats
  1. Application of three-seat limit
  1. Elections for members of Congress and other officials

4.6.3. SECTION 8, ARTICLE VI: Synchronized national and local elections every second Monday of May once every three (3) years

4.6.4. SECTION 9, ARTICLE VI: Special elections for members of Congress

Special election for vacant postsTerm and tenure construed
1. Valle Verde Country Club, Inc. v. Africa, GR 151969. Sep. 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 195
  1. Three-term limit rule for members of the Lower House
  1. What the Constitution bars is a fourth consecutive term
1. Socrates v. COMELEC, GR 154512. Nov. 12, 2002, 391 SCRA 457
  1. Voluntary renunciation of office
1. Abundo, Sr. v. COMELEC, GR 201716. Jan. 8, 2013, 688 SCRA 149
  1. Interruption of a term and involuntary loss of title to office
1. Aldovino, Jr. v. COMELEC, GR 184836. Dec. 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 234
1. Montebon v. COMELEC, GR 180444. Apr. 9, 2008, 551 SCRA 50

4.6.5. SECTION 10, ARTICLE VI: Salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives

4.6.6. SECTION 11, ARTICLE VI: Parliamentary Immunities of Members of Congress; privilege from arrest

Privilege from arrest of Members of Congress
1. Vera v. Avelino GR L-543. Aug. 31, 1946, 77 Phil. 192
1. Gonzaga-Reyes, J., Conc. Op. in People v. Jalosjos, GR. 132875-76. Feb. 3, 2000, 324 SCRA 689
1. Osmeña, Jr. v. Pendatun, GR L-17144. Oct. 28, 1960, 109 Phil. 863
  1. Privilege speech or utterance
1. Vera v. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192
1. Jimenez v. Cabangbang, GR L-15905. Aug. 3, 1966, 17 SCRA 876

4.6.7. SECTION 12, ARTICLE VI: Duty of Members of Congress to disclose financial and business interests

4.6.8. SECTION 13, ARTICLE VI: Incompatible and forbidden offices

Incompatible office
Exceptions to the rule on incompatible office
1. Liban v. Gordon, GR 175352. July 15, 2009, 593 SCRA 68
Forbidden office

4.6.9. SECTION 14, ARTICLE VI: Prohibition against practice of law, financial interest in government contracts, and intervention for pecuniary benefit

1. Senators and Representatives not allowed to practice law

2. Post-enactment authority to Members of Congress under Pork Barrel System held as unconstitutional

Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) v. Sec. of Budget and Management, GR 164987, Apr. 24, 2012, 670 SCRA 373

3. Conflicts of interest and undue influence

Mangahas v. Brobio, GR 183852. Oct. 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 351

4.6.10. SECTION 15, ARTICLE VI: Sessions of Congress

4.6.11. SECTION 16, ARTICLE VI: Internal government of Congress

Houses of Congress and their members Elective non-member officersQuorum
1. Javellana v. Tayo, GR L-18919, Dec. 29, 1962, 6 SCRA 1042
1. Perez v. De la Cruz, 27 SCRA 587, No. L-29458 March 28, 1969

4. Rules of proceedings

5. Nature of internal rules

6. Types of legislative measures

7. Bills

8. Resolutions

9. Simple Resolutions

10. Joint Resolutions

11. Concurrent Resolutions

12. Disciplinary power of Congress

13. Journal of legislative proceedings

Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, GR 115455, Aug. 25, 1994, 235 SCRA 630
- Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, GR L-1123. Mar. 5, 1947, 78 Phil., 1
- Arroyo v. De Venecia, GR 127255. Aug. 14, 1997, 277 SCRA 268

14. Congressional Record

15. Enrolled bill

16. Adjournment; Consent of both Houses as to period and place of meeting

4.6.12. SECTION 17, ARTICLE VI: Electoral Tribunals

1. Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET)

2. Jurisdiction of SET

3. SET Divisions

4. Election contest before SET; how Initiated

5. Election protest

6. Election protest based on manifest error

7. Quo Warranto petition

8. Votes required

9. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)

10. Jurisdiction of HRET

11. Election contests before HRET; how initiated

12. Election protest; who may file

13. Quo Warranto petition

14. Ad cautelam cases

15. Votes required

4.6.13. SECTION 18, ARTICLE VI: Commission on Appointments

Commission on Appointments and its functions
1. Cunanan v. Tan, GR L-19721. May 10, 1962, 5 SCRA 1
  1. Composition of the Commission
  1. Officers whose appointment is subject to confirmation by Commission
1. Manalo v. Sistoza, GR 107369. Aug. 11, 1999, 312 SCRA 239
1. Soriano III v. Lista, GR 153881. Mar. 24, 2003, 399 SCRA 437
  1. Appointment process
  1. Kinds of presidential appointments
  1. Ad interim appointments
1. Marohombsar v. Alonto, Jr., GR 93711, Feb. 25, 1991, 194 SCRA 390
1. Summers v. Ozaeta, GR L-1534. Oct. 25, 1948, 81 Phil. 754
  1. By-passed nomination or appointment
1. Matibag v. Benipayo GR 149036. Apr. 2, 2002, 380 SCRA 49
  1. Appointments in acting capacity
1. Pimentel, Jr. v. Ermita, GR 164978. Oct. 13, 2005, 472 SCRA 587
  1. Nomination by the President
  1. Quorum of the Commission
  1. Votation
  1. Actions by Commission on nomination or appointment

4.6.14. SECTION 19, ARTICLE VI: Electoral Tribunals and CA; when constituted

4.6.15. SECTION 20, ARTICLE VI: Records and books of accounts of Congress

4.6.16. SECTION 21, ARTICLE VI: Inquiries in aid of legislation

Scope of inquiries
1. Arnault v. Nazareno, GR L-3820. July 18, 1950, 87 Phil. 29
Safeguards against abuses
1. Senate v. Ermita, GR 169777. Apr. 20, 2006, 488 SCRA 1
Executive privilege
1. Almonte v. Vasquez, GR 95367, May 23, 1995, 244 SCRA 286
Nature and scope of executive privilege
1. Chavez v. PEA, GR 133250. May 6, 2003, 403 SCRA 1
1. Chavez v. PCGG, GR 130716. Dec. 9, 1998, 299 SCRA 744

4.6.17. SECTION 22, ARTICLE VI: Question hour

Question hour for Cabinet MembersAdvanced written questionsOversight functions of CongressOversight over actions of the executive branchModalities of oversight

4.6.18. SECTION 23, ARTICLE VI: Power to declare state of war and to delegate emergency powers

Declaration of state of war
Delegation of emergency powers

4.6.19. SECTION 24, ARTICLE VI: Original filing of certain bills exclusively in the Lower House

ABS-CBN, v. National Telecommunications, GR 252119. Aug. 25, 2020

4.6.20. SECTION 25, ARTICLE VI: Power of Congress over appropriations

1. Spending power or “power of the purse”

Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, GR 113105. Aug. 19, 1994, 235 SCRA 506

2. Inappropriate provision

3. Uniform procedure for budget approval

4. Special appropriations bill

5. Power to augment items in an appropriation

6. Requisites for a valid transfer of appropriated funds

Araullo v. Aquino III, GR 209569. July 1, 2014, 728 SCRA 1

7. Discretionary funds

8. Reenacted budget

4.6.21. SECTION 26, ARTICLE VI: One subject-one title and three-reading, three-day distribution rules

1. One subject – one title rule

Sumulong v. COMELEC, GR 48609. Oct. 10, 1941, 73 Phil. 288
- Lidasan v. COMELEC, GR L-28089. Oct. 25, 1967, 21 SCRA 496

2. Three-reading, three-day distribution rule

3. Twin purpose of three-reading rule

4.6.22. SECTION 27, ARTICLE VI: How a bill becomes a law

The legislative processFiling of the bill3. First reading4. Committee consideration and action5. Second reading6. Third reading7. Transmittal of the approved bill to the other House

Transmittal of the enrolled bill to the President11. Action by Congress on the bill approved and signed by the President12. Action by Congress on the bill vetoed by the PresidentVeto power of the President

4.6.23. SECTION 28, ARTICLE VI: Rule of uniformity and equity in taxation

Uniformity and equity in taxation
1. Churchill v. Concepcion, GR 11572. Sep. 22, 1916, 34 Phil. 969
  1. Types of equity in taxation
  1. Theories in equity in taxation
  1. Progressive system of taxation
  1. Tariff powers of Congress delegated to the President
  1. Tax exemptions
1. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, GR 124043. Oct. 14, 1998, 298 SCRA 83
1. Lung Center of the Philippines v. Quezon City, GR 144104. June 29, 2004, 433 SCRA 119
  1. Vote requirement for validity of law granting tax exemption
  1. 8. Strictissimi juris construction of tax exemptions
1. Province of Tarlac v. Alcantara, GR 65230, Dec. 23, 1992, 216 SCRA 790

4.6.24. SECTION 29, ARTICLE VI: Limitations on appropriation and use of public money or property

No money to be paid from treasury without statutory authorityPhrase “appropriation made by law” construed
1. Guingona, Jr. v. Carague, GR 94571. Apr. 22, 1991, 196 SCRA 221
  1. Form of Congressional budget authorization
  1. Government budgeting process
  1. Impoundment
  1. Ban on use of public money or property for religious purposes
1. Aglipay v. Ruiz, GR 45459. Mar. 13, 1937, 64 Phil. 201
  1. Exception to the prohibition
  1. General and special funds
1. Gaston v. Republic Planters Bank, GR L-77194. Mar. 15, 1988, 158 SCRA 626

4.6.25. SECTION 30, ARTICLE VI: Prohibition on legislation increasing Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its assent

First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, GR 110571. Mar. 10, 1994, 231 SCRA 30

4.6.26. SECTION 31, ARTICLE VI: Prohibition on legislative grant of title of royalty or nobility

Congress barred from passing laws conferring titles of nobility or royaltyRationale for the prohibition

4.6.27. SECTION 32, ARTICLE VI: System of initiative and referendum

People empowered to directly propose amendments to the Constitution or pass national and local lawsNature of power
1. Marmeto v. COMELEC, GR 213953. Sep. 26, 2017, 840 SCRA 581
  1. Republic Act No. 6735 and its implementing rules and regulations
  1. Initiative
  1. Referendum
  1. Who may exercise the power of initiative and referendum?
  1. Requirements for the exercise of the power
  1. Contents and form of the petition
  1. Initiative on amendments to the Constitution
1. Santiago v. COMELEC, GR 127325. Mar. 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106
  1. Full text of proposed Constitutional amendment must be embodied in the petition
1. Lambino v. COMELEC, GR 174153, Oct. 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160

4.7. ARTICLE VII: THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

4.7.1 SECTION 1, ARTICLE VII: Executive power vested in the President

Executive power of the President
1. Ople v. Torres, GR 127685. July 23, 1998, 293 SCRA 141
  1. Different roles of the President

4.7.2 SECTION 2, ARTICLE VII: Qualifications for President

Qualifications for PresidentNatural-born Filipino citizen

4.7.3 SECTION 3, ARTICLE VII: Qualifications for Vice-President

4.7.4 SECTION 4, ARTICLE VII: Election of President and Vice-President

Date of election
Canvassing of votes
Congressional action in case of tie
Rules for canvassing
Terms of office and reelection
Resolution of electoral contests
Election contest before PET; how initiated
Election protest
Quo warranto petition
Contents of election protest
Contents of Quo Warranto petition
Votes required
PET’s procedure in deciding contests

4.7.5 SECTION 5, ARTICLE VII: Oath or affirmation

Significance of an oath or affirmationEffect of failure to take oath or affirmation

4.7.6 SECTION 6, ARTICLE VII: Official residence of the President; Salaries and other entitlements of the President and Vice-President

Official residence of the PresidentSalaries and other entitlements of the President and Vice-President

4.7.7 SECTION 7, ARTICLE VII: Presidential line of succession

Assumption of office by the President-elect and the Vice-President-electRule in case of disqualification of President-electRule in case President not chosenRule where President-elect dies or becomes permanently disabled at the beginning of termRule where no President-elect and Vice-President-elect were chosen or have qualified or where both have died or become permanently during their terms of officeManner of selecting Acting President in case of the death, permanent disability, or inability of Senate President and Speaker of the House

4.7.8 SECTION 8, ARTICLE VII: Rules in case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, or of both the President and Vice-President, or of the Acting President

Rule in case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President
Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146710-15. Mar. 2, 2001, 353 SCRA 452
Rule in case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President
Legislative remedy in case of death, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President

4.7.9 SECTION 9, ARTICLE VII: Manner of filling up vacancy in Vice-President’s post

4.7.10 SECTION 10, ARTICLE VII: Congressional action in case of vacancy in offices of President and Vice-President

Congress must convene to pass a law calling for special election
Appropriations for special election
Proscription against suspension of convening of Congress and postponement of special election; exception

4.7.11 SECTION 11, ARTICLE VII: Inability of President to discharge the powers and duties of his office

Written declaration of President’s temporary inability to hold office by President himself
Tañada v. Cuenco, GR L-10520. Feb. 28, 1957, 100 Phil. 1101
Estrada v. Desierto, GR 146710-15. Mar. 2, 2001, 353 SCRA 452
Counter-declaration by majority of occurred President’s Cabinet
Written declaration of President’s temporary inability to hold office by majority of his Cabinet members

4.7.12 SECTION 12, ARTICLE VII: Public disclosure of President’s state of health in case of serious illness and unimpeded access by certain Cabinet members and AFP Chief of Staff to the President in case of such illness

Right of the public to be informed of President’s serious illness
Access by certain Cabinet members and AFP Chief to the President in case of the latter’s serious illness
Serious illness construed

4.7.13 SECTION 13, ARTICLE VII: Prohibition against dual or multiple offices being held by one official and against President’s relatives from holding positions in government

Ban on President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants from holding any other office or employment during their tenure
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, GR 83896. Feb. 22, 1991, 194 SCRA 317
Funa v. Ermita, GR 184740. Feb. 11, 2010, 612 SCRA 308
Phrase “unless otherwise provided in this Constitution” construed
Funa v. Agra, GR 191644. Feb. 19, 2013, 691 SCRA 196
Ex officio capacity explained
Prohibition on President’s relatives from holding government posts
People v. Berana, GR 123544, July 29, 1999, 311 SCRA 664

4.7.14 SECTION 14, ARTICLE VII: Effectivity of appointments made by Acting President

Power of elected President to revoke appointments made by Acting President
Application of provision only to appointments in the Executive Department and not to those in the Judiciary

4.7.15 SECTION 15, ARTICLE VII: Prohibition on midnight appointments

Midnight appointments defined
Aytona v. Castillo, GR L-19313, Jan. 19, 1962, 4 SCRA 1
Prohibition not applicable to appointments in the Judiciary
Rationale for the prohibition
The Provincial Government of Aurora v. Marco, GR 202331. Apr. 22, 2015, 757 SCRA 222

4.7.16 SECTION 16, ARTICLE VII: Power of appointment of the President

Officers the President may nominate and appoint with consent of Commission on Appointments
Sarmiento III v. Mison, GR L-79974. Dec. 17, 1987, 156 SCRA 549
Calderon v. Carale, GR 91636. Apr. 23, 1992, 208 SCRA 254
“Other officers” construed
Power of the President to make ad interim appointments
Presidential appointments made when Congress is in session and when it is in recess
Pacete v. The Sec. of the Commission on Appointments, GR L-25895. July 23, 1971, 40 SCRA 58
Effectivity and duration of ad interim appointments

4.7.17 SECTION 17, ARTICLE VII: President’s control of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices and duty to take care that laws are faithfully executed

President’s control of all executive departments, bureaus, and offices
De Leon v. Carpio, GR 85243. Oct. 12, 1989, 178 SCRA 457
Villena v. Secretary of the Interior. GR 46570. Apr. 21, 1939, 67 Phil. 451
National Electrification Administration v. Commission on Audit, , GR 143481. Feb. 15, 2002, 377 SCRA 223
Power of the President to reorganize the bureaucracy
Domingo v. Zamora, GR 142283. Feb. 6, 2003, 397 SCRA 56
Duty of President to take care that laws are faithfully executed
Planas v. Gil., GR 46440. Jan. 18, 1939, 67 Phil. 62

4.7.18 SECTION 18, ARTICLE VII: Military powers of the President

Commander-in-chief clause
Kulayan v. Tan, GR 187298. July -3, 2012, 675 SCRA 482
President’s calling out power
President’s power to declare state of martial law
Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
Nava v. Gatmaitan, GR L-4855, Oct. 11, 1951, 90 Phil. 172
Rebellion as ground for President’s exercise of martial law and suspension of writ powers
Lagman v. Medialdea, GR 231658. July 4, 2017, 829 SCRA 1
President’s duty to report to Congress
Extension of proclamation or suspension
Congress to convene in accord with its rules without any need of call
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Lansang v. Garcia, GR L-33964. Dec. 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 448
What constitutes sufficient basis for the declaration of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
Lagman v. Medialdea, GR 231658. July 4, 2017, 829 SCRA 1
Effects of state of martial law
Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, GR L-54558 May 22, 1987, 150 SCRA 144
Application of the suspension of the privilege of the writ
Sufficient safeguards against possible misuse and abuse by Commander-in-Chief of his extraordinary martial law powers

4.7.19 SECTION 19, ARTICLE VII: Power to grant executive clemency or Pardoning power of the President

Acts of executive clemency
Llamas v. Orbos, GR 99031, Oct. 15, 1991, 202 SCRA 844

Distinctions between amnesty and pardon
People v. Casido, GR 116512. Mar. 7, 1997, 269 SCRA 360

4.7.20 SECTION 20, ARTICLE VII: Borrowing power of the President

Limitations on foreign borrowing powerPower may be exercised by President’s alter ego; exceptions
Carpio v. Exec. Sec., GR 96409, Feb. 14, 1992, 206 SCRA 290
1. Reportorial duty of the Monetary Board

4.7.21 SECTION 21, ARTICLE VII: Treaty-making power

Treaty-making power and its limitation
Bayan v. Zamora, GR 138570. Oct. 10, 2000, 342 SCRA 449
1. Treaty-making processPower to withdraw from treaties
Pangilinan v. Cayetano, GR 238875, Mar. 16, 2021

4.7.22 SECTION 22, ARTICLE VII: Budgetary power

The budget proposalExecutive discretion in budget preparation

4.7.23 SECTION 23, ARTICLE VII: Informing power

State of the Nation Address (SONA)

4.7.24 OTHER POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT

4.8. ARTICLE VIII: JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

4.8.1. SECTION 1, ARTICLE VIII: Judicial power

Judicial power vested in one Congress
Vargas v. Rilloraza, GR L-1612. Feb. 26, 1948, 80 Phil., 297
1. Scope of judicial powerPower of judicial review
Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. (AMCOW) v. GCC Approved Medical Centers Association, Inc., GR 207132, Dec. 06, 2016
1. Moot and academic case
Quizon v. COMELEC, GR 177927. Feb. 15, 2008, 545 SCRA 635
1. Political question doctrine
Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., , GR 101083. July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792
1. Grave abuse of discretion
Yu v. Reyes-Carpio, GR 189207. June 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 341
1. Judicial review as to Constitutionality of a law; requisites
Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, GR 113105. Aug. 19, 1994, 235 SCRA 506
Sotto v. COMELEC, GR L-329. Apr. 16, 1946, 76 Phil. 516
1. Hierarchy of courts

4.8.2. SECTION 2, ARTICLE VIII: Limitations on Congress’ power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of courts and to reorganize the Judiciary

4.8.3. SECTION 3, ARTICLE VIII: Fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary

Fiscal autonomy; scope and extent
Bengzon v. Drilon, GR 103524. Apr. 15, 1992, 208 SCRA 133
1. Full and timely releases of the Judiciary’s funds

4.8.4. SECTION 4, ARTICLE VIII: Supreme Court composition; Cases cognizable by Court en banc and division; vote requirement for decision

Composition of the SCFunctions exercised by the SCCourt en bancQuorum of the SC en bancCourt en banc matters and casesCourt divisionsComposition and quorum of a DivisionDivision casesVoting requirementsVacancy in the SCVacancies in lower courts

4.8.5. SECTION 5, ARTICLE VIII: Specific power of the Supreme Court

Specific powers of the SCOriginal jurisdictionAppellate jurisdictionExclusive original jurisdictionConcurrent original jurisdictionDoctrine of hierarchy of courts
Hinog v. Melicor, GR 140954, 12 Apr. 2005, 455 SCRA 460
Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila, GR 154599, Jan. 21, 2004, 420 SCRA 562
1. Mandatory review of death penalty
People v. Mateo, GR 147678-87. July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640
People v. Rocha, GR 173797. Aug. 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 761
1. Appeal by certiorariOther specific powers of the SCPower to temporarily assign judges Power to change of the venue or place of trial
Ala v. Judge Peras, AM RTJ-11-2283 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. 10-3478-RTJ), Nov. 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 193
People v. Pilotin, GR 35377-78, July 31, 1975, 65 SCRA 635
1. Rule-making power of the SCTests as to whether the SC rule diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights
Fabian v. Desierto, GR 129742. Sep. 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 470
1. Power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of Constitutional rights Power to promulgate rules concerning admission to the practice of law
In re: Albino Cunanan, 50 Off. Gaz. m, 1617, prom. Mar. 18, 1954
Philippine Lawyer’s Association v. Agrava, GR L-12426. Feb. 16, 1959, 105 Phil. 173
1. Admission to the practice of law, etc., a judicial functionPower to promulgate rules concerning the Integrated Bar
In the Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, Jan. 9, 1973
1. Compulsory membership in Integrated Bar not violative of freedom of association
Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting Exemption from Payment of IBP Dues, BM 1370. May 9, 2005, 458 SCRA 209
1. Compulsory payment of dues to Integrated Bar in the nature of regulatory measureAppointing power over court personnel

4.8.6. SECTION 6, ARTICLE VIII: Power of administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel

Maceda v. Vasquez, GR 102781. Apr. 22, 1993, 221 SCRA 464

4.8.7. SECTION 7, ARTICLE VIII: Qualifications of SC Members and Judges of lower courts

Qualifications of SC Member Qualifications of CA MemberQualifications of Sandiganbayan MemberQualifications of CTA MemberQualifications of Shari’ah High Court MemberQualifications of RTC JudgeQualifications of Shari’ah District Court JudgeQualifications of Judge of first level court (MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and MCTC)Qualifications of Shari’ah District Court JudgePower of Congress to prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts

4.8.8. SECTION 8, ARTICLE VIII: The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)

Composition of the JBC
Chavez v. JBC, GR 202242. July 17, 2012, 676 SCRA 579
1. Representative of Congress in the JBC Functions of the JBCOffices subject to the JBC screening and nomination

4.8.9. SECTION 9, ARTICLE VIII: Appointment of Members of the SC and judges of lower courts

Appointments of Members of Judiciary from list of at least three (3) nominees prepared by the JBCPeriod for filling vacancies in courts

4.8.10. SECTION 10, ARTICLE VIII: Salaries of Members of the SC and judges of lower courts

4.8.11. SECTION 11, ARTICLE VIII: Term of office of Members of the Judiciary

Term of Members of the Judiciary fixed by the ConstitutionDisciplinary power of the SC over lower courtsSC Members may be removed by impeachment
Republic v. Sereno, GR 237428. May 11, 2018

4.8.12. SECTION 12, ARTICLE VIII: Prohibition on designation of Members of the Judiciary to another agency

4.8.13. SECTION 13, ARTICLE VIII: Conclusions on cases submitted for decision

Conclusions of the SC in a case submitted for decisionActions and decisions of the SC, how reachedPonente or opinion writerDissenting separate or concurring opinion

4.8.14. SECTION 14, ARTICLE VIII: What court decisions must state

Court decisions must state clearly and distinctly their factual and legal bases
Yao v. Court of Appeals, GR 132428. Oct. 24, 2000, 344 SCRA 202
1. Refusal of petition for review or denial of motion for reconsideration must state its legal basis
Smith Bell and Company (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, GR 56294. May 20, 1991, 197 SCRA 201
Agoy v. Araneta Center, Inc., GR 196358. Mar. 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 883

4.8.15. SECTION 15, ARTICLE VIII: Mandatory periods for the resolution of cases

Periods for speedy disposition of cases; reckoning pointProvision deemed as directory, not mandatory
Re: Complaint-affidavit of Elvira N. Enalbes, et al., v. Former Chief Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro [Ret.], relative to GR 203063 and GR 204743, AM 18-11-09-SC, Jan. 22, 2019

4.8.1. SECTION 16, ARTICLE VIII: Reportorial obligation of SC

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »

2022 REVISED COURSE GUIDE (SYLLABUS) ON CREDIT TRANSACTIONS – PUP COLLEGE OF LAW, 1ST SEMESTER, AY 2022-23

by PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

2022 REVISED COURSE GUIDE (SYLLABUS) ON CREDIT TRANSACTIONS – PUP COLLEGE OF LAW, 1ST SEMESTER, AY 2022-23

I. BRIEF OVERVIEW

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CREDIT
Republic v. PNB, GR L-16106, Dec. 30, 1961, 3 SCRA 851
THE CONCEPTS OF CREDIT AND DEBT AND THEIR DISTINCTIONS
Lirag Textile Mills, Inc. v. SSS, GR L-33205, Aug. 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 338
CREDIT TRANSACTION; DEFINITION
CREDIT TRANSACTION: A CONTRACT OF SECURITY
MAJOR TYPES OF CREDIT TRANSACTION
SPECIFIC KINDS OF CREDIT TRANSACTION

II. LAWS ON CREDIT TRANSACTION

Subjects of credit transaction
BAILMENT CONTRACTS

A.1. Bailment; definition

A.2. Bailment; how created

A.3. Parties to a bailment

A.4. Types of bailments as to beneficiary

A.5. Deposit for compensation

A.6. Involuntary or necessary deposit

A.7. Bailment for hire

LOAN

B.1. Loan; definition

B.2. Loan in relation to credit; concession of credit

People v. Concepcion, GR 19190. Nov. 29, 1922, 44 Phil. 126

B.3. Loan and discount; distinctions

B.4. Legal provisions governing loans

B.5. Characteristics of loans

B.6. Fundamental aspects of loans

B.7. Kinds of loan

De Los Santos v. Jarra, GR 4150, Feb. 10, 1910, 15 Phil. 147
Santiago v. Sps. Garcia, GR 228356, Mar. 9, 2020

B.8. Commodatum; definition

B.9. Nature of commodatum

B.10. Commodatum and Precarium; distinctions

B.11. Subject of commodatum

B.12. Object of commodatum

B.13. Bailor need not be the owner of the thing loaned

B.14. Personal character of commodatum

B.15. Bailee’s right to use limited to thing loaned

B.16. Use of fruits or produce of thing loaned

B.17. Obligations of the bailee

B.18. Obligations of the bailor

B.19. Liability of bailor to pay damages for known hidden flaws; bailee’s right of retention

B.20. Mutuum or Simple loan; definition

B.21. Characteristics of mutuum

B.22. Fungible things

B.23. Fungible things and nonfungible things; barter construed

B.24. Fungible and consumable things

B.25. Mutuum and commodatum; distinctions

B.26. Mutuum and Lease; distinctions

B.27. Barter; definition

B.28. Mutuum, commodatum, and barter; distinctions

B.29. Causes in mutuum

B.30. Objects of mutuum

B.31. Perfection of contract of mutuum

B.32. Rules on payment of loan

B.33. Payment of loan in kind

B.34. Failure to pay loan

US v. Ibañez, GR 6421. Aug. 14, 1911, 19 Phil. 559
Yam v. Malik, GR L-50550-52 Oct. 31, 1979, 94 SCRA 30

B.35. Simple loan provisions govern bank deposits

Guingona, Jr. v. City Fiscal of Manila, GR L-60033. Apr. 04, 1984, 128 SCRA 577

B.36. Relationship between depositor and bank

Gullas v. National Bank, GR 43191. Nov. 13, 1935, 62 Phil. 519
Central Bank of the Phils. v. Citytrust Banking Corp., GR 141835. Feb. 4, 2009, 578 SCRA 27
Solidbank Corp. v. Tan, GR 167346. Apr. 2, 2007, 520 SCRA 123
The Overseas Bank of Manila v. CA, GR L-49353. June 11, 1981, 105 SCRA 49
Integrated Realty Corp. v. PNB, GR 60705, GR 60907. June 28, 1989, 174 SCRA 295

B.37. Distinctions between irregular deposit and loan

Javellana v. Barilea, GR L-4347. Jan. 31, 1953, 92 Phil., 600

B.37. Extinguishment of loan by mutual desistance

B.38. Relationship between credit card provider and its card holders

Saura Import & Export Co., Inc. v. Development Bank of the Phil., GR L-24968. Apr. 27, 1972, 44 SCRA 445
Pantaleon v. American Express International, Inc., GR 174269. May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 551

B.39. Contracts in credit card transaction

Pantaleon v. American Express International, Inc., GR 174269. Aug. 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 276

B.40. When parties enter into binding loan contract

B.41. Requisites of default; when credit card company not deemed in default

B.42. Loan contract a real contract

BPI Investment Corp. v. CA, GR 133632. Feb. 15, 2002, 377 SCRA 117
INTEREST

C.1. Legal provisions and rules governing interest

C.2. Interest; definition

C.3. Rule on payment of interest

Gonzales-Saldana v. Niamatali, GR 226587. Nov. 21, 2018, 886 SCRA 479.

C.4. Right to recover interest

Barretto v. Santa Marina and “La Insular”, GR L-11908. Feb. 04, 1918, 37 Phil. 568

C.5. Recovery of interest; requisites

Tan v. Valdehueza, GR L-38745. Aug. 6, 1975, 66 SCRA 61

C.6. Return or retention of unstipulated interest paid

C.7. Unconscionable interest rates

Louh, Jr. v. Bank of the Phil. Islands, GR 225562. Mar. 8, 2017, 820 SCRA 103
MCMP Construction Corp. v. Monark Equipment Corp., GR 201001. Nov. 10, 2014, 739 SCRA 432

C.8. Kinds of interest

Philrock, Inc. v. Construction Industry Arbitration Commission, GR 132848-49. June 26, 2001, 359 SCRA 632

C.9. Monetary interest not inclusive of penalty

C.10. Compensatory interest; basis of interest rate

C.11. Classes of interest

C.12. Interest allowed on the penalty; when recoverable

Cabarroguis v. Vicente, GR L-14304. Mar. 23, 1960, 107 Phil. 340

C.13. New guidelines on computation of interest

Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals, GR 97412. July 12, 1994, 234 SCRA 78
Odiamar v. Valencia, GR 213582. Sep. 12, 2018, 880 SCRA 167

C.14. Forbearance of money or credit

Estores v. Sps. Supangan, GR 175139, Apr. 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 95
Crismina Garments, Inc. v. CA, GR 128721. Mar. 9, 1999, 304 SCRA 356

C.15. Stipulation to pay interest; rules

Casa Filipina Dev’t. Corp. v. Deputy Executive Secretary, GR 96494. May 28, 1992, 209 SCRA 399
Security Bank and Trust Company v. RTC of Makati, Br. 61, GR 113926. Oct. 23, 1996, 263 SCRA 483;
Toring v. Ganzon-Olan, GR 168782. Oct. 10, 2008, 568 SCRA 376
Soncuya v. Azarraga., GR 43579. June 14, 1938, 65 Phil. 635
Bonnevie v. CA, GR L-49101. Oct. 24, 1983, 125 SCRA 122

C.16. No stipulation to pay interest

Indemnity for damages
Lim v. CA, GR 125817. Jan. 16, 2002, 373 SCRA 394
Interest accruing from unpaid interest
David v. CA, GR 115821. Oct. 13, 1999, 316 SCRA 710

C.17. Penalty clause

Tan v. CA, GR 116285. Oct. 19, 2001, 367 SCRA 571
GSIS v. CA, GR L-52478. Oct. 30, 1986, 145 SCRA 311
Equitable Banking Corp. v. Liwanag, GR L-28335. Mar. 30, 1970, 32 SCRA 293

C.18. Accrued interest

Mambulao Lumber Co. v. PNB, GR L-22973. Jan. 30, 1968, 22 SCRA 359

C.19. Compounding of interest

USURY

D.1. Usury; definittion

Tolentino v. Gonzales Sy Chiam, GR L26085, Aug. 12, 1927, 50 Phil. 558

D.2. Elements of usury

Herrera v. Petrophil Corp, GR L-48349, Dec. 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 385

D.3. Law on usury

D.4. Usurious contracts and stipulations; usurer; definition

Quisumbing v. Lopez, GR L-6465, Jan. 31, 1955, 96 Phil. 510
Dis. Op. of J. Castro in Briones v. Cammayo, GR L-23559, Oct. 4, 1971, 41 SCRA 404

D.5. Recovery of principal debt in usurious deals

Lopez and Javelona v. El Hogar Filipino, GR 22678. Jan. 12, 1925, 47 Phil. 249

D.6. Divisibility of contract

US v. Tan Quingco Chua, GR 13708. Jan. 29, 1919, 39 Phil., 552

D.7. Unconscionable interest rate in a loan

Trade & Investment Development Corp. of the Phils. v. Roblett Industrial Construction Corp., 523 Phil. 360 (2006)
Chua v. Timan, GR 170452. Aug. 13, 2008, 562 SCRA 146
Limso v. PNB, GR 158622, Jan. 27, 2016, 782 SCRA 137

D.8. Usury Law ceiling on interest rates removed

D.9. Unilateral increase in interest rates violative of mutuality of contracts principle

D.10. Escalation and de-escalation clauses

Banco Fil. Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Judge Navarro, GR L-46591. July 28, 1987, 152 SCRA 346
Phil. Savings Bank v. Castillo, GR 193178. May 30, 2011, 649 SCRA 527

D.11. PAWNSHOPS; RATES OF INTEREST PRESCRIBED

D.12. Redemption; computation of interest due after maturity of obligation

D.13. Interest and surcharges extendible by pawnshops

Medel v. CA, GR 131622. Nov. 27, 1998

D.14. Collection by pawnshop of interest in advance

D.15. Rate of interest in the absence of stipulation.

D.16. Other charges.

D.17. Method of computing interest by pawnshops

DEPOSIT

E.1. Deposit; definition

E.2. Governing legal provisions on deposit

E.3. Object of the contract of deposit

Phil. Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, GR 167330. June 12, 2008, 554 SCRA 411

E.4. Principal purpose of the contract of deposit

E.5. Deposit; how constituted

E.6. Characteristics of the contract of deposit

E.7. Contract of deposit generally gratuitous; when deemed onerous

E.8. Use of the thing deposited; rationale

E.9. Nature of agreement to constitute a future deposit

E.10. Deposit and commodatum differentiated

E.11. Deposit and mutuum distinguished

E.12. Renting of safety deposit box

Sia v. CA, GR 102970. May 13, 1993, 222 SCRA 24

E.13. Ownership of the thing deposited

E.14. VOLUNTARY DEPOSIT

E.15. Multiple depositors

E.16. Form of deposit

E.17. Parties to a contract of deposit

E.18. Where depositary capacitated and depositor incapacitated

E.19. Where depositary depositary is incapacitated and depositor capacitated

E.20. Person to whom thing deposited must be returned

E.21. Places where the thing deposited must be returned

E.22. Time when thing deposited should be returned; exceptions

E.23. Payment of expenses for preservation

E.24. Payment of losses due to character of thing deposited

E.25. Obligations of the depositary

E.26. Right of two or more depositors

E.27. Depositary’s right of retention

E.28-. Deposit; how extinguished

E.29. NECESSARY DEPOSIT

E.30. Necessary deposit to comply with legal obligation

E.31. Necessary deposit occurring during calamity

E.32. Provisions regulating necessary deposit occurring during calamity; just compensation

E.33. Deposit by travelers in hotels or inns

YHT Realty Corp. v. CA, GR 126780. Feb. 17, 2005, 451 SCRA 638

E.34. Hotels and inn; definitions and distinctions

E.35. When hotel-keeper may be held liable

E.36. When hotel-keeper may not be held liable

E.37. Effect of concurrent or contributory negligence of hotel-keeper

E.38. Hotel-keeper not allowed to exempt himself from or limit his liability

E.39. Hotel-keeper’s right of retention and other recourse against non-paying guests

E.40. JUDICIAL DEPOSIT OR SEQUESTRATION

Bagalihog v. Fernandez, GR 96356. June 27, 1991, 198 SCRA 614

E.41. Objects and purpose of judicial deposits

E.42. Instances when judicial deposit takes place

E.43. Responsibility of depositary of sequestered property

E.44. Rules applicable to judicial deposits

GUARANTY AND SURETYSHIP

F.1. Guaranty and suretyship; definition

Cacho v. Valles, GR 19493, Aug. 27, 1923, 45 Phil. 107
CCC Insurance Corp. v. Kawasaki Steel Corp., GR 156162. June 22, 2015, 759 SCRA 332

F.3. Distinctions between guarantor and surety

F.4. Similarity between guaranty and surety

F.5. Governing legal provisions on guaranty

F.6. Characteristics of the contract of guaranty

Velasquez v. Solidbank Corp., GR 157309 Mar. 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 119

F.7. Kinds of guaranty

F.8. Rules and legal provisions on guaranty

Severino and Vergara v. Severino, GR 34642. Sep. 24, 1931, 56 Phil. 185
Diño v. CA, GR 89775. Nov. 26, 1992, 216 SCRA 9
Aglibot v. Santia, GR 185945. Dec. 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 283
Visayan Distributors, Inc. v. Flora, GR L-3751. Oct. 25, 1952, 92 Phil., 145
Orduña v. Fuentebella, GR 176841. June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 146
PNB v. CA, GR 33174. July 4, 1991, 198 SCRA 767

F.9. Guaranty distinguished from warranty

E. Zobel, Inc. v. CA, GR 113931, May 6, 1998, 290 SCRA 1
Ang v. CA, GR 177874, Sep. 29, 2008, 567 SCRA 54
Goodyear Phils., Inc. v. Anthony Sy, GR 154554, Nov. 9, 2005, 474 SCRA 427

F.10. Guaranty construed in strictissimi juris

Pacific Tobacco Co. v. Lorenzana, GR L-8086. Oct. 31, 1957, 102 Phil. 234

F.11. Extent of guarantor’s liability

F.12. Acceptance of guaranty by creditor and notice of such acceptance to guarantor

National Bank v. Escueta, GR L-26118. Dec. 31, 1926, 50 Phil. 991

F.13. Qualifications of guarantor

F.14. Effect of supervening incapacity or loss of qualification of guarantor

Estate of Hemady v. Luzon Surety Co., Inc., GR L-8437. Nov. 28, 1956, 100 Phil. 388

F.15. Replacement and selection of guarantor

F.16. Benefit of excussion or exhaustion

JN Development Corp. v. Phil. Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp., GR 151060. Aug. 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 555

F.17. When guarantor not entitled to the benefits of excussion under Article 2059 of Civil Code

F.18. Other exceptions to benefit of excussion

Southern Motors, Inc. v. Barbosa, GR L-9306. May 25, 1956, 99 Phil. 263

F.19. Excussion may be waived by guarantor; effects of waiver

Trade and Investment Development Corp. of the Phils., also known as Phil. Export-Import Credit Agency v. Phil. Veterans Bank, GR 233850. July 1, 2019, 907 SCRA 66

F.20. Default and demand on guarantor; effect of payment made after term of guaranty

F.21. Consent of guarantor to extension granted by creditor to debtor

F.22. Benefit of excussion a defense available only to guarantor

F.23. Excussion not a prerequisite to secure judgment against guarantor

Tupaz IV v. CA, GR 145578. Nov. 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 398

F.24. Creditor required to make prior demand for payment from guarantor

Viuda de Syquia v. Jacinto, GR 41320. Nov. 9, 1934, 60 Phil. 861
Baylon v. CA, GR 109941. Aug. 17, 1999, 312 SCRA 502

F.25. When guarantor may set up excussion against demanding creditor; requisites

F.26. Duty of guarantor to point out to creditor available property of the debtor

Luzon Steel Corp. v. Sia, GR L-26449. May 15, 1969, 28 SCRA 58

F.27. Duty of creditor to exhaust all legal remedies

F.28. Guarantor and debtor need not be sued jointly; exception

US v. Varadero de la Quinta., GR 14370. Sep. 1, 1919, 40 Phil. 48

F.29. Action by creditor against debtor

F.30. Notice to guarantor of creditor’s action against debtor

Towers Assurance Corp. v. Ororama Supermart, GR L-45848. Nov. 9, 1977, 80 SCRA 262

F.31. Effect of compromise between creditor and debtor on guarantor

F.32. Sub-guarantor’s right to excussion

F.33. Benefit of division of obligation among co-guarantors; exceptions

F.34. Benefit of excussion among co-guarantors

F.35. Indemnity to guarantor

F.36. Reimbursement for debt paid by guarantor

Tuason, Tuason, Inc. v. Machuca, GR L-22177. Dec. 2, 1924, 46 Phil. 561
Saenz v. Yap Chuan., GR 5470. Mar. 22, 1910, 16 Phil. 76

F.37. When guarantor entitled to legal interest

PNB v. Luzon Surety Co., Inc., GR L-29587. Nov. 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 207

F.38. Expenses incurred by guarantor

F.39. Damages recoverable by guarantor; right of subrogation

F.40. Exceptions to guarantor’s right to indemnity

F.41. Right of guarantor to subrogation

Chemphil Export & Import Corp. v. CA, GR 112438-39, Dec. 12, 1995, 251 SCRA 257

F.42. Rights of guarantor to indemnification and subrogation extends to surety

Escano v. Ortigas, Jr., GR 151953. June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 26

F.43. Effect of payment by guarantor without notice to debtor

F.44. Effect of payment by guarantor before or after maturity.

F.45. Effect of repeat payment by debtor

F.46. Right of guarantor to proceed against debtor before payment

F.47. Release of guarantor before payment needs creditor’s consent

Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Almeda, GR L-27249. July 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 136

F.48. Right to reimbursement of guarantor of third person requested by another

F.49. Right to contribution of paying guarantor from co-guarantors

F.50. Defenses available to co-guarantors

F.51. Liability of sub-guarantor should guarantor become insolvent

F.52. Causes of extinguishment of guaranty

Tecnogas Phils. Manufacturing Corp. v. PNB, GR 161004, Apr. 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 183

F.53. Effect on guaranty of creditor’s eviction

F.54. Release of guarantor without consent of co-guarantors

F.55. Effects of extension of time granted by creditor without guarantor’s consent

F.56. Release when guarantor cannot be subrogated to creditor’s rights

Bicol Savings & Loan Association v. Guinhawa, GR 62415. Aug. 20, 1990, 188 SCRA 642

F.57. Defenses available to guarantor against creditor

F.58. SURETYSHIP

Agro Conglomerates, Inc. v. CA, GR 117660. Dec. 18, 2000, 348 SCRA 450

F.59. Suretyship vis-à-vis guaranty

Palmares v. CA, GR 126490. Mar. 31, 1998, 288 SCRA 422

F.60. Surety’s liability

F.61. Legal provisions applicable to suretyship

Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Batu Construction & Co., GR L-9353 May 21, 1957, 101 Phil. 494
Ong v. Phil. Commercial International Bank, GR 160466. Jan. 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 705.

F.62. Nature of surety’s liability

Lim v. Security Bank Corp., GR 188539. Mar. 12, 2014, 718 SCRA 709

F.63. Strictissimi juris does not apply to compensated sureties

Pastoral v. Mutual Security Insurance Corp., GR L-20469, Aug. 31, 1965

F.64. Strictissimi juris applicable only to accommodation surety

Pacific Tobacco Corp. v. Lorenzana, GR L-8086. Oct. 31, 1957, 102 Phil. 234
LEGAL AND JUDICIAL BOND

G.1. Bond; governing legal provisions; definition

Commissioner v. Alikpala, GR L-32542. Nov. 26, 1970, 36 SCRA 208

G.2. Legal or statutory bond

Gerardo v. Plaridel Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., GR L-7807. Oct. 31, 1956, 100 Phil. 178

G.3. Judicial bonds

G.4. Bondsman; definition

G.5. Qualifications of a bondsman

G.6. Qualifications of sureties in property bond for criminal cases

G.7. Pledge or mortgage in place of bond

G.8. Bondsman not entitled to benefit of excussion

PLEDGE AND CHATTEL MORTGAGE IN GENERAL

H.1. Pledge and chattel mortgage provisions repealed by Personal Property Security Act

H.2. Pledge and chattel mortgage; definitions

Ablaza v. Ignacio, GR L-11466. May 23, 1958, 103 Phil. 1151

H.3. Essential requisites of contract of pledge or chattel mortgage

H.4. Pledge or mortgage an accessory contract

H.5. Right of creditor where debtor fails to comply with his obligation

H.6. Pactum commissorium

Fernandez Vda. de Zulueta v. Octaviano, GR L-55350. Mar. 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 314
Philnico Industrial Corp. v. Privatization and Management Office, GR 199432, Aug. 27, 2014, 733 SCRA 703
Solitarios v. Jaque, GR 199852. Nov. 12, 2014, 740 SCRA 226
Puig v. Sellner and Green, GR 20013. Oct. 18, 1923, 45 Phil. 286

H.7. Requisites of pactum commissorium

Uy Tong v. CA, GR 77465, May 21, 1988, 161 SCRA 383

H.8. Effect of void stipulation on principal obligation

H.9. Indivisibility of pledge or mortgage

Aquino v. Macondray & Co., Inc., GR L-5976. Oct. 25, 1955, 97 Phil., 731
PNB v. Mallorca, GR L-22538. Oct. 31, 1967, 21 SCRA 694; Goquiolay v. Sycip, GR L-11840. July 26, 1960, 108 Phil. 947
PNB v. De los Reyes, GR 46898-99, Nov. 28, 1989, 179 SCRA 619

H.10. Indivisibility rule as applied to debtor’s and creditor’s heirs

H.11. Where each one of several things guarantees determinate portion of credit

H.12. Obligations secured by pledge or mortgage

China Banking Corp. v. CA, GR 117604. Mar. 26, 1997, 270 SCRA 503

H.13. Effect of promise to constitute a pledge or mortgage

H.14. Criminal liability for estafa

PLEDGE

I.1. Kinds of pledge

I.2. Characteristics of pledge

I.3. Property subject of pledge

I.4. Cause or consideration in pledge

I.5. Essence of transfer of possession of thing pledged

I.6. Pledge must be in public instrument to bind third person

I.7. Alienation by pledgor of thing pledged

I.8. Right of pledgee to retain thing pledged

I.9. Duty of pledgee to take due care of thing pledged; liability for damages

I.10. Right of pledgee to reimbursement

I.11. Pledgee cannot deposit to a third person the thing pledged; exception

I.12. Responsibility of pledgee for acts of subordinates

I.13. Responsibility of pledgor to pay damages for known hidden flaws

I.14. Right of pledgee to compensate earnings of pledge with debt

I.15. Treatment of offspring of animals pledged

I.16. Right of pledgee to recover or defend possession of the chattel against a third person

I.17. Duty of pledgee not to use the thing pledged

I.18. Right of pledgee to retain and not to be compelled to return thing pledged; exception

I.19. Right of pledgor to ask for deposit of thing pledged

I.20. Right of pledgor to substitute thing pledged

I.21. Right of pledgee to sell thing pledge

I.22. Right of pledgee who is deceived as to substance or quality of chattel pledged

I.23. Extinguishment of pledge by return of thing pledged; presumption of perfection of pledge

I.24. Extinguishment of pledge by renunciation or abandonment; effect of waiver on debt

I.25. Right of pledgee to cause public sale of thing pledged; formalities required by law

Rodriguez, GR 132287. Jan. 24, 2006, 479 SCRA 571

I.26. Only instance when pledgee may appropriate the thing pledged

I.27. Right of pledgor and pledgee to bid

I.28. Bids must pay purchase price in cash

I.29. Effects of public auction of thing pledged

Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. v. Velayo, GR L-21069. Oct. 26, 1967, 21 SCRA 515

I.30. Obligation of pledgee to inform pledgor or owner of result of public auction

I.31. Satisfaction by third person of principal obligation

I.32. Right of pledgee to collect amount due on credit pledged before its redemption; requisites

I.33. Right of pledgee to select which of several things pledged to sell

I.34. Rights and obligations of the pledgee

I.35. Right of third person who pledged his own property

I.36. Pledges created by operation of law

I.37. Sale of thing under legal pledge

I.38. Laws and regulations governing pawnshops and other similar establishments

I.39. Pledge of future property under RA 11057 (PPSA)

J.1. Chattel mortgage; definition

J.2. Chattel mortgage laws repealed

J.3. Chattel mortgage differentiated from pledge

J.4. Chattel Mortgage Law supplemented by Civil Code

J.5. Characteristics of chattel mortgage.

J.6. General description of chattel valid

v. Phil. Guaranty Co. Inc., GR L-13194. Jan. 29, 1960, 106 Phil. 919

J.7. Registration of chattel mortgage

International Finance Corp. v. CA, GR 107554. Feb. 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 178
Refining Co. v. Jarque, GR 41506. Mar. 25, 1935, 61 Phil., 229
180

J.8. Redemption of mortgaged property

J.9. Extrajudicial foreclosure of chattel mortgage

Bank and Trust Company v. S.F. Naguiat Enterprises, Inc., GR 178407. Mar. 18, 2015, 753 SCRA 474

J.10. Stipulation extending chattel mortgage to after-acquired property

J.11. Action by mortgagee for part of debt unpaid

Trading & Supply Co. v. Tamaraw Plantation Co., GR 22995. Feb. 28, 1925, 47 Phil. 513

J.12. Chattel mortgage of after-incurred obligations

1996, 260 SCRA 714

J.13. Enforcement of mortgagee’s remedy

J.14. Right of mortgagee to recover deficiency

of the Phil. Islands v. Olutanga Lumber Co., GR 22656. Dec. 16, 1924, 47 Phil. 20
Financing Corp., GR 150673. Feb. 28, 2003, 398 SCRA 508

J.15. Instance where mortgagee has no right to recover deficiency

Motor Co. v. Millan, GR 42256. Apr. 25, 1935, 61 Phil., 409
Fernandez, 99 Phil. 782

J.16. Private sale of personal property covered by chattel mortgage

K.1. Personal Property Security Act

K.2. Nationwide electronic registry

K.3. Establishment of registry

K.4. Purpose of PPSA

K.5. Coverage of PPSA; exceptions

K.6. Forms of security arrangements

K.7. Security interests in personal property.

K.8. Creation and continuity of security interest

K.9. Form of security agreement

K.10. Description of collateral

K.11. Movable collaterals

K.12. Security interest in general

K.13. Security interest in a future property

K.14. Security interests over right to proceeds and commingled funds

K.15. Security interest over tangible assets commingled in a mass

K.16. Security interest in certain accounts receivable

K.17. Extinguishment of security interest

K.18. Perfection and effectivity of security interest

K.19. Means of perfection of security interest in tangible assets

K.20. Means of perfection of security interest in intangible assets

K.21. Means of perfection of security interest in intermediated securities or deposit accounts

K.22. Means of perfection of security interest in electronic securities

K.23. Means of perfection of security interest in intermediated electronic securities

K.24. Control agreement; definition

K.25. Registry mandates

K.26. Sufficiency of notice

K.27. Identification of grantor

K.28. Authority to register initial notice

K.29. Date of registration of notice

K.30. Registration of notice of lien

K.31. Registration of single notice under 1 or more security agreements

K.32. Effectiveness of notice

K.33. Amendment of notice

K.34. Who may file amendment notice?

K.35. Amendment notice adding a collateral or grantor; effectivity

K.36. Registration of amendment notice containing assignment of security interest

K.37. Continuation of notice

K.38. Termination of effectiveness of a notice

K.39. Determination of priority of security interests and liens on same collateral

K.40. Enforcement with or without judicial process

K.41. Repossession of the collateral (without judicial process); breach of peace; removal of fixture

K.42. Repossession of the collateral (with judicial process); application for order of possession

K.43. Disposition of collateral; when commercially reasonable or unreasonable

K.44. Notification requirements prior to disposition; exceptions

K.45. Sufficiency of notification of disposition

K.46. Modes of service of notification

K.47. Extra-judicial and judicial dispositions of collateral

K.48. Posting and advertisement of extrajudicial; sale

K.49. Indicators of good faith and commercial reasonableness

K.50. Winning bidder to pay bid price after public auction

K.51. Government agency or private entity to undertake public auction; rules of auction

K.52. Sale where secured creditor may buy collateral

K.53. Conclusively presumption of commercial reasonableness of disposition

K.54. Right of redemption; by whom and when exercised

K.55. Application of proceeds of disposition

K.56. Proposal by secured creditor to debtor, grantor, et al, to take collateral as satisfaction of obligation

K.57. Instances when secured creditor may retain collateral

K.58. When proposal for retention of collateral deemed sufficient

L.1. Real estate mortgage; definition

NLRC, GR 82763-64. Mar. 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 328

L.2. Characteristics of real estate mortgage

L.3. Consideration of mortgage

L.4. Kinds of real estate mortgage

L.5. Objects of real estate mortgage

L.6. Essential requisites of real estate mortgage

L.7. Right of mortgagee to register contract of mortgage

v. Basa, GR 48695. Sep. 30, 1942, 73 Phil., 704

L.8. Effect of non-registration of mortgage

L.9. Possession of mortgaged property

v. People, GR 141931. Dec. 4, 2000, 346 SCRA 881

L.10. Nature of mortgage

v. Villar, GR 158891. June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 80

L.11. Extension of effects of real estate mortgage to accessions and accessories

, 58 Phil. 439

L.12. Alienation or assignment of mortgage credit to third person

1988, 157 SCRA 100

L.13. Effect of transfer of mortgaged property to third person

v. Santos, GR 49576, Nov. 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 53
. Inserto, GR L-56450. July 25, 1983, 123 SCRA 713

L.14. Stipulation prohibiting alienation of mortgaged property

130722. Dec. 9, 1999, 320 SCRA 405

L.15. Laws governing mortgage and its nuances

L.16. Foreclosure of real estate mortgage

L.17. Nature of foreclosure, power to foreclose

SCRA 326

L.18. JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE; CONTENTS OF COMPLAINT

L.19. Judgment on foreclosure; definition

L.20. Satisfaction of judgment on foreclosure

L.21. Foreclosure sale

L.22. Motion required to effect sale of mortgaged property

L.23. Basic requisites of foreclosure sale; notice and publication

Oct. 31, 1962, 6 SCRA 530

L.24. Posting and publication requirements

L.25. Purpose of the posting and publication of notice

AM P-97-1249, July 11, 1997, 275 SCRA 329

L.26. Effect of foreclosure sale and its confirmation

L.27. Right of redemption not recognized in a judicial foreclosure

L.28. Excepted entities; shorter redemption period for on same juridical persons

Alba Resort, Inc. v. CA, GR 128567, Sep. 1, 2000, 339 SCRA 534
., GR 222407. Nov. 23, 2016, 810 SCRA 409

L.29. Equity of redemption

L.30. Effect of final order of confirmation or lapse of redemption period; date of sale construed

L.31. Possessory right of purchaser at foreclosure sale; exception

L.32. Motion for confirmation of sale

L.33. Buyer in foreclosure sale becomes absolute owner of property purchased

v. Land Bank of the Phils., GR 174711, Sep. 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 611

L.34. Purchaser or last redemptioner may secure writ of possession

L.35. To whom amount realized from foreclosure sale should be paid

L.36. To whom balance or residue paid

L.37. Nature of application of proceeds from foreclosure sale; duty to return surplus

L.38. Effect of failure of mortgagee to deliver surplus proceeds on validity of foreclosure sale; recourse of mortgagor

L.39. When sale may terminate

L.40. When more property may be sold

L.41. When whole property instead of portions of it may be sold

L.42. Deficiency judgment; definition

Phils. v. IAC, GR 74730, Aug. 25, 1989, 176 SCRA 741

L.43. Plaintiff’s remedy in case of deficiency

L.44. When motion for deficiency judgment may be made

L.45. When execution for balance due to plaintiff may issue

L.46. Court order confirming sale to be registered with RD

L.47. Issuance of new certificate of title in purchaser’s name

L.48. Certificate of title in mortgagor’s name not cancelled in case of existence of right of redemption; memorandum

L.49. Procedure where property sold is redeemed or not redeemed

L.50. Application of certain provisions of Rule 39 to Rule 68 of the Rules of Court

L.51. EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE OF REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE; APPLICATION

L.52. Laws governing extrajudicial foreclosure

L.53. Essential requisites of extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage

L.54. Procedure for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage prescribed by Supreme Court

L.55. Right of creditor to take part in bidding

L.56. Right of redemption

Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Veloso, GR 141974. Aug. 9, 2004, 436 SCRA 1

L.57. Right of redemption distinguished from equity of redemption

L.58. Requisites for valid redemption

v. Yboa, GR L-42282. Feb. 28, 1983, 120 SCRA 869

L.59. Redemption price

SCRA 480

L.60. Tender of redemption price

2008, 569 SCRA 814
anking Corp. v. Mateo, GR 167420. June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 538

L.61. Effect of failure to redeem

v. CA, GR 80739. Aug. 20, 1992, 212 SCRA 700

L.62. Writ of possession pending redemption

L.63. Consolidation of title in favor of auction buyer

SCRA 795

L.64. Redemption vis-à-vis repurchase

Robles v. CA, GR 128053. June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 566

M.1. Antichresis; definition

v. CA, GR 46623. Mar. 4, 1994, 230 SCRA 699

M.2. Characteristics of antichresis

M.3. Delivery of the property to antichretic creditor

M.4. Antichretic creditor cannot appropriate property

M.5. Basis of application of fruits to interest and principal

M.6. Form of antichresis contract

M.7. Obligations of antichretic creditor

M.8. Debtor’s reacquisition of immovable; creditor’s right of retention

M.9. Remedy of creditor in case of nonpayment of debt on time

M.10. Stipulation allowing mortgagee to take possession of immovable upon foreclosure

1942, 73 Phil., 555

M.11. Interest in antichresis covered by MB Resolution No. 2224, as implemented by CBP Circular No. 905, Series of 1982

M.12. Applicability of certain Civil Code provisions to antichresis

N.1. System of concurrence and preference of credits; governing legal provisions

of the Code Commission, pp. 163-164

N.2. Kinds of credits

N.3. Extent of liability of debtor

N.4. Exempt property

N.5. What exempt present property comprises

N.6. What is embraced by future property?

N.7. Property in custodia legis and of public dominion

Odlin, GR 1372. Feb. 20, 1904, 3 Phil., 344
, 49 Phil. 52

N.8. Laws governing insolvency

N.9. Insolvency terms; definition

Mla. v. CA, GR L-35253, July 26, 1976, 72 SCRA 98

N.10. Exemption of conjugal partnership or absolute community assets

N.11. Rule when one of co-owners is insolvent debtor

CA, GR 76351, Oct. 29, 1993, 227 SCRA 472

N.12. Rule when property held in trust by insolvent debtor

N.13. General classes of credit

N.14. Preferred credits as to specific movables under Article 2241 repealed by RA 11057

N.15. Preferred credits as to specific immovables

N.16. Preferred credit status of vendor’s lien

N.17. Preference of credits applies only where concurrence of credits exists

SCRA 24

N.18. Nature of claims or credits in Article 2242

N.19. Two-tier order of preference

N.20. Article 2243 of Civil Code partly repealed

N.21. Article 2244 of Civil Code modified by Article 110 of Labor Code on priority for claims for unpaid wages and other monetary claims

N.22. Order of preference as to other properties of debtor

N.23. What the application of order of priority ensures

N.24. Ordinary creditor; common credits

N.25. Application of pro rata rule

19 SCRA 621

N.26. Order of preference of credits

N.27. Preference enjoyed by secured creditors over unsecured creditors

Commercial Banking Corp. v. IAC, GR 74851. Dec. 9, 1999, 320 SCRA 279

N.28. Preference enjoyed by secured creditors over specific mortgaged property

June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 465

N.29. Preference of credit and lien distinguished

N.30. Necessity of proceeding for prorating preferred credits

N.31. Excess after payment of preferred credits added to debtor’s free property

N.32. Rules on satisfaction of other credits

O.1. Rehabilitation and insolvency under FRIA

O.2. Coverage of and exclusions from FRIA

O.3. Applicability of FRIA

O.4. Rules of Procedure on Financial Rehabilitation

O.5. Rehabilitation; definition

O.6. Purpose of rehabilitation; distinguished from liquidation

O.7. What corporate rehabilitation envisages

of Communications v. Basic Polyprinters and Packaging Corp., GR 187581. Oct. 20, 2014, 738 SCRA 561
TC, Branch 51, City of Manila, GR 173846. Feb. 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 438

O.8. Insolvency and insolvent; definitions

O.9. Kinds of insolvent debtors

O.10. Rehabilitation proceedings; definition; purpose

224764. Apr. 24, 2017, 824 SCRA 125

O.11. Jurisdiction over rehabilitation proceedings

O.12. Jurisdiction over affected parties; how acquired

O.13. Commencement Order; issuance; contents

O.14. Effectivity of Commencement Order

Bank and Trust Company v. Liberty Corrugated Boxes Manufacturing Corp., Jan. 25, 2017, 815 SCRA 458

O.15. Purposes of rehabilitation proceedings

O.16. Ultimate and prime consideration in rehabilitation

O.17. Fundamental issues in corporate rehabilitation

O.18. Material financial commitment essential in rehabilitation

O.19. Nature of rehabilitation proceedings

165001, 31 Jan. 2007, 513 SCRA 601

O.20. Kinds of rehabilitation proceedings

O.21. Voluntary CSR proceedings

O.22. Rehabilitation Plan

O.23. Contents of Rehabilitation Plan

O.24. Rehabilitation receiver

O.25. Qualifications of rehabilitation receiver

O.26. Appointment of rehabilitation receiver

O.27. Management committee; appointment

O.28. Composition of management committee

O.29. Involuntary CSR proceedings

O.30. Procedure for voluntary and involuntary rehabilitation proceedings

O.31. Commencement Order; issuance; contents

O.32. Effectivity of Commencement Order

Bank and Trust Company v. Liberty Corrugated Boxes Manufacturing Corp., Jan. 25, 2017, 815 SCRA 458

O.33. PNR proceedings; petition; contents

O.34. Grounds for objection to petition or PNR Plan; service of copies of objection

O.35. Comments on petition

O.36. Hearing on objections and comments; when court may convert proceedings; effect when objection is not meritorious or is cured

O.37. Period for approval of PNR Plan

O.38. Approval and implementation of PNR Plan

O.39. Effect of approval of PNR Plan

O.40. OCRA; minimum requirements; effectivity

O.41. Standstill period; effectivity

O.42. Expiration of standstill period

O.43. Purpose of standstill period

O.44. Cram-down effect; effect of cram-down clause

Sarabia Manor Hotel Corp., GR 175844. July 29, 2013, 702 SCRA 432

O.45. Petition for court assistance; by whom filed

O.46. Finality of judgment in suit involving OCRA

O.47. Stay Order; issuance; coverage; effect; effectivity

O.48. Exceptions to Stay or Suspension Order

O.49. Effects of Stay Order

O.50. Actions and claims against debtor deemed suspended by Stay Order

GR 167768. Apr. 17, 2009, 586 SCRA 45
, GR 171681. Sep. 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 534

O.51. Objectives in insolvency and suspension of payments proceedings

O.52. Suspension of payments

O.53. Petition for suspension of payments

O.54. Court order for suspension of payments

O.55. Liquidation

O.56. Voluntary liquidation of insolvent juridical debtor

O.57. Petition for liquidation

O.58. Motion for liquidation in rehabilitation proceedings

O.59. When court may issue Liquidation Order

O.60. Voluntary liquidation of insolvent individual debtor; contents of petition; act of insolvency

O.61. Involuntary liquidation of insolvent juridical debtor; contents of petition

O.62. Motion to convert CSR or PNR proceedings into liquidation proceedings

O.63. Involuntary liquidation of insolvent individual debtor

O.64. Liquidation Order; contents

O.65. Effects of Liquidation Order

O.66. Liquidator; registry; liquidation plan

O.67. Duties of liquidator

O.68. Observance of rules of concurrence and preference of credits

P.1. Warehouse receipt; definition

P.2. Permissive nature of warehouse receipt

v. Go Tiong, GR L-11776, Aug. 30, 1958, 104 Phil. 492

P.3. Kinds of warehouse receipt

P.4. Negotiable warehouse receipt

P.5. Non-negotiable warehouse receipt

P.6. Governing law

P.7. Functions of warehouse receipt

Bros. & Sons, Inc. v. CA, GR L-110581. Sep. 21, 1994, 236 SCRA 617

P.8. Who may issue warehouse receipts?

P.9. What is a warehouse?

P.10. Form and essential terms of warehouse receipt

P.11. What terms may be inserted in warehouse receipt?

P.12. What terms and conditions may not be included in warehouse receipt

P.13. Effects of omission of essential term of warehouse receipt

P.14. Construction of warehouse receipts

P.15. Duplicate warehouse receipts and their markings

P.16. Liability of warehouseman

P.17. Effect of marking on face of warehouse receipt

P.18. Effect of failure to mark non-negotiable warehouse receipt

P.19. Principal obligations of warehouseman

P.20. Duty of warehousemen to deliver the goods

P.21. Effect of warehouseman’s refusal or failure to deliver the goods

P.22. Persons to whom goods must be delivered

P.23. Valid reasons for warehouseman to refuse to deliver goods

GR 129918, July 9, 1998, 292 SCRA 202

P.24. Offer to satisfy warehouseman’s lien

P.25. Offer to surrender negotiable receipt and sign acknowledgment of receipt of goods delivered

P.26. When delivery of goods may be compelled; exception

P.27. Effects of altered warehouse receipt

P.28. Liability for material and fraudulent alteration

P.29. Liability of warehouseman in case of lost or destroyed receipts; bond requirement

P.30. When warehouseman may be excused from liability to deliver the goods

P.31. Interpleader of adverse claimants

People’s Homesite & Housing Corp., GR L-25138. Aug. 28, 1969

P.32. When warehouseman is given reasonable time to determine validity of claims or compel claimants to interplead

P.33. Liability for non-existence or misdescription of goods

P.34. Liability for care of goods

P.35. Goods must be stored separate from each other; exception

P.36. Attachment or levy upon goods covered by negotiable warehouse receipt

P.37. Creditor’s remedy to reach negotiable warehouse receipt

P.38. Warehouseman’s lien; definition

P.39. Claims included in warehouseman’s lien

P.40. Remedies available to warehouseman to enforce his lien

P.41. Against what property may warehouseman’s lien be enforced?

P.42. How may warehouseman’s lien be lost?

Banking Corp. v. CA, GR 45961. July 3, 1990, 187 SCRA 138

P.43. Negotiable warehouse receipt must state charges for which warehouseman’s lien is claimed

P.44. Warehouseman need not deliver until lien is satisfied

P.45. Warehouseman’s lien does not preclude other remedies

P.46. Satisfaction of warehouseman’s lien by sale; notice; contents

P.47. Effect of sale of goods in satisfaction of warehouseman’s lien

P.48. Negotiation of negotiable warehouse receipts by delivery

P.49. Negotiation of negotiable warehouse receipts by indorsement

P.50. Transfer or indorsement of non-negotiable warehouse receipt

P.51. Who may negotiate a warehouse receipt?

P.52. Rights of person to whom warehouse receipt is negotiated

P.53. Rights of person to whom warehouse receipt is transferred

P.54. When title of transferee may be defeated

P.55. Transfer of negotiable warehouse receipt without indorsement; when negotiation takes effect

P.56. Warranties of sale of warehouse receipt

P.57. Indorser of warehouse receipt not deemed a guarantor

P.58. No warranty implied from accepting payment of debt secured by warehouse receipt

P.59. When negotiation of warehouse receipt not impaired by fraud, mistake, or duress

P.60. Effect of subsequent negotiation of warehouse receipt

P.61. Negotiation defeats vendor’s lien

P.62. Criminal offenses

Q.1. Trust receipt; definition

Q.2. What constitutes a trust receipt transaction?

Q.3. Contents of trust receipt

Q.4. Subjects of trust receipt transaction

Q.5. Obligations in trust receipt transaction

People, GR 173905, Apr. 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 291

Q.6. Parties in trust receipt transaction

Sec. of Justice, GR 164317, Feb. 6, 2006, 481 SCRA 609

Q.7. Is the seller of goods a party to trust receipt transaction?

Q.8. Obligation of entrustee for unsold articles

Q.9. Ownership of items subject of trust receipt

Q.10. Rights of entruster

Q.11. Discretion of entruster to cancel trust receipt and possess goods in case of entrustee’s default

Q.12. Disposition of proceeds of sale of articles

Q.13. When criminal and civil liabilities of entrustee extinguished

Q.14. Right of entruster to demand deficiency

Company (Phil.) Inc. v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co., GR 159622. July 30, 2004, 435 SCRA 639

Q.15. Obligations of entruster to entrustee

Q.16. Rights of entrustee

Q.17. Obligations of entrustee

Q.18. Alternative obligations of entrustee

Q.19. When intent to defraud is presumed

Q.20. Effects of entrustee’s breach of alternative obligations

Q.21. Failure of entrustee to turn over proceeds of sale or return goods punished as mala prohibitum

Bank v. Ong, GR 133176. Aug. 8, 2002, 387 SCRA 37

Q.22. Elements of estafa under Revised Penal Code, in relation to Trust Receipts Law

Q.23. Acquittal of entrustee not a bar to separate civil action

Q.24. To whom penalty is imposed where entrustee is a juridical entity; rationale

Q.25. Effects of entrustee’s compliance with obligations

Q.26. Transaction when return of goods not possible

Q.27. Nature of trust receipt transaction

Q.28. Trust receipt deemed a security transaction

Q.29. Purposes of Trust Receipts Law

Q.30. What Trust Receipts Law seeks to punish

Q.31. Civil law principles eschewed by Trust Receipts Law

Q.32. Loan and security features of trust receipt transaction

Q.33. What is a letter of credit in trust receipts transaction

, 443 SCRA 307

Q.34. What is security interest?

Q.35. Entruster not responsible on sale by entrustee

Q.36. Liability of entrustee for loss of articles

Q.37. Rights of innocent purchaser for value

Q.38. Validity of entruster’s security interest as against creditors

R.1. Letter of credit; definition

R.2. Governing laws and rules

R.3. Concept and nature of letter of credit

R.6. Correspondent, notifying, negotiating, and confirming banks

Corp., GR 183486. Feb. 24, 2016, 784 SCRA 659

R.7. Essential conditions of a letter of credit

R.8. Period of validity of letter of credit

R.9. Letters of credit compared with other accessory contracts; independence from main contract

R.10. Independence principle in law on letters of credit

R.11. Fraud exception; essential elements

R.12. Doctrine of strict compliance

R.13. Parties to a letter of credit

R.14. Other parties to a letter of credit

R.15. Letter of credit a contract with stipulation pour autrui

R.16. What a letter of credit is not

R.17. Irrevocable credit not synonymous with confirmed credit

SCRA 576

R.18. Different kinds of letters of credit

R.19. Red clause letter of credit

R.20. Evergreen letter of credit

S.1. Governing law

S.2. Parties to financing transaction under Truth in Lending Act

53623. Mar. 22, 1990, 183 SCRA 485

S.3. Information required to be given by creditor to debtor

S.4. Finance charge construed

S.5. Reason for prior disclosure requirement

S.6. Effect of failure of creditor to make written disclosure

S.7. Cases involving non-disclosure of required information

S.8. Liability for non-disclosure

S.9. Prescriptive period to file action

S.10. Penal provision

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »

COURSE SYLLABUS ON LAND TITLES AND DEEDS, SUMMER, AY 2021-2022, PUP COLLEGE OF LAW – ATTY. ALVIN CLARIDADES

by PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

COURSE SYLLABUS ON LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

ATTY. ALVIN T. CLARIDADES

Professor, PUP College of Law

Summer, AY 2021-2022

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Historical background of land registration in the Philippines
Adoption of Torrens system of land registration

Torrens system; reason for its adoption in the Philippines

Tenio-Obsequio v. CA, GR 107967, Mar. 1, 1994, 230 SCRA 550

Key features of the Torrens system and what it seeks to ensure

Quimson v. Suarez, GR No. 21381, Apr. 5, 1924, 45 Phil., 901
William H. Anderson and Co. v. Garcia, GR L-42897, July 27, 1937, 64 Phil., 506
Revilla v. Galindez, GR L-9940, Mar. 30, 1960, 107 Phil. 480

Torrens system does not confer but merely confirms title

Heirs of Doronio v. Heirs of Doronio, GR 169454, Dec. 27, 2007, 541 SCRA 479

Title and Certificate of Title; distinctions

Castillo v. Escutin, GR 171056, Mar. 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 258
Torbela v. Rasario, GR 140528, Dec. 7, 2011, 661 SCRA 633

Purpose of the Torrens system

Legarda Saleeby, GR L-8936, Oct. 2, 1915, 31 Phil. 590

Exception to the rule of quieting title to registered land

Angeles v. Sania, GR 44493, Nov. 3, 1938, 66 Phil. 444

Registration of land; a judicial proceeding and an action in rem

Grey Alba De la Cruz, GR 5246, Sept. 16, 1910, 17 Phil. 49

Effects of registration under the Torrens system

Advantages of the Torrens system

Manotok IV v. Barque, GR 162335 & 162605, Dec. 12, 2008, 477 SCRA 339

Rights of innocent third persons; public confidence in the Torrens certificate

Registration as the operative act that validates conveyance of land

Reynes v. Barrera, GR 46724, Sept. 30, 1939, 68 Phil. 656

Exceptions to the rule

Capitol Subdivision v. Province of Negros Occidental, GR L-16257, Jan. 31, 1963, 7 SCRA 60
State Investment House, Inc. v. CA, GR 115548, Mar. 05, 1996, 254 SCRA 368

Probative value of Torrens title

Ching v. CA, 1990, 181 SCRA 9
M. Tuazon & Co., Inc. v. CA, GR L-23480, Sept. 11, 1979, 93 SCRA 146
Ybañez v. IAC, GR 68291, Mar. 6, 1991, 194 SCRA 743

Mirror doctrine

Rufloe v. Burgos, GR 143573, Jan. 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 264
Peralta v. Abalon, GR 183448, June 30, 2014, 727 SCRA 477

Curtain principle

Republic v. CA, GR L-46626-27, Dec. 27, 1979, 94 SCRA 865

Exceptions to the doctrine or principle

Sandoval v. CA, GR 106657, Aug. 1, 1996, 260 SCRA 283
Regalian doctrine

Modes of acquiring ownership

Gonzalez v. Rojas, GR L-5449, Mar. 22, 1910, 16 Phil. 51

Tradition or delivery, not sale, is what transfers ownership

Ways of constructive delivery

Ownership rights over public lands; how acquired; exception

Cariño v. Insular Government, GR 72, Feb. 23, 1909, 41 Phil. 935; 212 U.S., 449; 53 Law. Ed., 594

“Time immemorial”

Regalian doctrine does not negate native title

Cariño v. Insular Government, GR 2746, Dec. 6, 1906, 7 Phil. 132
Kapunan, J., Sep. Op.: Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, GR 135385, Dec. 6, 2000, 347 SCRA 128

Bases for land title

Native title

Imperfect title; how acquired

Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, GR 179987, Apr. 29, 2009, 587 SCRA 172).

All lands of the public domain presumed to belong to the State

Republic v. Lao, GR 150413, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 291

Development of the Regalian doctrine

Cruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, GR 135385, Dec. 6, 2000, 347 SCRA 128

Ownership of reclaimed lands under the Regalian Doctrine

CHAPTER II. LAND TITLES

Public and private lands

Basic principles in land ownership

Public lands and private lands; distinctions

Properties of public dominion and patrimonial properties of the State

Property devoted to public use vis-à-vis property devoted to public service

Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, GR 133250, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA 152

Property of public dominion

Patrimonial property of the state susceptible to prescription

Kinds of acquisitive prescription

Possession in good faith and with
just title required in ordinary
acquisitive prescription

Santiago v. Cruz, GR 6276, Mar. 21, 1911, 19 Phil. 145

“Good faith” and “Just title”

Titong v. CA, GR 111141, Mar. 6, 1998, 287 SCRA 102

Computation of 30-year period

Tacking of possession; when allowed

Nenita Quality Foods Corp. v. Galabo, GR 174191, Jan. 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 569
South City Homes, Inc. v. Republic, GR 76564, May 25, 1990, 185 SCRA 693

Privity of contract

Public lands; how acquired; when grant is conclusively presumed

Padilla v. Reyes, GR L-37435, Nov. 28, 1934, 60 Phil. 967

State, through DENR, possesses
and exercises plenary powers to
determine who should be recipients of public land

Francisco v. Rodriguez, GR L-31083, Sept. 30, 1975, 67 SCRA 212

Classifications of public lands according to alienability under the Constitution

Agricultural lands according to use

Forest lands and national parks

Forest lands or reserves not
capable of private appropriation

Vano v. Government of Phil. Islands, GR 15656, Nov. 15, 1920, 41 Phil. 161

Land classification an exclusive prerogative of the executive
department

Bureau of Forestry v. CA, Aug. 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 351
Amunategui v. Director of Forestry, GR L-27873, Nov. 29, 1983, 126 SCRA 69

Classification descriptive of legal and not natural state of land

Alienable and disposable (A & D) land

Constitutional limitation on alienability of public land

Classes of A & D lands of the public domain

Director of Forestry v. Villareal, GR 32266, Feb. 27, 1989, 170 SCRA 598
Director of Lands v. CA, GR L-58867, June 22, 1984, 129 SCRA 689).

Sub-classification of A & D lands

A & D lands not subject to private ownership

Civil reservations

Military reservations

Foreshore land

Reclaimed land

Positive government act of reclassifying public land into A & D

Republic v. CA, GR 127060, Nov. 19, 2002, 392 SCRA 190

CENRO certification insufficient to prove A & D character of land

Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., GR 154953, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 477

What needs to be proved by the applicant

Republic v. Bautista Vda. De Joson, GR 163767, Mar. 10, 2014, 718 SCRA 228

When public land ipso jure ceases to be part of the public domain

Susi v. Razon, GR 24066, Dec. 9, 1925, 48 Phil. 424
Director of Lands v. IAC, GR L-73002, Dec. 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 509

Key provisions of the Public Land Act (CA 141) on the disposition of
A & D lands of the public domain

Concurring and Dissenting Op., Brion, J.: Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, GR 179987, Apr. 29, 2009, 587 SCRA 172

Possession required to support claim of title through prescription

Republic v. Bacas, GR 182913, Nov. 20, 2013, 710 SCRA 411

Rules on disposition of public land or lands of the public domain

Exceptions from the general rule that all lands of the public domain belong to the State and are inalienable

Republic v. IAC, GR L-75042, Nov. 29, 1988, 168 SCRA 165
Teehankee, J.: Dissenting op. in Manila Electric Co. v. Castro-Bartolome, GR L-49623, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 799

Private ownership of land; basic requisite in registration thereof

Director of Lands v. Agustin, GR L-16173, Oct. 6, 1921, 42 Phil. 227

Fee simple

Burden of proof rests on applicant for registration

Republic v. Bautista Vda. De Joson, GR 163767, Mar. 10, 2014, 718 SCRA 228
Republic v. Bantigue Point Development Corp., GR 162322, Mar. 14, 2012, 668 SCRA 158
Other modes of acquiring land titles
Private conveyance

(1) Accretion; requisites

Accretion distinguished from Alluvium; Riparian owner

Santulan v. Executive Secretary, GR L-28021, Dec. 15, 1977, 80 SCRA 548
Cortez v. City of Manila, GR L-4012, Mar. 25, 1908, 10 Phil. 567
Grande v. CA, GR L-17652, June 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 524

Reason for grant of preferential right to riparian owner

Dried-up river not an accretion

Republic v. Santos III, GR 160453, Nov. 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 51

Accretion not automatically registered in riparian owner’s name

Heirs of Narvasa, Sr. v. Imbornal, GR 182908, Aug. 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 171

Petition for registration of accretion equivalent to a request for confirmation of title already vested in the riparian owner

Fernandez v. Tañada, GR L-31673, June 30, 1971, 39 SCRA 662

Accretion from the sea not part of public domain

Ignacio v. Director of Lands, GR L-12958, May 30, 1960, 108 Phil. 335

(2) Involuntary alienation

(3) Hereditary succession

(4) Reclamation

The Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 provision on reclaimed lands

Reclaimed lands form part of lands of the public domain

Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 vis-à-vis subsequent laws

Reclamation does not amount to conversion of land to A & D

Instance when reclaimed submerged areas become A & D

(5) Native title

The concept of native title

Cruz v. Sec. of Environment and Natural Resources, GR 135385, Dec. 6, 2000, 347 SCRA 128

Possession since time immemorial

(6) Agrarian reform

Emancipation Patent and Certificate of Land Ownership Award

Qualifications of beneficiaries under PD 27 and RA 6657

Governing laws on land titling and registration

(1) Cadastral Act or Act No. 2259, as amended

Cadastral survey

Publication requirement jurisdictional

Director of Lands v. Benitez, GR L-21368, Mar. 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 557

Cadastral proceedings governed by the usual rules of practice, procedure and evidence; When cadastral decree and certificate issued

Tan Sing Pan v. Republic, GR 149114, July 21, 2006, 496 SCRA 189

Filing of answer with cadastral court corresponds to application for registration of land title

Judgment in a cadastral survey is a judicial act; decree binds all the world

Government of the Phil. Islands v. Abural, GR 14167, Aug. 14, 1919, 39 Phil. 996

(2) Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended

Presidential power to classify lands of the public domain

(3) Articles 708 to 711 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

Registration with the RD is what divests government of title

DBP v. CA, GR 109946, Feb. 9, 1996, 253 SCRA 414

Property of the public domain is incapable of registration

Morandarte v. CA, GR 123586, Aug. 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 213

(4) Property Registration Decree or Presidential Decree No. 1529

Citizenship requirements

Lands of the public domain can only be acquired by Filipino citizens

Private lands transferrable only to qualified individuals or entities

Borromeo v. Descallar, GR 159310, Feb. 24, 2009, 580 SCRA 175
Ong Ching Po v. CA, GR 113472-73, Dec. 20, 1994, 239 SCRA 341

Right of Filipino citizens to lease or own alienable public lands

Corporations prohibited from owning alienable public lands

Aliens not qualified from acquiring public and private lands; purpose
of the prohibition

Matthews v. Taylor, GR 164584, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 394

Natural-born citizen who lost Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands

Natural-born citizens

Transfer and involuntary sales

Foreign national may apply for registration of land acquired while still a Filipino citizen

Republic v. CA, GR 108998, Aug. 24, 1994, 235 SCRA 567

Laws governing land acquisition and ownership by former citizens

Limitations on land ownership by former natural-born Filipinos

Instances when aliens may acquire or buy lands in the Philippines

Capacity of aliens to acquire land determined based on citizenship at the time of acquisition

Land ownership by aliens; when permitted

City Treasurer of Makati v. BA Lepanto Condominium Corp., GR 154993, Oct. 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 258
Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc., GR 566, Sept. 25, 2008, 566 SCRA 333

Condominium

Land administration

Agencies involved in land
administration and management

Land administration functions shared by and among the agencies

Situs of executive power over disposition of public lands

DENR charged with responsibility over disposition of public lands

Espinosa v. Makalintal, GR L-1334, Aug. 29, 1947, 79 Phil. 134

Powers of Director of Lands assumed by DENR Secretary pursuant to EO 192

Bureau of Lands abolished and power of Director of Lands clipped

Authority of DENR to resolve conflicting claims of applicants

Power of DENR to promulgate rules and regulations

Quasi-judicial powers of DENR in disposition of public lands

Authoritativeness of decision of DENR on questions of fact and of law

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction; rationale

Decision of DENR entitled to great respect by courts

Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Inc. v. Medequillo, Jr., GR 177498, Jan. 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 291

Effect of decisions of quasi-judicial agencies such as DENR

Brillantes v. Castro, GR L-9223, June 30, 1956, 99 Phil. 497

Judicial review of decisions of DENR; exception to the rule

Ortua v. Encarnacion, GR 39919, Jan. 30, 1934, 59 Phil. 440

When judicial review of administrative findings of fact by DENR may be made

CHAPTER III.

PROPERTY REGISTRATION

GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE
LAND REGISTRATION CODE
(PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1529,
AS AMENDED)
Title of the governing law on land registration

Land registration

Registration does not correspond to title

Lee Tek Sheng v. CA, GR 115402, July 15, 1998, 292 SCRA 544
Sajonas v. CA, GR 102377, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 79
Republic v. CA, GR 116111, Jan. 21, 1999, 301 SCRA 366

Purposes of the Property or Land Registration Law

Benin v. Tuason, GR L-26127, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 531
Nature of registration proceedings

Jurisdiction of courts; in rem proceedings

Duty of court to furnish LRA with copies of papers and pleadings

Authority of RTCs to hear and determine all questions

Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, Inc. v. First Baptist Church, GR L-32621, July 29, 1987, 152 SCRA 393

Instances when cadastral or land
registration cases may be heard by first level courts; appellate jurisdiction

Distinction between RTC’s general and limited jurisdictions eliminated by PD 1529

Ligon v. CA, GR 107751, June 1, 1995, 244 SCRA 693

Land registration court (RTC) no longer restrained by its former
limited jurisdiction

Averia, Jr. v. Caguioa, GR L-65129, Dec. 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 459

Plenary jurisdiction of land registration court (RTC)

Benin v. Barque, GR 162335, Dec. 18, 2008

Purpose of the rule under Section 8 of PD 1529

Cavan v. Wislizenus, GR L-24768, Jan. 21, 1926, 48 Phil. 636

Systems of registration of real property or rights in the Philippines

Status of other pre-existing land registration systems

Discontinuation of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law

Registration for unregistered lands under Act 3344

Act 3344, the law on recording of deeds on unregistered lands

Sale registered under Act 3344 not deemed a constructive notice

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Tirol, GR 171535, June 5, 2009, 588 SCRA 635

Unregistered sale not binding on innocent third persons

Loss of certificate of title over registered land; effect and remedy

THE LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY AND ITS REGISTRIES OF DEEDS
The Land Registration Authority (LRA) and its mandate

History of the LRA and its precursor agencies

Cusi v. Domingo, GR 195825, Feb. 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 277
Officials of the LRA

The LRA Administrator and Deputy Administrators

Qualifications of the Administrator and Deputy Administrators

Duties of the LRA Administrator

General functions of the LRA

Ministerial duty of LRA to issue
decrees of registration with obligation to seek clarification from the court when in doubt

Rodriguez v. CA, GR 184589, June 13, 2013, 698 SCRA 352
Official station and jurisdiction of the Register of Deeds
Appointment of RDs
Qualifications of RDs and Deputy RDs
General functions of RDs; RDs as repository of records of deeds affecting lands

Function of RD ministerial in nature

Baranda v. Gustilo, GR L-81163, Sept. 26, 1988, 165 SCRA 757

RD not duty-bound to determine validity of a document for purposes of registration

Gabriel v. RD of Rizal, GR L-17956, Sept. 30, 1953, 9 SCRA 136
Gurbax Singh Pabla & Co. v. Reyes, GR L-3970, Oct. 29, 1952, 92 Phil. 182

RD has no power to determine validity of document

Almirol v. The RD of Agusan, GR L-22486, Mar. 20, 1968, 22 SCRA 1152

Instances when the RD may validly refuse registration of voluntary
instruments and private documents

Balbin v. Register of Deed of Ilocos Sur, GR L-20611, May 8, 1969, 28 SCRA 12
Gallardo v. IAC, GR L-67742, Oct. 29, 1987, 155 SCRA 248
Discharge of duties of RD in case of vacancy
Index system and cards with the names of all registered owners
Chief Geodetic Engineer as technical adviser of LRA

III. ORIGINAL LAND REGISTRATION

3.1 ORDINARY LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

APPLICATIONS FOR LAND REGISTRATION

Application for registration of title to land; Who may apply

Filing by a single applicant or multiple applicants

Single application for two (2) parcels of land; misjoinder

Republic v. Herbieto, GR 156117, May 26, 2005, 459 SCRA 183

Joint application of all co-owners

Vendor a retro may file application

Montiero v. Salgado, GR L-7287, Mar. 29, 1913, 27 Phil. 631

Trustee may apply in representation of his principal

Requirements for land registration (judicial titling)

Technical description

Lands subject to initial registration

Kinds of registrable private lands

Director of Forestry v. Muñoz, GR L-24796, June 28, 1968, 23 SCRA 1183

Lands not subject to registration

Second decree for the same land void; res judicata

Rojas v. City of Tagaytay, 106 Phil., 512; 60 Off. Gaz., 820

Proceeding in rem requiring
constructive seizure by publication

Director of Lands v. CA, GR 102858. July 28, 1997, 276 SCRA 276
Republic v. CA, GR 113549, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 223

Instance when more certificates are issued over the same land

Margolles v. CA, GR 109490, Feb. 14, 1994, 230 SCRA 97
Heirs of Lopez v. De Castro, GR 112905, Feb. 3, 2000, 324 SCRA 591

Public land; how acquired by private persons

Padilla v. Reyes, GR 37435. Nov. 28, 1934, 60 Phil 967
Lee Hong Hok v. David, GR L-30389, Dec. 27, 1972, 48 SCRA 372

Classification and disposition of lands of the public domain

A & D lands of the public domain

Fortuna v. Republic, GR 173423, Mar. 5, 2014, 718 SCRA 35

Public Land Act (CA 141) a special law on public lands

De Guzman v. CA, GR 132257, Oct. 12, 1998, 297 SCRA 743

Legal modes of disposing of public lands

Friar lands not part of public lands; definition

Contract to sell and delivery of certificate of sale of friar land

Manotok IV v. Heirs of Barque, GR 162335 & 162605, Aug. 24, 2010, 628 SCRA 668

(1) Homestead settlement

Homestead

Qualifications for homestead

Republic v. CA, GR L-42856, Jan. 27, 1981, 102 SCRA 331

Married woman not allowed to have homestead; exceptions

Homestead patent a mode of acquiring title to public lands

Application requirements for homestead patents

Procedure for homestead patent application

Signing and approving authority

Sale of homestead within 5-year prohibited period deemed void

Manzano v. Ocampo, GR L-14778, Feb. 28, 1961, 1 SCRA 691

Law does not distinguish between executory and consummated sales

When a perfected homestead is deemed a property right

Balboa v. Farrales, GR L-27059, Feb. 14, 1928, 51 Phil. 498

Certificate of title issued on the strength of a patent indefeasible one (1) year after issuance

Ramirez v. CA, GR L-28591, Oct. 31, 1969, 30 SCRA 297

Indefeasibility of a homestead patent; exception

Ybañez v. IAC, GR 68291, Mar. 6, 1991, 194 SCRA 743

(2) Sale of agricultural land via Sales Patent; requisites

(3) Lease of residential, commercial and industrial land

Private corporations or associations may only lease public lands;
exception

Director of Lands v. IAC, GR 73002, Dec. 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 509

Filipino citizens may also lease or acquire public lands

(4) Confirmation of imperfect or incomplete titles; judicial and administrative

(a) Judicial legalization or confirmation

Martinez v. CA, GR 170409, Jan. 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 604

Repeal of Section 47 of CA 141 by RA 11573

Acquisition and registration by private person of public land

Section 14(1) of PD 1529 in relation to Section 48(b) of CA 141

Section 48(b) of CA 141 distinguished from Section 14(1) of PD 1529

Judicial confirmation of imperfect title; when application therefore
becomes a mere formality

Herico v. DAR, GR L-23265, Jan. 28, 1980, 95 SCRA 437
Martinez v. CA, GR 170409, Jan. 28, 2008, 542 SCRA 604

What must be proved by applicants for registration

Additional proof or evidence

All requisites must be complied with

Republic v. Bantigue Point Development Corp., GR 162322, Mar. 14, 2012, 668 SCRA 158

Proof that the land applied for is declassified from forest or timber zone to A & D property

Burden of proving positive act of government declassifying the land rests on the applicant

What constitutes positive act of the government

Secretary of DENR v. Yap, GR 167707, Oct. 8, 2008, 589 Phil. 156

Survey by a geodetic engineer not a positive act of government

Menguito v. Republic, GR 134308, Dec. 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 128

Declaration by the President or DENR Secretary a positive act

CENRO certification not enough

Republic v. Hanover Worldwide Trading Corp., GR 172102, July 2, 2010, 662 SCRA 730

Evidence required to establish A & D character of land

Republic v. Santos, GR 191516, June 4, 2014, 724 SCRA 660

Occupation for 20 years or more not sufficient by itself

Republic v. Tsai, GR 168184, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 423

Period of possession required sto acquire land through judicial conformation

“Agricultural lands” under CA 141 vis-a-vis “A & D lands of the public domain” under PD 1529

Length of the requisite possession amended by PD 1073

Vested rights cannot be impaired by PD 1073

Balboa v. Farrales, GR L-27059, Feb. 14, 1928, 51 Phil. 498

Possession construed

See Republic v. Gielczyk, GR 179990, Oct. 23, 2013, 708 SCRA 433

Possession and occupation not synonymous

Republic v. East Silverlane Realty Development Corp., GR 186961, Feb. 20, 2012, 666 SCRA 401

Required character of possession under Sec. 14(1) of PD 1529

Heirs of Arzadon-Crisologo v. Rañon, GR 171068, Sept. 5, 2007, 559 Phil. 169

Mere casual cultivation does not constitute possession under claim
of ownership

Republic v. Vera, GR L-35778, Jan. 27, 1983, 120 SCRA 21

What the June 12, 1945 reckoning point refers to

Significance of Section 14(2) of PD 1529

Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of PD 1529 distinguished

Prescription not a mode of acquiring public land under CA 141 but one such mode under PD 1529

Property of public dominion and patrimonial property

When lands of the public domain become patrimonial property

Republic v. Aboitiz, GR 174626, Oct. 23, 2013, 798 SCRA 388

Ownership of patrimonial property; how acquired

Republic v. Metro Index Realty and Development Corp., GR 198585, July 2, 2012, 675 SCRA 439

Disposition of patrimonial property

Sale or lease of patrimonial property under Act No. 3038 (IGPSA)

Navy Officers’ Village Association, Inc. (NOVAI) v. Republic, GR 177168, Aug. 03, 2015

Kinds of acquisitive prescription for acquisition of patrimonial property

Express declaration by the State needed for prescription to begin

Period of possession to be reckoned only from the time of classification of land as patrimonial property

Republic v. Rizalvo, GR 172011, Mar. 7, 2011, 644 SCRA 516

Nature of possession required for purposes of prescription

Burden of proving possession

The Director, Land Management Bureau v. CA, GR 112567, February 7, 2000, 324 SCRA 757
Arbias v. Republic, GR 173808, Sept. 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 582

Tax declarations not competent evidence of actual possession

Wee v. Republic, GR 177384, Dec. 8, 2009, 608 SCRA 72

Proof of actual possession must accompany claim of ownership based on tax declaration

Tax declarations good indicators of possession

Ganila v. CA, GR 150755, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 435
Deiparine v. CA, GR 111257, Dec. 4, 1998, 221 SCRA 503

(b) Administrative legalization or free patent

Free patent

Qualifications of an applicant for free patent

Natural-born citizen

Requirement reduced to “Filipino citizens”

Effects of the amendment introduced by RA 11573

Burden of proving “private rights;” reason for 30-year period

Gordula v. CA, GR 127296, Jan. 22, 1998, 284 SCRA 617

Procedures for application and grant of free patent

Right of a holder of land under free patent; right to repurchase

Cabacug v. Lao, GR L-27036, Nov. 26, 1970, 36 SCRA 92

When free patent title is ipso facto cancelled and rendered void

Azarcon v. Vallarta, GR L-43679, Oct. 28, 1980, 100 SCRA 450).

Instance when free patent vests no title on patentee

Ramos v. Obligado, GR 46548. June 21, 1940, 70 Phil. 86

When rule on indefeasibility does not apply to free patents

Republic v. Animus, GR L-37682, Mar. 29, 1974,56 SCRA 499

(5) Townsite Reservations

(6) Direct sale of residential lands under RA 730 via MSA

Miscellaneous Sales Application (MSA)

Basic conditions of the MSA

Maximum area to be granted to an applicant

Restrictions on alienation removed by PD 2004

Persons qualified to apply for MSA

Requirements in the filing of application

Procedure in acquiring an MSA

(7) Residential Free Patent under RA 10023

Qualifications of beneficiaries

Coverage

Zoning at the time of filing of application to be considered

Removal of restrictions

Form and contents of the application

(8) Appointment of agent or representative of non-resident applicant; substitution

(9) Jurisdiction lies with the RTC where the land is situated

Muniment of title

When submission to court of approved survey plan or
blueprint copy may suffice

Republic v. Guinto-Aldana, GR 175578, Aug. 11, 2010, 628 SCRA 210
Republic v. CA, GR L-62680, Nov. 9, 1988, 167 SCRA 150
Recto v. Republic, GR 160421, Oct. 4, 2004, 440 SCRA 79
Republic v. Hubilla, GR 157683. Feb. 11, 2005, 451 SCRA 181

Survey plan

Purpose of survey plan

Director of Lands V. CA, GR L-25723, June 29, 1984

Metes and bounds of property is what defines it

Balantakbo v. CA, GR 108515, Oct. 16, 1995, 249 SCRA 323
Romero, Sr. v. CA, GR L-29659, July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 172

Metes and bounds

Note on survey plan not deemed evidence to prove private title

Republic v. Espinosa, GR 171514, July 18, 2012, 677 SCRA 92
Republic v. Sarmiento, GR 169397, Mar. 13, 2007, 518 SCRA 250

(10) Where application covers 2 or more parcels

Republic v. Herbieto, GR 156117, May 26, 2005, 459 SCRA 183

(11). Amendments to the application

(12) When land applied for borders on road

(13) Requirement of additional facts and papers; ocular inspection

Court may require certain documents or reports to verify title

SM Prime Holdings, Inc. v. Madayag, GR 164687, Feb. 12, 2009, 578 SCRA 552
Carvajal v. CA, GR 98328, Oct. 9, 1997, 345 Phil. 582

Ocular inspection not mandatory

(14) Dealings with land pending original registration

Procedure in case property is conveyed during registration

Government of the Phils. v. Abad, GR L-8317, May 23, 1958, 103 Phil. 725

Application for registration need not be amended; requisites

Mendoza v. CA, GR L-36637, July 14, 1978, 84 SCRA 67
PUBLICATION, OPPOSITION AND DEFAULT
Notice of initial hearing, publication

(1) By publication

(2) By mailing

(3) By posting

Notice of initial hearing; format

Notice of the initial hearing jurisdictional

Po v. Republic, GR L-27443, July 19, 1971, 40 SCRA 37

Purpose of publication requirement

Republic v. CA, GR 100995, Sept. 14, 1994, 236 SCRA 442

Effect of belated publication

Effect on non-publication in a
newspaper of general circulation

Director of Lands v. CA, GR 102858, July 28, 1997, 276 SCRA 276

Rationale for mandatory publication requirement

What constitutes defective notice

Fewkes v. Vasquez, GR L-29075, June 10, 1971, 39 SCRA 514
All requirements must be complied with
Republic v. Marasigan, GR 85515, June 6, 1991, 198 SCRA 219

Proof of publication and notice

Opposition to application in ordinary proceedings

When submission of approved subdivision plan may be required

Oppositor should only appear to have an interest in the property

Archbishop of Manila v. Barrio of Sto. Cristo, GR L-12981, Nov. 6, 1918, 39 Phil. 1

Effect of absence of opposition

Director of Lands v. Agustin, GR 16179, Oct. 6, 1921, 42 Phil. 227
Order of default and its effect

Effect of an order of default to the defendant

C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. CA, GR L-54040, Aug. 14, 1990, 188 Phil. 579

Defendant declared in default may still appeal from the judgment by
default but on limited grounds

Grounds for appeal by party declared in default

Martinez v. Republic, GR 160895, Oct. 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 134
Arquero v. CA, GR 168053, Sept. 21, 2011, 658 SCRA 70

Order of general default deemed issued in land registration cases

Heirs of Lopez, Sr. v. Enriquez, GR 146262, Jan. 21, 2005, 449 SCRA 173

Motion to lift of the Order of default; proper party and procedure

Estiva v. Alvero, GR 11887, Jan. 28, 1918, 37 Phil. 498

Failure of oppositor who filed
answer to appear in initial hearing
not a ground for default

Director of Lands v. Santiago, GR L-41278, Apr. 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 186

Appeal not an ample remedy for party unlawfully declared in default

Omico Mining and Industrial Corp. v. Vallejos, GR L-38974, Mar. 25, 1975, 63 SCRA 285
HEARING JUDGMENT AND DECREE OF REGISTRATION
Speedy proceedings; Reference to a referee
Partial judgment

When judgment should be rendered by the court

Ramos v. Rodriguez, GR 94033, May 29, 1995, 244 SCRA 418

Duty of LRA to render reports may extend after finality of court’s judgment

Gomez v. CA, GR 77770, Dec. 15, 1988, 168 SCRA 491

Court’s duty where there is an adverse claimant or none

Tirona v. Nañawa, GR L-22107, Sept. 30, 1967, 21 SCRA 395

Remedies before judgment becomes final

(a) Motion for reconsideration; grounds

Effect of denial of the motion for reconsideration

Neypes v. CA, GR 141524, Sept. 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633

“Fresh period” or the “Neypes rule”

Neypes rule does not apply to non-appealable orders

Effect of grant of the motion for reconsideration

Esquivel v. Alegre, GR 79425, Apr. 17, 1989, 172 SCRA 315

Court action when issues in a motion for reconsideration are severable

Remedy when motion for reconsideration is denied; second motion barred

Remedy from an order denying a motion for new trial

(b) Motion for new trial; grounds

Requisites of newly-discovered evidence

When to file a motion for new trial

Destileria Limtuaco v. CA, GR L-63053, July 22, 1986, 143 SCRA 92

Effect of denial of a motion for new trial

Francisco v. Puno, 108 SCRA 427

Effect of grant of a motion for new trial

Modes of appeal

Issues to be raised on appeal

Period for filing an appeal

Right to appeal a mere statutory privilege

Stolt-Nielsen v. NLRC, GR 147623, Dec. 13, 2005, 477 SCRA 516
Association of Integrated Security Force of Bislig-ALU v. CA, GR 140150, Aug. 22, 2005, 467 SCRA 483

Judgments or orders from which appeals may be taken

When does judgment become final

Duty to cause issuance of decree of registration

Final judgment constitutes res judicata against the whole world

Ting v. Heirs of Lirio, GR 168913, Mar. 14, 2007, 518 SCRA 334

Res judicata

Requisites for res judicata to serve as absolute bar to new action

Land title not finally adjudicated until after the lapse of one (1) year from issuance of decree of registration

Laburada v. LRA, GR 101387, Mar. 11, 1998, 287 SCRA 333

Remedies after judgment becomes final

(a) Reliefs from judgments, orders and other proceedings

Trust International Paper Corp. v. Pelaez, GR 164871, Aug. 22, 2006, 499 SCRA 552

Provisional remedy available to preserve the rights of the parties

Grounds for petition for relief from judgment

Time to file petition

Affidavits to be annexed to the petition

Petition for relief from judgment; when allowed

Dela Cruz v. Andres, GR 161864, Apr. 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 585

(b) Annulment of judgments, or final orders and resolutions; grounds

Diona v. Balangue, GR 173559, Jan. 7, 2013, 688 SCRA 22

Ground for annulment of judgment

Annulment of judgment; when available

Periods to file action

Galicia v. Manliquez, GR 155785, Apr. 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 85

Annulment of judgment an independent remedy

Bulawan v. Aquende, GR 182819, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 585

When extrinsic fraud not a valid ground for annulment of judgment

Lack of jurisdiction as ground for annulment of judgment

Lack of jurisdiction

Effects of annulment of judgment

Writ of certiorari; when and for what purpose issued

Land Bank of the Phils. v. CA, GR 129368, Aug. 25, 2003, 409 SCRA 455

Requisites for availment of remedy of certiorari

(d) Petition for reopening and review of the decree of registration

Petition under Section 32 of PD 1529; when and by whom filed

Gomez v. CA, GR 77770, Dec. 15, 1988, 168 SCRA 491

Petition for review must be by motion in same proceeding where decree was issued

Baldoz v. Papa, GR L-18150, July 30, 1965, 14 SCRA 691

Elements for allowance of reopening or review of decree

Libudan v. Gil, GR L-21163, May 17, 1972, 45 SCRA 17

Petitioner or movant need not be original claimant

Salva v. Salvador, 18 Phil. 193)
Reyes v. City of Manila, 38 Phil. 350
v. Ybañez, GR L-6103, Apr. 17, 1953, 92 Phil. 911

Purpose in giving aggrieved parties a chance to review the decree

Rublico v. Orellana, GR L-26582, Nov. 28, 1969, 30 SCRA 511

Only those fraudulently deprived of their opportunity to be heard in the original registration case may file petition for review

Crisolo v. CA, GR L-33093, Dec. 29, 1975, 68 SCRA 435.

Petition may be filed any time after rendition of court’s decision

Rivera v. Moran, GR L-24568, Mar. 2, 1926, 48 Phil. 836
Decree of registration; contents

Decree conclusive against all persons

Period when court may reopen proceedings; Ground for review

Lopez v. Padilla, GR L-27559, May 18, 1972, 45 SCRA 44
Review of decree of registration; when decree no longer reviewable

Review of decree of registration under the jurisdiction of the RTC

Title deemed not finally adjudicated before entry of decree and lapse of one (1) year from its entry by the LRA

Gomez v. CA, GR 77770, Dec. 15, 1988, 168 SCRA 491

Innocent purchaser for value (IPV), buyer in good faith

Yared v. Tiongco, GR 161360, Oct. 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 545
de Recinto v. Inciong, GR L-26083, May 31, 1977, 77 SCRA 196

Protection accorded by law to an IPV

Peralta v. Abalon, GR 183448, June 30, 2014, 727 SCRA 477

Buyer in bad faith not protected by registration of sale

Lu v. Manipon, GR 147072, May 7, 2002, 381 SCRA 788

Holder in bad faith of certificate of title not protected by law; case of double sale

Baricuatro Jr. v. CA, GR 105902, Feb. 9, 2000, 325 SCRA 137

Governing principle in double sale

Olivares v. Gonzales, GR L-34500, Mar. 18, 1988, 159 SCRA 33
Astorga v. CA, GR 58530, Dec. 26, 1984, 133 SCRA 748
Cruz v. Cabana, GR 56232, June 22, 1984; 129 SCRA 656

Forged deed does not divest registered owner of title

Soliven v. Francisco, GR L-48974, Nov. 29, 1989, 170 SCRA 218

Forged deed may be the root of a valid title

Lim v. Chuatoco, GR 161861, Mar. 11, 2005, 453 SCRA 308

Period from issuance of decree to question its validity

Indefeasibility of decree of registration

Javier v. CA, GR 101177, Mar. 28, 1994, 231 SCRA 498
Eduarte v. CA, GR 105944, Feb. 9, 1996, 323 Phil. 462

Rationale for the rule on indefeasibility of title

Borbajo v. Hidden View Homeowners, Inc., GR 152440, Jan. 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 315
Ingusan v. Heirs of Reyes, GR 142938, Aug. 28, 2007, 531 SCRA 315

Instance when the rule on indefeasibility will not apply

Ferrer v. Bautista, GR 46963, Mar. 14, 1994, 231 SCRA 257

Void certificate of title

Heirs of Simplicio Santiago v. Heirs of Mariano Santiago, GR 151440, June 17, 2003, 404 SCRA 193
Republic v. Reyes, GR L-30263-5, Oct. 3, 1987, 155 SCRA 313

Rule on indefeasibility applies also to homestead and free patents

Iglesia ni Cristo v. CFI of Nueva Ecija, GR L-35273, July 25, 1983, 123 SCRA 516
Sumail v. Judge of the CFI of Cotabato, GR L-8278, Apr. 30, 1955, 96 Phil. 946

Requisites for the availment of the remedy of petition for review

Serna v. CA, GR 124605, June 18, 1999, 308 SCRA 527

Finality an essential feature of a Torrens certificate of title

Broce v. Apurado, GR 8416, Jan. 27, 1914, 26 Phil. 581

One-year period starts to run from the date of entry of decree

Gomez v. CA, GR 77770, Dec. 15, 1988, 168 SCRA 491

Petition may already be filed after rendition of court’s decision

Rivera v. Moran, GR 24568, Mar. 2, 1926, 48 Phil. 836.

One-year period reckoned not from court’s decision but from issuance of decree by the LRA Administrator

Ramos v. Rodriguez, GR 94033, May 29, 1995, 244 SCRA 418

Petition for review under Section 32 of PD 1529 separate and distinct from Motion for new trial

Deprivation must be through actual or extrinsic fraud

Manila v. Abila, GR L-26781, Feb. 28, 1977, 75 SCRA 267

Actual and constructive fraud

Heirs of Roxas v. CA, GR 118436, Mar. 21, 1997, 270 SCRA 309

Extrinsic and intrinsic fraud

Section 32 of PD 1529 considers only extrinsic or collateral fraud

Director of Lands v. CFI of Rizal, GR L-31681, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 487
Republic v. Guerrero, GR 133168, Mar. 28, 2006, 485 SCRA 424

Inquiry into intrinsic fraud barred after judgment

Frias v. Esquivel, GR L-17366, July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 770
Tichangco v. Enriquez, GR 150629, June 30, 2004, 433 SCRA 324

Remedies available after the one-year contestability period

(a) Action for damages

Moral and exemplary damages where a person committed fraud in obtaining title

Valenzuela v. Sps. Mano, GR 172611, July 9, 2010, 624 SCRA 664

(b) Action for reconveyance

Reconveyance

Kapunan, J.: Separate, Concurring and Dissenting Op. in Legarda v. CA, GR 94457, Oct. 16, 1997, 280 SCRA 642
Lacorte v. CA, GR 124574, Feb. 2, 1998, 286 SCRA 24

Transfer of title wrongfully registered is what is sought in an action for
reconveyance

Pasio v. Monterroyo, GR 159494, July 31, 2008, 560 SCRA 739

Action for reconveyance governed by Article 434 of Civil Code

Hutchison v. Buscas, GR 158554, May 26, 2005, 459 SCRA 214

Requirements that must concur to warrant reconveyance of land

New Regent Sources, Inc. v. Tanjuatco, Jr., GR 168800, Apr. 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 329

Action for reconveyance may be barred by prescription

Reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes in 10 years

Walstrom v. Mapa, Jr., GR L-38387, Jan. 29, 1990, 181 SCRA 431

Exception to 10-year prescriptive period

Heirs of Valientes v. Ramas, GR 157852, Dec. 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 444

Possession must be in the concept of an owner

Tan v. CA, GR 125861, Sept. 9, 1998, 295 SCRA 247

Essential condition for resort to action for reconveyance

Lucena v. CA, GR L-77468, Aug. 25, 1999, 313 SCRA 47

Right of innocent mortgagee for value

Rural Bank of Sariaya, Inc. v. Yacon, GR L-78011, July 5, 1989, 175 SCRA 62

What constitutes fraud that would give ground for reconveyance

National Grains Authority v. IAC, GR 68741, Jan. 28, 1988, 157 SCRA 380

When action for reconveyance may be barred by laches

Declaro v. CA, GR 119747, Nov. 27, 2000, 346 SCRA 57).
Po Lam v. CA, GR 116220, Dec. 6, 2000, 347 SCRA 86

Laches

Nature of action for reconveyance based on a fictitious deed

PNB v. Heirs of Militar, GR 164801, Aug. 18, 2005, 467 SCRA 377

Twin reliefs sought in action for reconveyance

Linzag v. CA, GR 122181, June 26, 1998, 291 SCRA 304

Action for reconveyance not aimed
at reopening registration proceeding

Quiniano v. CA, GR L-23024, May 31, 1971, 39 SCRA 221
Rodriguez v. Toreno, GR L-29596, Oct. 14, 1977, 76 SCRA 356

Remedy of owner deprived of his land when reconveyance is no
longer available

Delos Reyes v. CA, GR 121468, Jan. 27, 1998, 285 SCRA 81

Action for compensation from Assurance Fund; when filed

Heirs of Roxas v. Garcia, GR 146208, Aug. 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 253

Purpose of the Assurance Fund

Loewenstein v. Page, GR L-5599, Mar. 22, 1910, 16 Phil. 84

Suppletory application of the Rules of Court

Other remedies

(a) Cancellation of title

Action for declaration of nullity of free patent and certificate of title; real party in interest

Heirs of Kionisala v. Heirs of Dacut, GR 147370, Feb. 27, 2002, 378 SCRA 206

Grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of title

Republic v. Mangotara, GR 170375, 170505 & 173355-56, July 7, 2010, 624 SCRA 360
Quinsay v. IAC, GR 67935, Mar. 18, 1991, 195 SCRA 268

(b) Reversion under Section 101 of CA 141

Reversion

Republic v. Roxas, GR 157988, Dec. 11, 2013
Yujuico v. Republic, GR 168661, Oct. 26, 2007, 537 SCRA 513

Objective of reversion suit

Cawis v. Cerilles, GR 170207, Apr. 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 357

Action for reversion; where proper

Instances when remedy of reversion may be resorted to

Republic v. Heirs of Alejaga, Sr., GR 146030, Dec. 3, 2002, 393 SCRA 361
Republic v. Guerrero, GR 133168, Mar. 28, 2006, 485 SCRA 424
Republic v. Roxas, GR 157988,. Dec. 11, 2013

Only the State can institute reversion proceedings

Cawis v. Cerilles, GR 170207, Apr. 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 357

Instance when certificate of title may be cancelled and property
subject thereof reverted to the
government

Garingan v. Garingan, GR 144095, Apr. 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 480

Public land fraudulently included in patents subject of reversion

Reyes v. CA, GR 94524, Sept. 10, 1998, 295 SCRA 296

Action for reversion distinguished from action for declaration of nullity
of free patent and certificate of title

Gabila v. Barriga, GR L-28917, Sept. 30, 1971, 41 SCRA 131
Heirs of Kionisala v. Heirs of Dacut, GR 147370, Feb. 27, 2002, 378 SCRA 206

Real party in interest in reversion proceedings

Heirs of Toring v. Heirs of Boquilaga, GR 163610, Sept. 27, 2010

Action to quiet title a suit quasi in rem

Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc. v. IAC, GR L-67451, Sept. 28, 1987, 154 SCRA 328
Foster-Gallego v. Galang, GR 130228, July 27, 2004, 435 SCRA 275

Twin requisites for quieting of title

Eland Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, GR 173289, Feb. 17, 2010, 613 SCRA 66

Proper party in an action to quiet title

Chacon Enterprises v. CA, GR L-46418-19, Sept. 29, 1983, 124 SCRA 784
Portic v. Cristobal, GR 156171, Apr. 22, 2005, 496 Phil. 456

Suit to quiet title to property occupied by plaintiff does not prescribe

Faja v. CA, GR L-45045, Feb. 28, 1977, 75 SCRA 441

(d) Criminal action for perjury

Perjury

Elements of perjury

Diaz v. People, GR 65006, Oct. 31, 1990, 191 SCRA 86

3.2 CADASTRAL REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

ORDER FOR SPEEDY SETTLEMENT AND ADJUDICATION, SURVEY AND NOTICES

Nature of cadastral proceeding

Republic v. Vera, GR L-35778, Jan. 27, 1983, 120 SCRA 210
Republic v. Estenzo, GR L-35376, Sept. 11, 1980, 99 SCRA 651
De la Merced v. CA, GR L-17757, May 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 240

Subject matter of cadastral proceedings

Government of the Phil. Islands v. Municipality of Binalonan, GR 8243, Dec. 24, 1915, 32 Phil. 634

Limited jurisdiction of cadastral court over registered lands

Pamintuan v. San Agustin, GR L-17943, June 22, 1922, 43 Phil. 558

Cadastral survey to identify lots prior to proceedings in court

Director of Lands v. CA, GR L-58867, June 22, 1984, 129 SCRA 689

A.1 Cadastral survey preparatory to filing of petition

Submission of survey plan

Director of Lands v. Reyes, GR L-27594, Nov. 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 177
Republic v. Vera, GR L-35778, Jan. 27, 1983, 120 SCRA 210

Survey plan not evidence of title

Director of Lands v. Heirs of Carolino, GR L-61598, Dec. 12, 1985, 140 SCRA 396
Fernandez v. Aboratigue, GR L-25313, Dec. 28, 1970, 36 SCRA 476
PETITION; LOT NUMBERS

B.1 Petition for registration

Contents of the petition

Purpose of requiring technical description in the notice

Viewmaster Construction Corp. v. Maulit, GR 136283, Feb. 29, 2000, 326 SCRA 821

Contents of the plan; lots and cadastral numbers

ANSWER

C.1 Answer to petition in cadastral proceeding

Form and contents of Answer

HEARING; JUDGMENT; DECREE

D.1 Hearing, judgment and decree of registration

SUMMARY OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES
Survey of the land and approval of the survey plan
Duties of the surveyors or geodetic engineers
Francisco v. CA, GR L-35787, Apr. 11, 1980, 97 SCRA 22

Survey Order and Survey Authority

Conditions under which Survey Authority is issued

DENR to approve survey plans

Types of survey

Cadastral surveys; what they include

Purposes of cadastral surveys

Isolated surveys

Cadastre and cadastral survey

Filing of the application for registration

Where to file application; form required and muniments of title

Supporting documents

Contents of application

Full names and addresses of all
occupants of the land and those
of the adjoining owner required

Francisco v. Rojas, GR 167120, Apr. 23, 2014, 723 SCRA 423

Extent of search

Tracing cloth plan; purpose of the requirement

Del Rosario v. Republic, GR 148338, June 6, 2002, 383 SCRA 262

Alternative to original tracing cloth plan

Republic v. Hubilla, GR 157683, Feb. 11, 2005, 451 SCRA 181

Application may include two (2) or more parcels of land

Amendments to the application

M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Torres, GR L-24559, July 22, 1981, 105 SCRA 653

New publication requirement; purpose

Juan v. Luis, GR 24701, Aug. 25, 1926, 49 Phil. 252
Escueta v. Director of Lands, GR 5720, Aug. 20, 1910, 16 Phil. 482

Instance when new publication not needed

Manufacturing Co. v. Imperial, GR 24908, Mar. 31, 1926, 49 Phil. 122
Benin v. Tuason, GR L-26127, June 28, 1974, 57 SCRA 531

Required statement when land applied for borders on road

Requirement of additional facts and papers; ocular inspection

Failure to mention names of minor’s
guardians in application for registration
does not invalidate title

Tichangco v. Enriquez, GR 150629, June 30, 2004, 433 SCRA 324
Transmittal of the copy of the application to the LRA

Duties of clerk of court

LRA to report to court errors or deficiencies in application

Setting the date of the initial hearing
Notice of application and initial hearing

(a) Publication of notice

Purpose and effects of publication

(b) Mailing of notice

Notice; to whom addressed; contents

Notice by mailing and by posting not dispensed with by Sec. 23

Republic v. Marasigan, GR 85515, June 6, 1991, 198 SCRA 219

Effect of defective publication

Po v. Republic, GR L-27443, July 19, 1971, 40 SCRA 37
DBP Employees Union v. Perez, GR L-22584 and L-23083, May 30, 1972, 45 SCRA 179
Republic v. CA, GR 103746, Feb. 9, 1993, 218 SCRA 773
Service of notices upon contiguous owners, occupants, etc.

Effect of deliberate failure of the applicant to give notice

Divina v. CA, GR 117734, Feb. 22, 2001, 352 SCRA 527
Filing of answer or objection to the application

Requisites for a valid answer

Opposition must be based on dominical or real right

Leyva v. Jandoc, GR L-16965, Feb. 28, 1962, 4 SCRA 595

Solicitor General empowered to file opposition for the State

Order of general default

Effect of failure to file answer or opposition

Cabanas v. Director of Lands, GR 4205, Mar. 16, 1908, 10 Phil. 393
De los Reyes v. Paterno, GR 10680, Mar. 27, 1916, 34 Phil. 420

Order of special default

Effect of order of default

Santos, Jr. v. PNOC Exploration Corp., GR 170943, Sept. 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 272)

Service upon party in default

Relief from order of default

Hearing and presentation of evidence

Reference to a referee

Court’s action on referee’s report

Factual evidence of possession and title required

National Power Corp. v. CA, GR L-43814, Apr. 16, 1982, 114 SCRA 318
Director of Lands v. Reyes, GR L-27594, Nov. 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 177
Republic v. CA, GR L-62680, Nov. 9, 1988, 167 SCRA 150

What the applicant must prove before the court

Lasam v. Director of Lands, GR 42859, Mar. 17, 1938, 65 Phil. 367
Promulgation of judgment by the court

Judgment confirming title

Judgment dismissing the case without prejudice

Ng Sam Bok v. Director of Lands, GR L-11988. Dec. 22, 1958, 104 Phil. 965

Import of the term “without prejudice”

Purpose and effect of the term “without prejudice”

Court order for LRA to issue decree of registration
Issuance and entry of decree of registration by LRA

Original Certificate of Title (OCT); form and contents

Sotto v. Sotto, GR L-17768, Sept. 1, 1922, 43 Phil. 688

Period for LRA to issue decree of registration

Sending of copy of the decree of registration to RD
Transcription of certificate of title in registry book
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
Preparation of decree and certificate of title

PD 1529 contains no provision on execution of final judgments;
Rationale

Republic v. Nillas, GR 159595, Jan. 23, 2007, 512 SCRA 286

Provision of the Rules of Court on enforcement of judgment does not apply to special proceedings such as land registration

Ana v. Menla, GR L-15564, April 29, 1961, 111 Phil. 947

Procedure after judgment and before issuance of certificate of title

No additional burden to be imposed on the owner after judgment

Post-judgment remedy to recover possession of land

Contempt not available in case of refusal of defeated party to vacate despite writ of possession

Rom v. Cobadora, GR L-24764, July 17, 1969, 128 SCRA 758
US v. Ramayrat, GR L-6874, Mar. 8, 1912, 22 Phil. 183

Instance when losing party may be punished for contempt

Chinese Commercial Property Co. v. Martinez, GR L-18565, Nov. 30, 1962, 6 SCRA 848

Special order for removal of
improvement (writ of demolition)

Guevara v. Laico, GR 44057, Feb. 27, 1937, 64 Phil. 144

Writ of demolition a complement of writ of possession

Marcelo v. Mencias, GR 15609, Apr. 29, 1960, 107 Phil. 1071

Land registration court empowered to issue all auxiliary writs

Issuance of decree of registration after judgment not a ministerial act

Laburada v. Land Registration Authority, GR 101387, Mar. 11, 1998, 287 SCRA 333
De los Reyes v. De Villa, 48 Phil., 227, citing Sec. 177, Administrative Code

Issuance of decree not compellable by mandamus

Go v. CA, GR 120040, Jan. 29, 1996, 252 SCRA 564
Garces v. CA, GR 114795, July 17, 1996, 259 SCRA 99

Certificate of title as evidence of an indefeasible title, ownership

De Retuerto v. Barz, GR 148180, Dec. 19, 2001, 372 SCRA 712
Naval v. CA, GR 167412, Feb. 2, 2006, 483 SCRA 102

Tax declarations cannot prevail over a certificate of title

Director of Lands v. IAC, GR 70825, Mar. 11, 1991, 195 SCRA 38
Director of Lands v. Reyes, GR L-27594, Nov. 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 177
Heirs of Vencilao, Sr. v. CA, GR 123713, Apr. 1, 1998, 288 SCRA 574
Entry of Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
Owner’s duplicate certificate of title

Owner is entitled to possess duplicate certificate of title

El Director de Terrenos contra Abachin, GR 47965, June 13, 1941, 72 Phil. 326
Registration Books

OCT; when issued and when to take effect

Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CLT Realty Development Corp., GR 123346, Nov. 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 305

Distinction between entry of decree and entry of certificate of title

Antiporda v. Mapa, GR 34118, Oct. 28, 1930, 55 Phil. 89
PNB v. Tan Ong Zse, GR 27991, Dec. 24, 1927, 51 Phil. 317

Process leading to the issuance of owner’s duplicate OCT

Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)

Facts required to be shown in the TCT

Requirements for land transfer and issuance of TCT

Statutory liens affecting title

Clean title, lien and encumbrance

Casimiro Development Corp. v. Mateo, GR 175485, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 676
People v. Regional Trial Court of Manila, GR 81541, Oct. 4, 1989, 178 SCRA 299
People v. RTC of Manila, GR 81541, Oct. 4, 1989, 178 SCRA 299

Examples of encumbrances

Lien distinguished from notice of lis pendens

People v. RTC of Manila, GR 81541, Oct. 4, 1989, 178 SCRA 299

Statement of personal circumstances in the certificate

When property subject of certificate is deemed conjugal or not
Calalang-Parujan v. Calalang-Garcia, GR 184148, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 402

General incidents of registered land

General incidents of registered land
Registered land not subject to
prescription nor adverse possession
Corporacion de PP. Agustinos Recoletos v. Crisostomo, GR 10031, Dec. 6, 1915, 32 Phil. 427
Dimson v. Rural Progress Administration, GR L-3783, Jan. 28, 1952, 90 Phil. 714
Atun v. Nunez, GR L-8018, Oct. 26, 1955, 97 Phil. 762

Prescription also not applicable to heirs of registered owners

Barcelona v. Barcelona, GR L-9014, Oct. 31, 1956, 100 Phil. 251

Purpose of registration under the Torrens system is to quiet title

Right to recover by registered owner not barred by prescription

Alfonso v. Pasay City, GR L-12754, Jan. 30, 1960, 106 Phil. 1017
Atun v. Nunez, GR L-8018, Oct. 26, 1955, 97 Phil. 762

Adverse possession ineffectual against registered land

Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Bolaños, GR L-4935, May 28, 1954, 95 Phil. 106
Dimson v. Rural Progress Administration, GR L-3783, Jan. 28, 1952, 90 Phil. 714
Torrens certificates of title immune from a collateral attack
Gabriel, Jr. v. Crisologo, GR 204626, June 9, 2014, 725 SCRA 528
Madrid v. Sps. Mapoy, GR 150887, Aug. 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 14

Collateral attack and direct attack; distinctions

Torrens title may only be attacked in a direct proceeding

Lagrosa v. CA, GR 115981-82, Aug. 12, 1999, 312 SCRA 298

When Torrens title become incontrovertible

Carvajal v. CA, GR 98328, Oct. 9, 1997, 345 Phil. 592

Remedy after the one-year period

Ownership different from certificate of title

Action for reconveyance as a remedy

What an action for reconveyance seeks and when may it be availed of

Splitting or consolidation of titles
Subdivision and consolidation plans

Registration of simple or complex subdivision plan; provision on non-closure of streets, waterways, open space, etc.

Approval by LRA of consolidation plan

LRA cannot increase the area covered by certificate of title

Section 50 of PD 1529 does not apply to public thoroughfares

Republic v. Ortigas and Co. Partnership Limited, GR 171496, Mar. 3, 2014, 717 SCRA 601

Delineated roads will remain private at owner’s option

White Plains v. CA, GR 128131, Oct. 8, 1998, 297 SCRA 547
Republic v. Ortigas and Co. Partnership Ltd., GR171496, Mar. 3, 2014, 717 SCRA 601

Government cannot take private property for private use

Sindalan v. CA, GR 150640, Mar. 22, 2007, 518 SCRA 649

Section 50 not a license to disregard right to just compensation

Manapat v. CA, GR171496, Mar. 3, 2014, 717 SCRA 601
DESAMA v. Gozun, GR 157882, Mar. 30, 2006, 520 Phil. 457
Republic v. Ortigas and Co. Partnership Ltd., GR171496, Mar. 3, 2014, 717 SCRA 601
SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION

5.1 VOLUNTARY DEALINGS WITH REGISTERED LANDS: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Voluntary dealings

Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner

Registration as the operative act to convey or affect the land

Unregistered sale of land cannot bind third parties

Bulaong v. Gonzales, GR 156318, Sept. 05, 2011, 656 SCRA 666

Registered mortgage inferior to that of unregistered sale

Reyes v. De Leon, GR L-22331, June 6, 1967, 126 Phil 710

Encumbrances not shown on the certificate cannot bind nor prejudice third persons

Bass v. De la Rama, GR L-47662, Sept. 30, 1942, 73 Phil. 682

Preference accorded to registered levy on attachment or execution

Egao v. CA, GR 79787, June 29, 1989, 174 SCRA 484
Calalang v. Register of Deeds, GR 76265, Apr. 22, 1992, 208 SCRA 215

Levy creates a continuing lien on land subject thereof

Tay Chun Suy v. CA, GR 91004-05, Aug. 20, 1992, 212 SCRA 713
Lavides v. Pre, GR 127830, Oct. 17, 2001, 367 SCRA 382
Government of the Phil. Islands v. Mercado, GR 45290 Apr. 19, 1939, 67 Phil. 409
Valdevieso v. Damalerio, GR 133303, Feb. 17, 2005

Validity of execution sale retroacts to date of levy

First Integrated Bonding& Insurance Co., Inc. v. CA, GR 119577, Aug. 28, 1996, 261 SCRA 203
Constructive notice upon registration

Registration deemed a constructive notice to the whole world

G Holdings, Inc. v. National Mines and Allied Workers Union Local 103 (NAMAWU), GR 160236, Oct. 16, 2009, 604 SCRA 73

Registration

Agricultural Credit Cooperative Association of Hinigaran v. Yusay, GR L-13313, Apr. 28, 1960, 107 Phil. 791

Purpose of registration is merely to give notice

Autocorp Group and Autographics, Inc. v. CA, GR 157553, Sept. 8, 2004, 437 SCRA 678

Purpose and effects of registering instruments

Saberon v. Ventanilla, Jr., GR 192669, Apr. 21, 2014, 777 SCRA 287

Voluntary and involuntary instruments

Villasor v. Camon, R-CA 8551, June 29, 1951, 89 Phil. 404

Requisites for registration of voluntary and involuntary instruments

Voluntary and involuntary registration distinguished

Levin v. Bass, GR L-4340, May 28, 1952, 91 Phil. 420

Execution sale retroacts to date of levy as entered in the day book

Yu v. CA, GR 109078, Dec. 26, 1995, 251 SCRA 509
Caviles, Jr. v. Bautista, GR 102648, Nov. 24, 1999, 319 SCRA 24
Presentation of owner’s duplicate upon entry of new certificate

Production of owner’s duplicate conclusive authority from owner

When registration retroacts to date of entry in RD’s day book

Barretto v. Arevalo, GR L-7748, Aug. 27, 1956, 99 Phil. 771
Ramirez v. Causin, GR L-10794, July 31, 1957, 101 Phil. 1009

Subsequent registration procured by fraud deemed void

Instances when a forged deed may be the root of a valid title

Director of Lands v. Addison, GR L-23148, Mar. 25, 1926, 49 Phil., 19
Inquimboy v. Vda. De Cruz, GR L-13953, July 26, 1960, 108 Phil. 1054

Original owner of registered land may seek annulment of transfer thereof grounded on fraud but
subject to right of IPV

De Santos v. IAC, GR L-69591, Jan. 25, 1988, 157 SCRA 295
Dealings less than ownership; how registered
Grantee’s name, nationality, etc., to be stated

Change in the residence or postal address of grantee

Notices and processes to be served by mail to the given addresses

Primary Entry Book; fees; certified copies

Primary entry book or Day book

Manner of presentation and entry of deeds and instruments

Records of registered land open to public

Instrument subject of primary entry deemed registered from time noted pending annotation of memorandum thereof in the title

DBP v. Acting RD of Nueva Ecija, UDK 7671, June 23, 1988, 162 SCRA 450

Entry alone produces the effect of registration

Levin v. Bass, GR L-4340 to 4346, May 28, 1952, 91 Phil. 420

Late annotation of levy on certificate does not diminish its efficacy

Villasor v. Camon, R-CA 8551, June 29, 1951, 89 Phil. 404
CONVEYANCES AND TRANSFERS

A.1 Procedure in registration of conveyances

A.2 Procedure where conveyance involves portion of land

Annotation of deed pending entry of transfer certificate

Annotation of subsequent deed prior to approval of plan not allowed

RD’s action upon approval of the plan and technical descriptions

Grantor’s options where land has been subdivided into several lots

A.3 Carryover of encumbrances

RD’s ministerial duty to carry over encumbrances to certificates

Saberon v. Ventanilla, Jr., GR 192669, Apr. 21, 2014, 777 SCRA 287
MORTGAGES AND LEASES

B.1 Mortgage or lease of registered land

Mortgage

Lease

Issuance of mortgagee’s or lessee’s duplicate certificate
of title discontinued

B.2 Registration of the deed of mortgage or lease

B.3 Discharge or cancellation of mortgage or lease

PCSO v. New Dagupan Metro Gas Corp., GR 173171, July 11, 2012, 676 SCRA 156

B.4 Foreclosure of mortgage; definition

Selegna Management and Development Corp. v. UCPB, GR 165662, May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 125

(a) Judicial foreclosure of mortgage

Final order of the court confirming the sale

Where there is no right of redemption

Where right of redemption exists

Redemption period for registered foreclosed property

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Tan, GR 178449, Oct. 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 814

General rule in redemption; intent must be coupled with payment

BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., v. Sps. Veloso, GR 141974, Aug. 9, 2004, 436 SCRA 1

Remedy in case of disagreement over redemption price

Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. CA, GR 143896, July 8, 2005, 463 SCRA 64

Certificate or deed of redemption in case of redemption

Final deed of sale in case of non-redemption

(b) Extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage

Certificate of sale

Certificate or deed of redemption in case of redemption

Laws governing extrajudicial foreclosure

Final deed of sale or sworn statement in case of non-redemption

Purchaser in foreclosure sale may seek possession of property sold

China Banking Corp. v. Lozada, GR 164919, July 4, 2008, 557 SCRA 177

Petition for issuance of writ of possession through ex parte motion

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Bance, GR 167280, Apr. 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 507

Ministerial duty of the court to issue writ of possession

David Enterprises v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, GR 78714, Nov. 21, 1990, 191 SCRA 516
Clapano v. Gapultos, GR L-51574-77, Sept. 30, 1984, 132 SCRA 429
Sulit v. CA, GR 119247, Feb. 17, 1997, 268 SCRA 441
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Tan, GR 159934, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 502

Purchaser entitled to writ of possession despite pendency of annulment or foreclosure suit

Fernandez v. Espinoza, GR 156421, Apr. 14, 2008, 551 SCRA 136

When right of purchaser to possession becomes absolute

Writ of possession; when issued

680 Home Appliances, Inc. v. CA, GR 206599, Sept. 29, 2014, 737 SCRA 127

Instance when issuance of writ of possession ceases to be ex-parte

Okabe v. Saturnino, GR 196040, Aug. 26, 2014, 733 SCRA 652

Court order granting petition for writ of possession a final order

Inadequacy of price at foreclosure sale does not nullify sale

New Sampaguita Builders Construction Inc. v. PNB, GR 148753, July 30, 2004, 435 SCRA 565

Remedy where proceeds of sale insufficient to cover debt

BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Avenido, GR 175816, Dec. 7, 2011, 661 SCRA 758

Conditions when writ against foreclosure of mortgage may be issued

Certificate of sale in a foreclosure sale does not transfer ownership

Supreme Transliner, Inc. v. BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc., GR 165617, Feb. 25, 2011, 644 SCRA 59

Certificate of sale and Deed of absolute sale distinguished

Gonzalez v. Calimbas, GR L-27878, Dec. 31, 1927, 51 Phil. 355

Annotation of certificate of sale a ministerial duty of RD

Autocorp Group v. CA, GR 157553, Sept. 08, 2004, 437 SCRA 678
POWERS OF ATTORNEY; TRUSTS

C.1 Power of attorney

Special Power of Attorney (SPA)

Powers of attorney construed

Woodchild Holdings, Inc. v. Roxas Electric and Construction Co., Inc., GR 140667, Aug. 12, 2004, 436 SCRA 235

Trust

C.2 Trusts in registered land

C.3 Trust with power of sale, etc.; how expressed

C.4 Judicial appointment of new trustee

C.5 Implied trusts; how established

Implied trust

Resulting and constructive trust construed

Express trust and implied trust distinguished

5.2 INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS

Involuntary dealings

Attachments or judicial writs, orders or processes

Attachment

Calo v. Roldan, GR L-252. Mar. 30, 1946, 76 Phil. 445
Sievert v. CA, GR 84034, Dec. 22, 1988, 168 SCRA 692

Purpose and function of an attachment

Mabanag v. Gallemore, GR L-825, July 20, 1948, 81 Phil. 254
Salgado v. CA, GR L-55381, Mar. 26, 1984, 128 SCRA 395
Adverse claim

Statement of claims; how registered

Form and contents of statement

Period of effectivity of adverse claim

Duty of RD to record adverse claim ministerial

Gabriel v. RD of Rizal, GR L-17956, Sept. 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 136

Purpose of annotating adverse claim on certificate of title

Arrazola v. Bernas, GR L-29740, Nov. 10, 1978, 86 SCRA 279

Cancellation of the adverse claim; how made and by whom

What constitutes as adverse claim under Section 70 of PD 1529

Cathay Metal Corp. v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc., GR 172204, July 2, 2014, 728 SCRA 482

30-day effectivity of adverse claim construed

Sajonas v. CA, GR 102377, July 5, 1996, 285 SCRA 79

Cancellation of adverse claim still necessary to render it ineffective

Rationale for requirement of hearing; second adverse claim barred

Certain easement need not be annotated as adverse claim

Castro v. Monsod. GR 183719, Feb. 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 486
Surrender of certificate in involuntary dealings

Where a court order is needed to compel surrender of certificate

RD, Pasig, Rizal v. Heirs of Caiji, GR L-7261, May 11, 1956, 99 Phil. 25

Provisions of Sections 69 and 71 of PD 1529 distinguished

The Phil. Cotton Corp. v. Gagoomal, GR 130389, Feb. 11, 2008, 544 SCRA 185
Dissolution, etc. of attachments, etc.
Registration of orders of court, etc.
Enforcement of liens on registered land

Act of registration of deed of conveyance is what gives effect to the conveyance
and binds the land

Tuason v. Raymundo, GR L-9372, Dec. 15, 1914, 28 Phil. 635
Agbulos v. Alberto, GR L-17483, July 31, 1962, 5 SCRA 790
Application for new certificate
upon expiration of redemption
period; Period to annul or impeach the proceedings

Relief under Section 75 of PD 1529 may only be granted when there is unanimity of the parties or there is
no adverse claim

Tangunan v. Republic, GR L-5545, Dec. 29, 1953, 94 Phil. 171
Notice of lis pendens; where proper

Lis pendens

Rehabilitation Finance Corp. v. Morales, GR L-10064, Apr. 23, 1957, 101 Phil. 171

Nature and effects of a notice of lis pendens

Baranda v. Gustilo, GR 81163, Sept. 26, 1988, 165 SCRA 757

Notice of lis pendens may also involve actions dealing with use or occupation of property

Viewmaster Construction Corp. v. Maulit, GR 136283, Feb. 29, 2000, 326 SCRA 821

Other applications of the notice of lis pendens

Villanueva v. CA, GR 117108, Nov. 5, 1997, 281 SCRA 298

Notice of lis pendens not a lien or encumbrance but a mere notice

People v. RTC of Manila, GR 81541, Oct. 4, 1989, 178 SCRA 299

Property which may validly be
covered by notice of lis pendens

Notice of lis pendens a mere notice to third parties and creates no lien thereon

People v. RTC of Manila, GR 81541, Oct. 4, 1989, 178 SCRA 299

Cancellation of notice of lis pendens before final judgment

Cancellation of notice after final judgment in favor of defendant

General rule on cancellation of notice of lis pendens

Grounds for cancellation of notice of lis pendens

Lim v. Vera Cruz, GR 143646, Apr. 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 386
Romero v. CA, GR 142406, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 483

What the notice of lis pendens need not contain

Villanueva v. CA, GR 117108, Nov. 5, 1997, 281 SCRA 298

Notice of lis pendens does not create a right or lien

Somes v. Government of the Phil. Islands, GR L-42754, Oct. 30, 1935, 62 Phil. 432

Notice of lis pendens and adverse claims not contradictory

Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. v. CA, GR L-42956-57, Jan. 12, 1988, 157 SCRA 26
REGISTRATION OF JUDGMENTS, ORDERS AND PARTITIONS
Judgment for the Plaintiff
Judgment adjudicating ownership
Execution of deed by virtue of judgment
Judgment of partition
Registration of prior registered
mortgaged or lease on partitioned property
Notice of insolvency
Judgment or order vacating insolvency proceedings
Land taken by eminent domain
Extrajudicial settlement of estate
Filing of letters of administration and will
Dealings by administering subject to court approval.
Land devised to executor
When executor empowered by will to sell, etc.
Transfer in anticipation of final distribution
Registration of final distribution of estate

VII. ASSURANCE FUND

Assurance Fund; its purpose and intent

RD of Negros Occidental v. Anglo, Sr., GR 171804, Aug. 05, 2015
Estrellado v. Martinez, GR 23847, Nov. 18, 1925, 48 Phil. 256
Contribution to Assurance Fund
Custody and investment of fund
Action for compensation from funds

Persons who may recover from the Assurance Fund

De Guzman v. National Treasurer of the Republic of the Phils., GR 143281,. Aug. 3, 2000, 337 SCRA 238

When claims not permitted

The RD of Negros Occidental v. Anglo, Sr., GR 171804, Aug. 05, 2015
Treasurer of the Phils. v. CA, GR L-42805, Aug. 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 359
Action for compensation; against whom action filed
Reyes v. Solemar Development Corp., GR 129247, Mar. 3, 2006, 484 SCRA 1
Judgment, how satisfied

Recourse where judgment cannot be executed

General Fund when liable
Subrogation of government to plaintiff’s rights
RD as party in interest

RD mandated to protect the Assurance Fund by filing action

Power of LRA Administrator to file the case himself

Eagle Realty Corp. v. Republic, GR 151424, July 04, 2008, 557 SCRA 77

Ownership rights by the State need not be shown in an action to protect the Fund from liability for damages

Losses not recoverable

Recovery from person who caused the loss takes precedence over claims against Assurance Fund

Estrellado v. Martinez, GR L-23847, Nov. 18, 1925, 48 Phil. 256

Person registered in error liable for damages

Fund not intended to relieve third persons from legal actions

Limitation of Action

VIII. REGISTRATION OF PATENTS

Certificates of title pursuant to patents

Effect of registration of grants and patents under Section 103

Ting Ho, Jr. v. Teng Gui, GR 130115, July 16, 2008, 558 SCRA 421

Registered public land patent a veritable Torrens title

Republic v. Umali, GR 80687, Apr. 10, 1989, 171 SCRA 647
CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER, EMANCIPATION PATENT, AFFIDAVIT OF NON-TENANCY
Provisional Register of Documents
Certificates of Land Transfer, Emancipation Patents and
Certificates of Land Ownership Award
Sale of agricultural land; affidavit
PETITIONS AND ACTIONS AFTER ORIGINAL REGISTRATION
Petition to compel surrender of owner’s duplicate certificate

Court action after hearing the petition

Filing of separate and original action before land registration court

Transfer of title in buyer’s name no longer part of execution proceedings

Padilla, Jr. v. Phil. Producers Cooperative Marketing Assoc., Inc., GR 141256, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA 480

Necessity to file separate action, not mere motion, with RTC

Reyes v. Tang Soat Ing, GR 185620, Dec. 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 553

Remedy in case holder of certificate refuses to surrender duplicate

New Durawood Co., Inc. v. CA, GR 111732, Feb. 20, 1996
Amendment and alteration of certificates not allowed after
entry; exception

Venue of petitions for amendment and alteration of certificates

Grounds for petition for amendment and alteration of certificates

Paz v. Republic, GR 157367, Nov. 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 74

Court actions on the petitions

Limitations on court’s authority

Petition that may be filed where owner’s duplicate not presented

Petitions or motions to be filed in the original registration case

Proceedings under Section 108 summary in nature

Bagayas v. Bagayas, GR 187308 & 187517, Sept. 18, 2013, 706 SCRA 73

Grounds for availment of relief under Section 108

Heirs of Franco v. CA, GR 123924, Dec. 11, 2003, 418 SCRA 60
City Government of Tagaytay v. Guerrero, GR 140734 & 140745, Sept. 17, 2009, 600 SCRA 33
Tagaytay-Taal Tourist Development Corp. v. CA, GR 106812, June 10, 1997, 273 SCRA 182

“Unanimity of parties”

Almirañez v. Devera, GR L-19496, Feb. 27, 1965, 13 SCRA 343

Indispensable parties in action for cancellation of memorandum

Crisologo v. JEWM Agro-Industrial Corp., GR 196894, Mar. 3, 2014, 717 SCRA 644
Southwestern University v. Laurente, GR L-20075, Nov. 27, 1968, 25 SCRA 57

Provisions of Section 2 and Section 108 of PD 1529 distinguished

Ernesto Oppen, Inc. v. Compas, GR 203969, Oct. 21, 2015
Notice and replacement of lost duplicate certificate
New Durawood Co., Inc. v. CA, GR 111732, Feb. 20, 1996, 253 SCRA 740

RTC has jurisdiction over petitions for issuance of lost or stolen owner’s duplicate certificate of title

What constitutes sufficient notice

Office of Court Administrator v. Matas, AM RTJ-92-836, Aug. 2, 1995, 247 SCRA 9

Fact of loss of duplicate certificate jurisdictional

Strait Times, Inc. v. CA, GR 126673, Aug. 28, 1998, 294 SCRA 714

Section 109 of PD 1529 and RA 26 distinguished

Actions for replacement under PD 1529 and reconstitution under RA 26 do not pass upon question of ownership of land

Puzon v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., GR 139518, Mar. 6, 2001, 353 SCRA 699
Heirs of Susana De Guzman Tuazon v. CA, GR 125758, Jan. 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 219
Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title

Judicial reconstitution under RA 26

Administrative reconstitution in RA 26; when availed of

Reconstitution

Heirs of Ragua v. CA, GR 88521-22, 31 Jan. 2000, 324 SCRA 7
Serra Serra v. CA, GR 34080, Mar. 22, 1991, 195 SCRA 482

Notice of hearings of petition for judicial reconstitution

Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original Torrens title

Nature and purpose of reconstitution proceedings

Angat v. Republic, GR 175788, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 364

Requisites for an order of reconstitution to issue

Layos v. Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc., GR 150470, Aug. 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 75

Jurisdictional requirements and procedures to be followed

Owner’s duplicate copy as source for judicial reconstitution

Copies of the certificate of title

Owner’s duplicate of OCT/TCT as primary source for reconstitution

Republic v. Casimiro, GR 166139, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 499

Owner’s duplicate OCT or TCT to be presented before the court

Sources of reconstitution with respect to liens and encumbrances affecting lost or destroyed certificates of title

When notices to owners of adjoining
lots and actual occupants not
mandatory and jurisdictional

Puzon v. Sta. Lucia Realty and Development, Inc., GR 139518, Mar. 6, 2001, 353 SCRA 699

Duty of petitioners to know their adjoining property owners

Tahanan Development Corp. v. CA, GR L-55771, Nov. 15, 1982, 118 SCRA 273

Effect of failure to notify occupant of adjacent property

Publication, posting and contents of the notice of Petition for Reconstitution

Requirements prior to the date of hearing

Contents of the notice

Republic v. Planes, GR 130433, Apr. 17, 2002, 430 Phil. 848

Insufficient compliance with
requirements annuls proceedings

Alabang Development Corp. v. Valenzuela, GR L-54094, Aug. 30, 1982, 116 SCRA 261
Municipality of Legazpi v. A.L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., GR L-22377, Nov. 29, 1968, 26 SCRA 218

Rule on liberal construction of the Rules not applicable to land registration cases

Castillo v. Republic, GR 182980, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 600
SCHEDULE OF FEES: SPECIAL FUND

Fees payable

Filing fees and docket fees distinguished

Dela Paz v. CA, GR 120150, Mar. 27, 2000, 328 SCRA 707

Special Account

XII. FORMS USED IN LAND REGISTRATION AND CONVEYANCING

Forms in conveyancing

Signing and sealing of the instrument

Required location of signature merely directory

Quilala v. Alcantara, GR 132681, Dec. 3, 2001, 371 SCRA 311

XIII. DEALINGS WITH UNREGISTERED LANDS

Recording of instruments relating to unregistered lands

XIV. REGISTRATION OF CHATTEL MORTGAGES

Chattel mortgage

Recording of chattel mortgages

Chattel mortgage over motor vehicles; when mortgage is deemed binding upon third persons

Aleman v. De Catera, GR L-13693, Mar. 25, 1961, 1 SCRA 776
Manner of recording chattel mortgages

Recording of a mortgage

RD to certify officer’s return of sale upon mortgage

Fees for chattel mortgages, etc.
Nationwide electronic registry under RA 11057

Consulta

Doronila Resources Dev., Inc. v. CA, GR L-42956-57, Jan. 12, 1988, 157 SCRA 26
Procedure

Consulta, when applicable

Resolution on the consulta appealable to CA

XVI. FINAL PROVISIONS OF PD 1529

Appropriation
Postage exemption
Effectivity of the law on property or land registration

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »

UPDATED COURSE GUIDE (SYLLABUS) ON CREDIT TRANSACTIONS – PUP COLLEGE OF LAW, 1ST SEMESTER, AY 2021-22

by PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

UPDATED COURSE GUIDE (SYLLABUS) ON CREDIT TRANSACTIONS – PUP COLLEGE OF LAW, 1ST SEMESTER, AY 2021-22

course-syllabus-on-credit-transactions-august-2021 Download

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 SYLLABUS – 2ND SEMESTER AY 2020-2021 – JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW

by PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

SYLLABUS ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 2ND SEMESTER AY 2020-2021 – JOHN WESLEY SCHOOL OF LAW

course-syllabus-on-constitutional-law-1-2021 Download

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »

LAND TITLES & DEEDS – ASSIGNMENT FOR FEBRUARY, 6, 2021 (UA&P INSTITUTE OF LAW, 2ND SEMESTER, AY 2020-2021)

by PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

LAND TITLES & DEEDS – ASSIGNMENT FOR FEBRUARY, 6, 2021 (UA&P INSTITUTE OF LAW, 2ND SEMESTER, AY 2020-2021)

CHAPTER II. LAND TITLES

Public and private lands

Basic principles in land ownership

Public lands and private lands; distinctions

Properties of public dominion and patrimonial properties of the State

Property devoted to public use vis-à-vis property devoted to public service

20. Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, GR 133250, July 9, 2002, 384 SCRA 152

Property of public dominion

Patrimonial property of the state susceptible to prescription

Kinds of acquisitive prescription

Possession in good faith and with
just title required in ordinary
acquisitive prescription

21. Santiago v. Cruz, GR 6276, Mar. 21, 1911, 19 Phil. 145

“Good faith” and “Just title”

22. Titong v. CA, GR 111141, Mar. 6, 1998, 287 SCRA 102

Computation of 30-year period

Tacking of possession; when allowed

23. Nenita Quality Foods Corp. v. Galabo, GR 174191, Jan. 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 569

Privity of contract

Public lands; how acquired; when grant is conclusively presumed

24. Padilla v. Reyes, GR L-37435, Nov. 28, 1934, 60 Phil. 967

State, through DENR, possesses
and exercises plenary powers to
determine who should be recipients of public land

25. Francisco v. Rodriguez, GR L-31083, Sept. 30, 1975, 67 SCRA 212

Classifications of public lands according to alienability under the Constitution

Agricultural lands according to use

Forest lands and national parks

Forest lands or reserves not
capable of private appropriation

26. Vano v. Government of Phil. Islands, GR 15656, Nov. 15, 1920, 41 Phil. 161

Land classification an exclusive prerogative of the executive
department

27. Bureau of Forestry v. CA, Aug. 31, 1987, 153 SCRA 351

Classification descriptive of legal and not natural state of land

Alienable and disposable (A & D) land

Constitutional limitation on alienability of public land

Classes of A & D lands of the public domain

28. Director of Forestry v. Villareal, GR 32266, Feb. 27, 1989, 170 SCRA 598

Sub-classification of A & D lands

A & D lands not subject to private ownership

Civil reservations

Military reservations

Foreshore land

Reclaimed land

Positive government act of reclassifying public land into A & D

29. Republic v. CA, GR 127060, Nov. 19, 2002, 392 SCRA 190

CENRO certification insufficient to prove A & D character of land

30. Republic v. T.A.N. Properties, Inc., GR 154953, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 477

What needs to be proved by the applicant

31. Republic v. Bautista Vda. De Joson, GR 163767, Mar. 10, 2014, 718 SCRA 228

When public land ipso jure ceases to be part of the public domain

32. Director of Lands v. IAC, GR L-73002, Dec. 29, 1986, 146 SCRA 509

Key provisions of the Public Land Act (CA 141) on the disposition of
A & D lands of the public domain

33. Concurring and Dissenting Op., Brion, J.: Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, GR 179987, Apr. 29, 2009, 587 SCRA 172

Possession required to support claim of title through prescription

34. Republic v. Bacas, GR 182913, Nov. 20, 2013, 710 SCRA 411

Rules on disposition of public land or lands of the public domain

Exceptions from the general rule that all lands of the public domain belong to the State and are inalienable

35. Republic v. IAC, GR L-75042, Nov. 29, 1988, 168 SCRA 165

Private ownership of land; basic requisite in registration thereof

36. Director of Lands v. Agustin, GR L-16173, Oct. 6, 1921, 42 Phil. 227

Fee simple

Burden of proof rests on applicant for registration

37. Republic v. Bautista Vda. De Joson, GR 163767, Mar. 10, 2014, 718 SCRA 228

Other modes of acquiring land titles

Private conveyance

(1) Accretion; requisites

Accretion distinguished from Alluvium; Riparian owner

38. Santulan v. Executive Secretary, GR L-28021, Dec. 15, 1977, 80 SCRA 548

Reason for grant of preferential right to riparian owner

Dried-up river not an accretion

39. Republic v. Santos III, GR 160453, Nov. 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 51

Accretion not automatically registered in riparian owner’s name

40. Heirs of Narvasa, Sr. v. Imbornal, GR 182908, Aug. 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 171

Petition for registration of accretion equivalent to a request for confirmation of title already vested in the riparian owner

41. Fernandez v. Tañada, GR L-31673, June 30, 1971, 39 SCRA 662

Accretion from the sea not part of public domain

42. Ignacio v. Director of Lands, GR L-12958, May 30, 1960, 108 Phil. 335

NOTE: Digest/dissect all the given cases and write them on yellow pad paper (one case per sheet), TAKE CLEAR PICTURES OF THEM, TOGETHER WITH the cover page and table of contents, and submit/send them to the class beadle for recording and affixing of electronic initials. Late or incomplete submissions will not be accepted.

Read the details of the assigned topics from the prescribed textbook and other supplementary reading materials. Be ready for a GRADED RECITATION during/after the PRESENTATION BY THE ASSIGNED REPORTERS.

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »

TRANSPORTATION LAW SYLLABUS (COURSE OUTLINE), UNIVERSIDAD DE MANILA, 2ND SEMESTER, AY 2021 – PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

by PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

TRANSPORTATION LAW SYLLABUS (COURSE OUTLINE)

UNIVERSIDAD DE MANILA

2^ND SEMESTER, AY 2021

THURSDAYS, 7:00-9:00 PM

PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

WEEK 1

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMON CARRIERS

TRANSPORTATION IN GENERAL

Transportation as a component of “public utilities” and “public service”

Sec. 13(b), Commonwealth Act No. 146 or The Public Service Law (of 1936), as last amended by Republic Act No. 2677
National Power Corp. v. CA, 345 Phil. 9 [1997]

PUBLIC UTILITIES

Constitutional provisions on public utilities

Sec. 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551. July 11, 1989
Sec. 17, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., G.R. No. 155001. May 5, 2003

What constitutes a public utility?

Secs. 18 and 19, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution
The Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Company v. Public Utility Board, G.R. No. L-19857. March 2, 1923; 44 Phil. 551

Distinction between “operation” and “ownership” of a public utility

Tatad v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 114222. April 6, 1995

Power to grant licenses or franchise to operate public utilities

Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065. June 26, 1940; 70 Phil 221

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity distinguished from Certificate of Public Convenience

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, G.R. No. 119528. March 26, 1997

COMMON CARRIERS AND CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE

Contract of transportation or Contract of carriage defined

Contract of carriage imbued with public interest

Art. 1755, Civil Code).
Air France v. Carrascoso, G.R. No. No. L-21438. Sept. 28, 1966; 18 SCRA 155
Singson v. CA, G.R. No. 119995. Nov. 18, 1997

Parties to contracts of carriage of goods and of passengers

Carrier defined

Classifications of carriers

Private or special carrier

Spouses Pereña v. Spouses Zarate, G.R. No. 157917. Aug. 29, 2012
National Steel Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 112287. Dec. 12, 1997; 347 Phil. 345

Common or public carriers

Art. 1732, Civil Code

Elements of a common carrier

Test for determining a common carrier

No legal distinction as to means of transporting; pipeline operator is a common carrier

First Philippine Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 125948. Dec. 29, 1998

Common carrier may have no regular schedule or clients, fixed routes, terminals or tickets

Asia Lighterage and Shipping, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. 147246. Aug. 19, 2003

Common carriers bound to serve all and liable for refusal to so serve without sufficient reason

No distinction made by law between common carriage as a principal or ancillary activity

De Guzman v. CA, G.R. No. L-47822. Dec. 22, 1988

Distinctions between a common carrier and a private carrier

Laws governing domestic, inter-island and coastwise transportation

Laws applicable to international, foreign or overseas transportation

Liability of a common carrier; extraordinary diligence

Art. 1733, Civil Code
Arts. 1734, 1735 and 1745, numbers 5, 6 and 7, Civil Code

Observance of extraordinary diligence in the carriage of goods

Gatchalian v. Delim, G.R. No. 56487. Oct. 21, 1991; 203 SCRA 126

When liability of common carrier starts in transport of passengers

Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 84458. Nov. 6, 1989

When liability of common carrier commences in transport of goods

Requisites of extraordinary diligence in carriages by land and by sea

Trans‐Asia Shipping v. CA, G.R. No. 118126. March 4, 1996
Negros Navigation v. CA, G.R. No. 110398. Nov. 7, 1997

Liabilities of a common carrier for breach of contract

Defenses in culpa contractual

Art. 1762, Civil Code

Burden of proof in cases of contributory negligence

Damages recoverable for death of a passenger

Briñas v. People, G.R. No. L‐30309. Nov. 25, 1983

Causes exempting the common carrier from responsibility

Art. 1734, Civil Code

Liability of common carrier for moral damages

China Airlines, Ltd. v. IAC, G.R. No. 73835. Jan. 17, 1989

Common carriers generally presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently

Bascos v. CA, G.R. No. 101089. April 7, 1993

Arts. 1734 and 1735, Civil Code

WEEK 2

When presumption of negligence arises; how presumption overcame; when presumption made absolute

Presumption of fault or negligence of common carrier rebuttable

Pilapil v. CA, G.R. No. 52159. Dec. 22, 1989; 180 SCRA 546

Exceptions to the application of presumption of fault or negligence

Philippine American General Insurance Co, Inc. v. MGG Marine Services, Inc. G.R. No. 135645. March 8, 2002

Arts. 1740, 1742 and 1743, Civil Code

Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. L‐48757. May 30, 1988
Southern Lines v. CA, G.R. No. L‐16629. Jan. 31, 1962, 4 SCRA 258
Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 119197. May 16, 1997; 272 SCRA 527

Accidents due to mechanical defects of carrier not fortuitous events

Sweet Lines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L‐46340. April 29, 1983
Juntilla v. Fontanar, G.R. No. L‐45637, May 31, 1985
Vergara v. CA, G.R. No. 77679, Sept. 30, 1987

Fire not considered as a natural disaster or calamity

Africa v. Caltex [Phil.], Inc., G.R. No. L-12986. March 31, 1966; 16 SCRA 448

Art. 1734, Civil Code
Sec. 4, COGSA
Servando v. Philippine Steam Navigation Co., G.R. No. L‐36481‐2, Oct. 23, 1982

Typhoon or storm deemed a fortuitous event; exception

Juan F. Nakpil & Sons v. CA, G.R. No. L-47851. Oct. 3, 1986; 144 SCRA 596
Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company v. IAC, G.R. No. 74387-90. Nov. 14, 1988; 167 SCRA 379
Valenzuela v. CA, G.R. No. 115024. Feb. 7, 1996; 253 SCRA 303
Arada v. CA, G.R. No. 98243. July 1, 1992

Stipulations in a contract of carriage deemed as unreasonable, unjust and contrary to public policy

Art. 1745, Civil Code

Acts of strangers that would divest a common carrier of his/its duty of extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the goods carried

Art. 1745, par. (6), Civil Code

Liability of carrier for acts of robbers

Act of God must be the sole and proximate cause of the loss to exempt the carrier from liability

Common carrier not liable where the proximate cause of passenger’s injury is his own negligence

Art. 1761, Civil Code

Liability over perishable goods

Duty of carrier to keep the vessel seaworthy

Rules regarding a carrier’s liability for delay in delivery of goods

Saludo, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 95536. March 23, 1992

Liability for delay in the transportation of goods

Arts. 1170, 1740, 1747 and 1748, Civil Code);

Certificate of Public Convenience not a requisite for incurring of liability as a common carrier

Grounds for refusal by common carrier to carry certain goods must be reasonable

F.C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R. No. L-8095. March 31, 1915

Presumption of negligence of common carriers; how overcome

Arts. 1735 and 1752, Civil Code
Compania Maritima v. CA, G.R. No. L-31379, 29 Aug. 1988, 164 SCRA 685

Reasons for the requirement of extraordinary diligence

Principles on the liability of a common carrier

Isaac v. A. L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-9671. Aug. 23, 1957

Periods when the liability of a common carrier begins and ceases

Arts. 1736 and 1738, Civil Code
Art. 619 of the Code of Commerce
Philippines First Insurance Co., Inc. v. Wallem Phils. Shipping, Inc. G.R. No. 165647. March 26, 2009

To whom goods must be delivered

Art. 1736, Civil Code

Parties may agree to relieve carrier from liability while goods are in custom’s custody

Lu Do & Lu Ym Corp. v. Binamira, G.R. No. L-9840. April 22, 1957

Rule as to unloading, storage and stoppage in transitu

Implied warranty of seaworthiness of ships as common carriers

Caltex [Philippines], Inc. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 131166. Sept. 30, 1999; 374 Phil. 325

Passenger defined

Persons not deemed as passengers

Lara v. Valencia, G.R. No. L-9907. June 30, 1958

Defenses of a common carrier in the carriage of goods

Art. 1734, Civil Code
Sabena Belgian World Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 104685. March 14, 1996

Caso fortuito defined; characteristics; exempting circumstances

Lasam v. Smith, 45 Phil. 661
Republic of the Philippines v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., G.R. No. L-21749. Sept. 29, 1967; 128 Phil. 313, citing Art. 1179, Civil Code
Metal Forming Corp.. v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 111386. Aug. 28, 1995; 317 Phil. 853

Art. 1740, Civil Code
Art. 1734, Civil Code
Sec. 4, COGSA
Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69044 and L-71478, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 463
La Mallorca and Pampanga Bus Co. v. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-21486. May 14, 1966; 123 Phil. 875

WEEK 3

Defense of negligence of the shipper or owner

Art. 1741, Civil Code

Proximate cause defined

Ramos v. C.O.L. Realty Corp., G.R. No. 184905. Aug. 28, 2009, 597 SCRA 526

Character of the goods or defects in the packing or in the containers

Art. 1742, Civil Code
Southern Lines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L-16629. Jan. 31, 1962; 4 SCRA 258

Order or act of competent public authority

Art. 1743, Civil Code
Ganzon v. CA, G.R. No. L-48757. May 30, 1988; 161 SCRA 646

Liability of a common carrier for the death of or injuries to passengers due to the acts of its employees, other passengers or strangers

Art. 1762, Civil Code
Art. 1764, Civil Code

Basis of carrier’s liability

Maranan v. Perez, G.R. No. L-22272. June 26, 1967

Doctrine of respondeat superior

Art. 1759, Civil Code
Manila Railroad Company v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. L-19161. April 29, 1966; 16 SCRA 641

Art. 1763, Civil Code
Sec. 48 (b), Motor Vehicle Law or Republic Act No. 4136

Degree of diligence required of common carriers for willful acts of strangers

Art. 1763, Civil Code

Causes of liability of common carriers

Duration of the liability of the common carrier in a contract of carriage of goods

Arts. 1736, 1737 and 1738, Civil Code

Periods within which the common carrier in a contract of carriage of passengers may be held liable

Light Rail Transit Authority v. Navidad, G.R. No. 145804. Feb. 6, 2003
Del Prado v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. L-29462. March 7, 1929; 52 Phil. 900

Duty of common carriers to afford passengers the opportunity to board safely

Dangwa Transportation Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 95582. Oct. 7, 1991; 202 SCRA 574

Person attempting to board a common carrier already considered a passenger

Passenger must be allowed a reasonable time to leave the carrier’s premises

La Mallorca v. CA, G.R. No. L‐20761. July 27, 1966

Presumption of negligence

Art. 1735, Civil Code

Rationale for the presumption

Mirasol v. The Robert Dollar Co., G.R. No. L-29721. March 27, 1929).
Coastwise Lighterage Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 114167. July 12, 1995
Art. 1755, Civil Code

Burden of proof falls on carrier to prove extraordinary diligence

Defenses to overcome presumption of fault or negligence

Arts. 1734, 1735 and 1736, Civil Code

Valid stipulations in contracts of carriage of goods

Art. 1744, Civil Code
Arts. 1748, 1749 and 1750, Civil Code
Art. 1744, Art. 1745, No. 4, Civil Code
Art. 1758, Civil Code

Void stipulations in contracts of carriage of goods

Art. 1745, Civil Code
Arts. 1733, 1755 and 1757, Civil Code

Rules on checked-in baggage

Arts. 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003, Civil Code

Rule in case of non‐paying passengers or if the fare is reduced

Art. 758, Civil Code

Concurring causes of action

Art. 1759, Civil Code.
Cangco v. Manila Railroad Co., 38 Phil. 768

Art. 2180, Civil Code
Arts. 826-939, Code of Commerce
Martinez v. Barredo, G.R. No. L-49308. May 13, 1948; 81 Phil. 1
Arts. 102 and 103, Revised Penal Code
Viluan v. CA, G.R. No. L-21477-81. April 29, 1966
Gutierrez v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 8896. Dec. 29, 1913; 56 Phil. 177

Stipulations limiting the liability of the carrier in a bill of lading

H. E. Heacock Company v. Macondray & Company, Inc., G.R. No. L-16598. Oct. 3, 1921; 42 Phil. 205
Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc. v. Gabino Barretto & Co., Ltd., G.R. No. L-28028. Nov. 25, 1927; 51 Phil. 90

When a stipulation limiting common carrier’s liability may be annulled by the shipper or owner

Arts. 1746 and 1747, Civil Code

When the limitation of the amount of liability is valid

Art. 1750, Civil Code

CHAPTER II

THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ITS FUNCTIONS

Commonwealth Act No. 146 enacted on November 7, 1936
Secs. 1 and 2, C.A. No. 146

Jurisdiction and powers of the Public Service Commission

Sec. 13[a], C.A. No. 146

Public service

Sec. 13[b], C.A. No. 146

Public character and interest not number of people served determinative of public utility or service

Luzon Stevedoring Company, Inc. v. The Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-5458. Sept. 16, 1953

WEEK 4

Public utility defined

JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 124293. Sept. 24, 2003

Statutory definition of public utility abandoned

JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, Id.; Tinga, J., Sep. Op.

Public use

Iloilo Ice and Cold Storage Co. v. Public Utility Board, G.R. No. L-19857. March 2, 1923; 44 Phil. 551

Exempted services

Sec. 13, Public Service Act or C.A. No. 146, as amended
Sec. 14, C.A. No. 146, as amended by C.A. No. 454, R.A. Nos. 2031 and 2677

Why shipyards are not deemed as public utilities; definition

Sec. 13 (b), C.A. No. 146
Sec. 15, C.A. No. 146
Sec. 1(d), P.D. No. 666 reads:
Mecano v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 103982. Dec. 11, 1992; 216 SCRA 500

Sec. 20 of B.P. Blg. 391 expressly and categorically repealed the whole of Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 666.
E.O. No. 226 (law) dated July 16, 1987

Other service not deemed as public utilities

Automobile and aircraft manufacturers

Oil company

R.A. No. 387, otherwise known as the Petroleum Act of 1949
Act No. 3108 and C.A. No. 146 included oil in the definition of public utility
C.A. Nos. 146 and 454, R.A. Nos. 1270 and 2677 covered petroleum.

Wharf or dock

Albano v. Reyes, G.R. No. 83551. July 11, 1989; 175 SCRA 264

Operator of trucks

United States v. Tan Piaco, G.R. No. L-15122. March 10, 1920; 40 Phil. 853
Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended

Owner and lessor of equipment and facilities for a rail system

Tatad v. Garcia, G.R. No. 114222. April 6, 1995; 243 SCRA 436

Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended

Ice plant

La Paz Ice Plant & Cold Storage Co., Inc. v. John Bordman, G.R. No. L-43668. March 31, 1938; 65 Phil. 401

Others included in the definition of public utilities

Public utility determined not by law but by courts

Sec. 1, R.A. No. 2677, amending Sec. 13(b), C.A. No. 146, as amended
North Negros Sugar Co. v. Hidalgo, G.R. No. L-42334. Oct. 31, 1936; 63 Phil. 664

FRANCHISE FOR PUBLIC SERVICES

Franchise defined

Franchise as a legislative grant

Congress has no exclusive authority to issue franchises

Sec. 11, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution

Public Service Commission abolished and replaced

Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) or Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) defined

Pangasinan Transportation Co., Inc. v. Public Service Commission, G.R. No. 47065. June 26, 1940; 70 Phil. 221
Luque v. Villegas, G.R. No. L-22545. Nov. 28, 1969; 30 SCRA 408

Sec. 14 of the Public Service Act (C.A. No. 146)
Sec. 15, par. 1, C.A. No. 146

CPC included in the term “property”

Raymundo v. Luneta Motor Co., G.R. No. L-39902, L-39903. Nov. 29, 1933; 58 Phil. 889

Conditions for the issuance of CPC or CPCN

Par. 1, Sec. 15, C.A. No. 146, as amended
Sec. 15, par. 2, C.A. No. 146, as amended

Requisites for the grant of CPC or CPCN

Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 115381. Dec. 23, 1994

Other applications of the CPC or CPCN

Sec. 15, par. 4, C.A. No. 146, as amended

Law not the title in certificate that determines the requirements for the issuance of such certificate

Unlawful acts of public service companies

Secs. 18 and 19, C.A. No. 146, amended

Prior operator rule or Old operator rule

Halili v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-21061. June 27, 1968; 23 SCRA 1174

Exceptions to the prior operator rule

Prior applicant rule

Third operator rule

Yangco v. Esteban, G.R. No. 38586. Aug. 18, 1933

Protection of investment rule

Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes, G.R. No. L-28865. Dec. 19, 1928; 52 Phil., 455
Tiongson v. Public Service Commission, G.R. No. L-24701. Dec. 16, 1970

CHAPTER III

COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS FOR TRANSPORTATION

CODE OF COMMERCE PROVISIONS AND CONCEPTS

Relevant Code of Commerce provisions and scope of their application

Arts. 349 to 379, Code of Commerce

WEEK 5

Contract of transportation; when deemed commercial

Art. 349, Code of Commerce

Bill of lading defined

Bus Company v. The Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-14078. Feb. 24, 1961

Lading defined

Two-fold character of a bill of lading

Functions of the bill of lading

Kinds of bills of lading

Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 95529. Aug. 22, 1991

Bill of lading not indispensable to contract of carriage

Compañia Maritima v. Insurance Company of North America, G.R. No. L-18965. Oct. 30, 1964

When liability of the carrier commences

Determination of indemnity if not stipulated

Art. 370, Code of Commerce

Bill of lading as a contract of adhesion

Philippine Commercial International Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 97785. March 29, 1996; 325 Phil. 588

Effect of acceptance of a bill of lading sans objection

Contract ambiguities how construed

Art. 1377, Civil Code
Power Commercial and Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 119745. June 20, 1997; 274 SCRA 597

Instances when consignee is bound by the bill of lading

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 75118. Aug. 31, 1987; 237 Phil. 531

Art. 1311[2], Civil Code
Mendoza v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., G.R. No. L-3678. Feb. 29, 1952; 90 Phil 836

Duties of the carrier

Carrier’s obligation to accept the goods

F.C. Fisher v. Yangco Steamship Company, G.R. No. L-8095. March 31, 1915

When a common carrier may lawfully decline to accept the goods

Carrier not absolutely obliged to accept a cargo

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 119706. March 14, 1996

Carrier’s duty to deliver the goods

Period of delivery of goods

Art. 358, Code of Commerce
Art. 370, Code of Commerce

Effects of delay in the delivery of the goods

Art.1740, Civil Code
Art.1747, Civil Code

Instances when the consignee may refuse to receive the goods

Arts. 363, 365 and 371, Code of Commerce

Claim for damage, when and how made

Art. 366, Code of Commerce
New Zealand Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Choa Joy, G.R. No. L-7311. Sept. 30, 1955

When claim for damage may no longer be admitted

Art. 366, Code of Commerce, pars. 1 and 2

Effects of paying the transportation charges

Art. 366, Code of Commerce

Rationale for the requisite period of giving notice of claim

Philippine American General Insurance Co., Inc. v. Sweet Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 87434. Aug. 5, 1992; 212 SCRA 194

24-hour claim a condition precedent to an action against carrier

Philippine Charter Insurance Corp. v. Chemoil Lighterage Corp., G.R. No. 136888. June 29, 2005

Patent damage vis-à-vis latent damage

Rules on claim do not apply to undelivered goods

Roldan v. Lim Ponzo & Co., G.R. No. L-11325. Dec. 7, 1917

Shorter period may validly be stipulated by the parties

Application of prescriptive periods under the Civil Code

Doctrine of combined or connecting services

Art. 373, Code of Commerce

Special right of carrier over the goods transported and prescription of action to enforce such right

Art. 375, Code of Commerce

CHAPTER IV

LAND TRANSPORTATION

GOVERNING LAWS

Republic Act No. 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code – June 20, 1964
Republic Act No. 6374;
Presidential Decree No. 98;
Presidential Decree No.109;
Presidential Decree No. 843;
Presidential Decree No. 896;
Presidential Decree No.1057;
Presidential Decree No.1958;
Batas Pambansa Blg. 43;
Batas Pambansa Blg. 74;
Batas Pambansa Blg. 398;
Republic Act No. 8750;
Republic Act No. 10586 or the “Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013;” and
Other laws which expressly or impliedly modified some of its provisions.

IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES AND BODIES

The Land Transportation Office (LTO)

WEEK 6

Book IV, Title XV, Chapter 1, Sec. 2, Administrative Code of 1987).
Sec. 4 (d) [1], Art. III, R.A. No. 4136, as amended
Sec. 27, Land Transportation and Traffic Code or R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Driver’s license issued by the LTO

Specific powers and functions of the LTO

Sec. 4 (d) [1], Art. III, R.A. No. 4136, as amended,

The Land Transportation, Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB)

E.O. No. 202, dated 19 June 1987
Land Transportation Office v. Butuan, G.R. No. 131512. Jan. 20, 2000

“To regulate” and “to register” construed

Key powers and functions of the LTFRB

E.O. No. 202, s. 1987

The Local Government Units (LGUs)

Power to regulate the operation and grant franchises to tricycles devolved to LGUs

Sec. 458. R.A. No. 7160

Rationale for the devolution

LTO powers on vehicle registration and drivers’ licensing not devolved to LGUs

The Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)

MMDA’s power to enforce traffic laws in Metro Manila

Sec. 5(f), Republic Act No. 7924

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ROAD USERS

Caminos, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 147437. May 8, 2009

Duty of drivers to have license

Sec. 19, R.A. No. 4136, as amended by B.P. Blg. 398

Right of way construed

Right of way rule in intersections

Sec. 42, R.A. No. 4136

Duty to yield

Rule determined by imminence of collision

Crossing a thru-stop street

Adzuara v. CA, G.R. No. 125134. Jan. 22, 1999; 301 SCRA 657

Driving on right side of highway

Sec. 37, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Overtaking a vehicle

Sec. 39, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Driver to give way to overtaking vehicle

Sec. 40, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Turning right or left at intersections

Sec. 45[a] and [b], R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Parking prohibited in specified places

Sec. 46, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Hitching to a vehicle prohibited

Sec. 51, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Obstruction of traffic

Sec. 54, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Prohibited acts specifically penalized under R.A. No. 4136

Retroactive effect of penal laws

Sec. 19 of R.A. No. 10586 expressly modified Sec. 56(f) of R.A. No. 4136
Art. 22, RPC, in relation to Sec. 3(e), RA 10586

RECKLESS DRIVING AND ROAD ACCIDENTS

Reckless driving and reckless imprudence

Sec. 48, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Imprudence defined

Reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property; elements

Presumption of imprudent driving; burden of proof on the accused

When motor vehicle operator at fault may be held criminally liable

Sec. 56[n], R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Negligence of other party not a defense in reckless driving case

Instance when presumption of driver’s negligence arises

Art. 2185, Civil Code

Rate of speed a basic factor in determining reckless driving

Restriction as to speed

Sec. 35[a], R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Reasonable rate of speed

Gabriel v. CA, G.R. No. 128474. Oct. 6, 2004; 440 SCRA 136

Sec. 35, R.A. No. 4136

Swerving per se not violative of traffic law

Sec. 48, R.A. No. 4136
Sydeco v. People, G.R. No. 202692. Nov. 12, 2014

Driving under the influence of alcohol

Sec. 5, R.A. No. 10586
Sec. 3(g), IRR of R.A. No. 10586

Driving under the influence of dangerous drugs and other similar substance

Sec. 3[f], R.A. No. 10586

WEEK 7

Conduct of field sobriety tests

Sec. 6, R.A. No. 10586
Sec. 3[g], R.A. No. 10586

Use of breath analyzer

Sec. 3[b], R.A. No. 10586

Chemical and confirmatory tests

Sec. 3[c], R.A. No. 10586

Mandatory alcohol and chemical testing of drivers involved in motor vehicular accidents

Sec. 7, R.A. No. 10586

Refusal to submit to mandatory tests

Secs. 6, 7, 8 and 15, R.A. No. 10586

Children prohibited from sitting in front seat

Sec. 5, R.A. No. 8750

Duty of driver in case of accident

Sec. 55, R.A. No. 4136, as amended

ARRESTS AND SEARCHES

When refusal to get off of the vehicle for a body and vehicle search not deemed as serious disobedience to a lawful order

Abenes v. CA, G.R. No. 156320. Feb. 14, 2007; 515 SCRA 690

Art. 151, Revised Penal Code

Reasonable suspicion of a crime that would justify stop-and-frisk action

People v. Sy Chua, G.R. No. 136066-67. Feb. 4, 2003; 444 Phil. 757

General rule is confiscation of driver’s license not arrest

Sec. 29. R.A. 4136

No warrant of arrest to be issued for offense penalized only by fine; effect of issuance of traffic citation ticket

Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788. Feb. 29, 2012

Requirements for a valid arrest

Morales, Jr. v. Enrile, G.R. No. L-61016. April 26, 1983; 206 Phil. 466

Invalid arrest does not authorize warrantless search

People v. Bolasa, G.R. No. 125754. Dec. 22, 1999; 378 Phil. 1073

Evidence seized not in plain view

People v. Macalaba, G.R. No. 146284-86. Jan. 20, 2003; 443 Phil. 565

Consented warrantless search

Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 136292. Jan. 15, 2002; 424 Phil. 263

Inadmissibility of articles seized during illegal arrest

People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366. Dec. 13, 2010

MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND FRANCHISING

Motor vehicle defined

Compulsory registration of motor vehicles

Sec. 5(a) and (e), R.A. No. 4136, as amended

Unregistered sale or lease of motor vehicle not binding on third persons injured in vehicular accidents

First Malayan Leasing and Finance Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 91378. June 9, 1992; 209 SCRA 660
Roxas v. CA, G.R. No. 92245. June 26, 1991; 198 SCRA 541
PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 162267. July 4, 2008

Nature of motor vehicle registration fees: taxes or regulatory fees

Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Edu, G.R. No. L- 41383. Aug. 15, 1988

Mandatory emission standards for motor vehicles

Sec. 46, R.A. No. 8749 or the Clean Air Act of 1999

Seat belt device defined

Sec. 3, R.A. No. 8750

Mandatory use and provision of seat belts in certain motor vehicles

Sec. 4, R.A. No. 8750

Penalties and fines for violation of the Seat Belts Use Act

Sec. 12, R.A. No. 8750

Permanent number plates

Sec. 17, R.A. No. 4136, as amended by B.P. Blg. 43

Certificate of Public Convenience issued by LTFRB

Franchise defined

Public convenience or necessity construed

Public hearing an indispensable requirement in issuance of CPC

Batangas Transportation Co. v. Orlanes, G.R. No. L-28865. Dec. 19, 1928; 52 Phil., 455
Manila Electric Company v. Pasay Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-37655. Feb. 9, 1933; 57 Phil. 825

Requisites for the grant of CPC

Sec. 16(a), C.A. No. 146, as amended

LTFRB cannot redelegate its delegated power to a common carrier

United States v. Barrias, G.R. No. 4349. Sept. 24, 1908; 11 Phil. 327

Kabit system

Baliwag Transit Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 57493. Jan. 7, 1987; 147 SCRA 82

Art. 1409, Civil Code
Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 125817. Jan. 16, 2002

WEEK 8

Purpose behind the proscription against the kabit system

Kabit system not a criminal offense but void under civil law

Art. 1412, Civil Code
Lita Enterprises, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 64693. April 27, 1984

Boundary system

Paguio Transport Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119500. Aug. 28, 1998

Relationship between the owner of the vehicle and the driver under a “boundary system”

Jardin v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 119268. Feb. 23, 2000
National Labor Union v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. L-14183. Nov. 4, 1993

Effect of transfer or lease of franchise

Montoya v. Ignacio, G.R. No. L-5868. Dec. 29, 1953; 94 Phil. 182

Registered owner liable despite transfer of ownership of vehicle

Perez v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. L-30115. Sept. 28, 1973; 53 SCRA 149
Benedicto v. IAC, G.R. No. 70876. July 19, 1990

Approval of sale, encumbrance or lease of property

DOTC Order No. 2010‐34

Sale or lease of franchise requires prior approval by LTFRB

Prior approval of the sale, lease or encumbrance of property not a condition precedent to validity of contract

Fores v. Miranda, G.R. No. L-12163. March 4, 1959

Solidary liability of a registered owner/operator of a public service vehicle

Gelisan v. Alday, G.R. No. L-30212. Sept. 30, 1987

CHAPTER V

MARINE TRANSPORTATION

MARINE TRANSPORTATION AND MARITIME LAWS

Marine transportation defined

Governing law

Admiralty or maritime law

Admiralty law differentiated from the Law of the Sea

THE KEY ACTORS IN MARITIME COMMERCE
The shipowner and ship agent

Art. 586, Code of Commerce and Sec. 1, R.A. No. 9515

Powers and functions of a ship agent

Civil liabilities of the shipowner and ship agent

Art. 587, Code of Commerce

Authority of the ship agent to discharge the captain and members of the crew

Art. 603 and 605, Code of Commerce

The ship captain and master of the vessel

Yu Con v. Ipil, G.R. No. L-10195. Dec. 29, 1916

Nature of the position of captain and master

Qualifications of a captain or master

Art. 609, Code of Commerce

Inherent powers of a captain or master

Art. 610, Code of Commerce

Hull

Rigging

Fund sources

Art. 611, Code of Commerce

Duties of a captain or master

Art. 612, Code of Commerce

“Log book” and its contents

“Accounting book” and its contents

“Freight book” and its contents

Solidary liability of the captain and ship agent

Art. 618, Code of Commerce

Instances when the captain incurs no liability

Art. 620, Code of Commerce

Ship’s captain discretionary authority

Inter-Orient Maritime Enterprises Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 115286. Aug. 11, 1994

Captain cannot be substituted without ship agent’s consent

Art. 615, Code of Commerce

Cases when the captain and crew members may rescind their contracts of employment

Art. 647, Code of Commerce

(1) The officers and crew of the vessel

Cases when the officers and crew are exempted from all obligations

Art. 647, Code of Commerce

Sailing mate or First mate

Art. 627, Code of Commerce

Duties of a Sailing mate or First mate

Arts. 628 to 631, Code of Commerce

“Binnacle book” and its contents

Arts. 629 to 631, Code of Commerce

WEEK 9 –MIDTERM EXAM

WEEK 10

Second mate

Duties of a Second mate

Art. 632, Code of Commerce

Marine engineers

Duties of the Chief engineer

“Engine book” and its contents

The crew and its composition

Art. 634, Code of Commerce

Just causes for the discharge of a seaman

Art. 637, Code of Commerce

Rules if a seaman should die or be captured during the voyage

Art. 645, Code of Commerce

Complement of a vessel

Art. 648, Code of Commerce

Supercargoes

Art. 649, Code of Commerce

The pilot

Far Eastern Shipping Company v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. Oct. 1, 1998

Harbor pilot

Pilotage defined

Compulsory pilotage

Liability of a pilot

Sec.11, Art. III, PPA Admin Order 03-85

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS IN MARITIME COMMERCE

Essential terms used in maritime commerce

Merchant vessel defined

P.D. No. 1521

Maritime lien

Philippine National Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 128661. Aug. 8, 2000; 337 SCRA 381

Secs. 17 and 21 of P.D. No. 1521 or “The Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978”

Preferred maritime lien

Sects. 17 and 21 of P.D. No. 1521

Doctrine of limited liability or the Limited liability rule

Art. 587, Code of Commerce
Yangco v. Laserna, G.R. No. L-47447-47449. Oct. 29, 1941; 73 Phil. 330

Rationale for the doctrine

Doctrine of limited liability; specific applications

Arts. 587, 590, 643 and 837, Code of Commerce

Limited liability rule under the provisions of the Code of Commerce

Arts. 587, 590 and 837, Book III, Code of Commerce

Exceptions to the limited liability rule

Chua Yek Hong v. IAC, G.R. No. 74811. Sept. 30, 1988

Art. 827, Code of Commerce

Abandonment defined

Sec. 140, Insurance Code, as amended

General limitation on abandonment

Sec. 142, Insurance Code, as amended

Abandonment of the vessel; when needed

Art. 837, Code of Commerce
Luzon Stevedoring Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. L-58897. Dec. 3, 1987; 156 SCRA 169

Abandonment; how done

Secs. 145 and 146, Insurance Code, as amended

Acceptance of abandonment

Secs. 152 to 155, Insurance Code, as amended

Effect of refusal to accept a valid abandonment

Sec. 156, Insurance Code, as amended

Abandonment no longer required when vessel is totally lost

Arts. 587, 590 and 837, Code of Commerce
Vasquez v. CA, G.R. No. L-42926. Sept. 13, 1985; 138 SCRA 553

When abandonment becomes ineffectual

Sec. 144, Insurance Code, as amended

Causes justifying resort to abandonment

Sec. 141, Insurance Code, as amended

Subsidiary liability of the shipowner and agent

The Philippine Shipping Company v. Vergara, G.R. No. L-1600. June 1, 1906; Phil. 281

Art. 837, Code of Commerce
Manila Steamship Co., Inc. v. Abdulhaman, G.R. No. L-9534. Sept. 29, 1956; 100 Phil. 32

Limitations on the right of abandonment

Philippine American General Insurance Company, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 116940. June 11, 1997; 339 Phil. 455
Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 110398. Nov. 7, 1997; 346 Phil. 551

WEEK 11

Effect of abandonment of vessel and earned freight

Art. 587, Code of Commerce
Switzerland General Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Ramirez, G.R. No. L-48264. Feb. 21, 1980; 96 SCRA 297

Right of abandonment

Extent of liability of the shipowner and ship agent

Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 121833, 130752, 137801. Oct. 17, 2008; 569 SCRA 294).

Ship agent defined

Art. 587, Code of Commerce

“No vessel, no liability” rule

The Government of the Philippine Islands v. The Insular Maritime Co., G.R. No. L-21495. March 18, 1924; 45 Phil. 805).

Origin of the rule and the rationale for its adoption in maritime law

Abueg v. San Diego, G.R. No. L-773. Dec. 17, 1946; 77 Phil. 730

Real and hypothecary nature of maritime law

Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp., Ltd., G.R. No. 100446. Jan. 21, 1993; 217 SCRA 359

“Real” and “hypothecary” construed

Rubiso v. Rivera, G.R. No. L-11407. Oct. 30, 1917; 37 Phil. 72

Primary governing law on liability of ship owners or agents for total loss or destruction of the vessel

Arts. 1732-1766, Civil Code
Art. 587, Code of Commerce

Package liability limitation

Causes of revocation of voyage

Art. 640, Code of Commerce

Interdiction of commerce

Blockade

Embargo

Order of preference in case of sale of vessel

Effect of sale of vessel

Sec. 17, P.D. No. 1521
Art. 587, Code of Commerce
Art. 687, Id.
Sec. 138, Insurance Code

Participants in maritime commerce

Charter party

Tabacalera Insurance Co. v. North Front Shipping Services, Inc., G.R. No. 119197. May 16, 1997; 272 SCRA 527

Charter party as a special contract in maritime commerce

Parties to a charter party

Kinds of charter party

Puromines, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 91228. March 22, 1993

Charter of demise or bareboat

Owner pro hac vice

Contract of affreightment

Kinds of contract of affreightment

Time charter

Litonjua Shipping Company Inc. v. National Seamen Board, G.R. No. L-51910. Aug. 10, 1989

Voyage charter

Distinctions between a civil law lease and a charter party

Distinctions between a charter party and a bill of lading

Distinctions between a demise or bareboat charter party and a contract of affreightment

Persons who can make a charter

Art. 598, Code of Commerce
Art. 609, Id.
Art. 679, Id.

Requirements of a valid charter party

Instances when a charter party may be rescinded

Freight defined

Freightage

Sec. 104, P.D. No. 612 or the Insurance Code, as amended by R.A. No. 10607

Requisites and contents of charter party

Art. 652, Code of Commerce

Charter party clauses

Jason clause

Paramount clause

Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (46 U.S.C.A. § 1300)

Rights and obligations of the shipowner or ship agent

Arts. 669-678, Code of Commerce

Lay days defined

Extra lay days

WEEK 12

Demurrage

Obligations of charterers

Arts. 679-687, Code of Commerce

Primage

Rescission of a charter party at the charterer’s request

Art. 688, Code of Commerce

Rescission of a charter party at the shipowner’s request

Art. 689, Code of Commerce

Rescission of a charter party due to fortuitous causes

Art. 690, Code of Commerce

Transshipment defined

Sec 2[m], R.A. No. 10668
Magellan Manufacturing Marketing Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 95529. Aug. 22, 1991

Loans on bottomry and respondentia

Art. 719, Code of Commerce

Aleatory contract

Distinctions between a loan on bottomry and a loan on respondentia

Requisites of loan on bottomry or respondentia

When loan on bottomry or respondentia treated as a simple loan

Arts. 726 and 727, Code of Commerce

Interest rate on the loan; Usury law and CB Circular 905-92

Central Bank Circular No. 905-82
Dio v. Japor, G.R. No. 154129. July 8, 2005; 463 SCRA 170
Almeda v. CA, G.R. No. 113412. April 17, 1996; 256 SCRA 292

Distinctions between a loan on bottomry or respondentia and marine insurance

Hypothecary nature of bottomry and respondentia

Art. 731, Code of Commerce

Hypothecary

Barratry defined

Barratry clause

Roque v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66935. Nov. 11, 1985

Marine insurance and loan on bottomry and respondentia

Sec. 101, Insurance Code
Art. 735, Code of Commerce

Accidents in maritime commerce

(1) Averages

Art. 806, Code of Commerce

Ordinary expenses

Art. 807, Code of Commerce

Kinds of averages

Art. 808, Code of Commerce

Simple or particular averages

Arta. 809 and 810, Code of Commerce

General or gross averages

Art. 811, Code of Commerce

Requisites for general average

Arts. 816-818, Code of Commerce

Procedure for recovery expenses for gross average

Arts. 813 and 814, Code of Commerce

Contribution to the general average

Art. 812, Code of Commerce
Art. 859, Id.
Art. 732, Id.
A. Magsaysay, Inc. v. Agan, G.R. No. L-6393. Jan. 31, 1955
Art. 812, Code of Commerce

Jettison defined

Order of goods or cargo to be jettisoned or cast overboard

Art. 815, Code of Commerce

Cargo not covered by general average

Art. 855, Code of Commerce
Rule IX, York-Antwerp Rule

Rationale for the rule on deck cargo

Subsec. 1, Art. 815, Code of Commerce,
Standard Oil Company of New York v. Castelo, G.R. No. L-13695. Oct. 18, 1921).

Rule different in coastwise and inland waters navigation

Requisites for inclusion of jettisoned goods in the general average

Art. 816, Code of Commerce

(2) Arrival under stress

Art. 819, Code of Commerce

Steps to be followed in arrival under stress

Art. 819, Code of Commerce

Protest in arrival under stress only a disclaimer on owner’s liability

When arrival deemed unlawful

Art. 820, Code of Commerce

Who bears the expenses of arrival

Art. 821, Code of Commerce

WEEK 13

Duty of the captain to continue the voyage

Art. 825, Code of Commerce

(3) Collision and allision

Vessel at fault liable for indemnity

Art. 826, Code of Commerce

Liability if both vessels at fault or if it cannot be determined which vessel caused the collision

Arts. 827 and 828, Code of Commerce

Doctrine of last clear chance and Rule on contributory negligence

Art. 827, Code of Commerce

Doctrine of inscrutable fault

Divisions of time or zones in collisions of vessels

G. Urrutia & Co. v. Baco River Plantation Co., G.R. No. L-7675. March 25, 1913).

Error in extremis defined

Liability in collision through fortuitous event or force majeure

Art. 830, Code of Commerce

Presumption of fault against a moving vessel striking a stationary object; doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

Far Eastern Shipping Company v. CA, G.R. No. 130068. Oct. 1, 1998
Republic v. Luzon Stevedoring Corp., G.R. No. L-21749. Sept. 29, 1967; 21 SCRA 279

Civil tort vis-à-vis maritime tort

Liability of third vessel causing the collision

Art. 831, Code of Commerce

Liability of properly anchored and moored vessel colliding with nearby vessels due to storm or force majeure

Art. 832, Code of Commerce

When vessel presumed as lost by reason of collision

Art. 833, Code of Commerce

Role of protest for the recovery of losses and damages due to collision; when and how made

Art. 835, Code of Commerce

Who can file maritime protest in case of collision

Arts. 835-836, Code of Commerce
Verzosa v. Lim, G.R. No. 20145. Nov. 15, 1923

Effect of absence of protest on persons not on board

Art. 836, Code of Commerce

Limitation on the shipowners’ civil liability

Art. 837, Code of Commerce

Indemnity for death or injury of persons

Art. 838, Code of Commerce

Summary investigation of the accident

Art. 839, Code of Commerce

Presumptions to determine negligence

Rules to prevent collision

Port and starboard

Windward and leeward

Rules governing sailing vessels and steamships

Maritime protest defined; by whom and when made; to whom filed

Art. 835, Code of Commerce

Persons not required to file protest

Art. 836, Code of Commerce

Cases where protest requirement applies

Art. 835, Code of Commerce
Art. 612[8], Id.
Arts. 612[15] and 843, Id.
Art. 624, Id.

(4) Shipwreck defined

Owners bear the losses due to shipwreck

Art. 840, Code of Commerce

Indemnity from the captain due to his fault

Art. 841, Code of Commerce

When the captain may be held liable for shipwreck

Art. 841, Code of Commerce

SPECIAL CONCEPTS IN MARITIME COMMERCE

(a) Arrastre defined

Arrastre services

Sec. 1213, R.A. No. 1937

Nature of arrastre function; BOC’s immunity from suit

Mobil Philippines Exploration, Inc. v. Customs Arrastre Service, G.R. No. L-23139. Dec. 17, 1966

Arrastre operators

Functions of an arrastre operator

Hijos de F. Escao, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 59229. Aug. 22, 1991; 261 SCRA 63
Summa Insurance Corp., v. CA, G.R. No. 84680. Feb. 5, 1996; 323 Phil. 214
Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., v. Metro Port Service, Inc., G.R. No. 83613. Feb. 21, 1990; 182 SCRA 455

WEEK 14

Arrastre operator and carrier solidarily liable

Lua Kian v. Manila Railroad Company, G.R. No. L-23033. Jan. 5, 1967; 19 SCRA 5
Northern Motors, Inc. v. Prince Line, G.R. No. L-13884. Feb. 29, 1960; 107 Phil. 253).

What arrastre operator must prove to avoid liability

Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Daehan Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., G.R. No. 171194. Feb. 4, 2010; 611 SCRA 555

Arrastre operator deemed a public utility

New Zealand Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Navarro, G.R. No. L-48686. Oct. 4, 1989

(b) Stevedoring service defined

Cebu Arrastre Service v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-7444. May 30, 1966
The Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines v. Collector of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. L-21835. Aug. 19, 1967
Anglo-Fil Trading Corp. v. Lazaro, G.R. No. L-54958. Sept. 2, 1983

(c) Containerization

United States Lines, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-73490. June 18, 1987

When carrier of the containerized cargo may be held liable

Reyma Brokerage, Inc. v. Philippine Home Assurance Corp., G.R. No. 93464. Oct. 7, 1991
Bankers & Manufacturers Assurance Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 80256. Oct. 2, 1992

SALVAGE LAW OR ACT NO. 2616

Salvage defined

Erlanger & Galinger v. The Swedish East Asiatic Co., [Ltd.], G.R. No. L-10051. March 9, 1916

Elements needed to a valid salvage claim

Rules for determining the reward for salvage

Sec. 9, Act No. 2616

Proper subjects of salvage

Salvage Law (Act No. 2616)

Flotsam, jetsam, lagan defined

Towage defined

Salvage distinguished from towage

Art. 2142, Civil Code
Barrios v. Carlos A. Go thong & Company, G.R. No. L-17192. March 30, 1963

Persons having no right to reward for salvage

Sec. 3, Act No. 2616

Derelict defined

Basic rules on salvage reward

Secs. 9, 11, 12 and 13, Act No. 2616
The Atlantic, Gulf & Pacific Company of Manila v. Uchida Kisen Kaisha, G.R. No. L-15871. Nov. 7, 1921

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA ACT (COGSA) OR COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 65

U.S. COGSA adopted by the Philippine Congress via C.A. No. 65

Public Act No. 521 of the 74th US Congress
Sec. 1, C.A. No. 65

Application of COGSA in relation to provisions of other laws

Art. 1753, Civil Code
Art. 1766, Civil Code
COGSA

Significant provisions of COGSA

Rationale for limiting common carrier’s liability

Edgar Cokaliong Shipping Lines, Inc. v. UCPB General Insurance Co., G.R. No. 146018. June 25, 2003

Carriage of goods; period covered

Sec. 1(e), Title I of C.A. No. 65 (COGSA)
Insurance Company of North America v. Asian Terminals, Inc., G.R. No. 180784. Feb. 15, 2012

Notice of loss or damage

Sec. 3[6], COGSA

Action to recover not barred by lack of notice

E. E. Elser, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L‐6517. Nov. 29, 1954)

Prescriptive period for filing an action under COGSA

Par. (6), Sec. 3, COGSA

Belgian Overseas Chartering and Shipping, N.V. v. Philippine First Insurance Co., Inc., G.R. No. 143133. June 5, 2002; 383 SCRA 23)

Other persons covered by the one-year prescriptive period

Kuy v. Everrett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L‐5554. May 27, 1953

Insurer covered by the one-year prescriptive period

Filipino Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. v. Alejandro, G.R. No. L‐54140. Oct. 14, 1986

Sec. 3(6), COGSA
Mayer Steel Pipe Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 124050. June 19, 1997

Arrastre operator not covered by prescriptive period

Rationale for the prescriptive period under COGSA

Ang v. American Steamship Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. L-22491. Jan. 27, 1967; 19 SCRA 129

WEEK 15

Not loss or damage but misdelivery

Sec. 3(6), COGSA

Applicable rule on prescription in case of misdelivery of goods

Arts. 1144(1) and 1146, Civil Code
Tan Liao v. American President Lines, Ltd., G.R. No. L-7280. Jan. 20, 1956; 98 Phil. 203

Instances when prescription is suspended

Universal Shipping Lines, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 74125. July 31, 1990; 188 SCRA 170
F. H. Stevens & Co. Inc. v. Norddeuscher Lloyd, G.R. No. L-17730. Sept. 29, 1962; 6 SCRA 180

Provisions of Civil Code on prescription not applicable to COGSA

Art. 1155, Civil Code
Sect. 3, par. 6, COGSA
Chua Kuy v. Everett Steamship Corp., G.R. No. L-5554. May 27, 1953
Art. 1155, Civil Code
The Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. v. American President Lines, Inc., G.R. No. No. L-11081. April 30, 1958; 103 Phil. 1125
Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Maritime Company of the Philippines, G.R. No. L‐61352. Feb. 27, 1987

When prescription begins to run

Continental Insurance Company v. Manila Port Service, G.R. No. L-22208. March 30, 1966, 16 SCRA 425
Union Carbide Philippines, Inc. v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. L-27798. June 15, 1977

Prescriptive period applies to insurer of goods

When cases for loss or damage of goods must be filed

Manner of determining the amount of liability of common carrier for loss or damage to the goods transported

Art. 372, Code of Commerce

When shipper fails to declare value of goods

Sec. 4, par. 5, COGSA
Philam Insurance Company, Inc. v. Heung-A Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 187701. July 23, 2014

Amount of carrier’s liability

Sec. 4(5), COGSA
Eastern Shipping v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69044. May 29, 1987; 150 SCRA 463).

Parties may stipulate higher amount up to actual damage sustained

Stipulation limiting carrier’s liability for loss of goods permitted

Arts. 1749 and 1750, Civil Code
Sec. 4, par. (5), COGSA

Stipulation limiting the carrier’s liability; when valid

Art. 1744, Civil Code

Rule on packages shipped in a container

“Container” construed

Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 89757. Aug. 6, 1990

Deterioration of goods due to delay in transit constitutes loss or damage

Sec. 3(6), COGSA

Instances when carrier or ship not liable

CHAPTER VI

AIR TRANSPORTATION

AIR TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY BODIES

Republic Act No. 776, as amended by Presidential Decree 1462
Republic Act No. 9497

The Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB)

CAB’s authority to issue certain documents, permits

Specific powers and duties of the CAB

Sec. 10[C], R.A. No. 776, as amended

Considerations in CAB’s rate-fixing

Sec. 10[C][2], R.A. No. 776, as amended

The Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP)

Powers of the CAAP

TRANSPORTATION STATUTES AND GLOBAL ACCORDS

Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines or Republic Act No. 776, as amended (1952);
Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 or Republic Act No. 9497; and
Warsaw Convention of 1929 or the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, as amended by subsequent international agreements.

The Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines or Republic Act No. 776, as amended (1952);

Republic Act No. 776, otherwise known as the Civil Aeronautics Act of the Philippines, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1462 and Executive Order No. 217

CAB empowered to issue CPCNs and permits to air carriers

CAB requirements to be satisfied by a foreign air carrier intending to operate in the country

Regulation of airfares

Sec. 5.01, IRR of E.O. No. 219, s. 1995 and E.O. No. 32, s. 2001

Aviation-specific passenger protection rules and regulations

CAB’s Economic Regulation No. 9, December 18, 2012

Serious aviation crimes under the Anti-hijacking Law of 1971

Sec. 1, R.A. No. 6235

Shipping, loading or carrying of any substance regulated by CAB

Secs. 2 and 3, R.A. No. 6235

Air Passenger Bill of Rights

DOTC-DTI Joint Administrative Order No. 1 (2012)

WEEK 16

The Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008 or Republic Act No. 9497

Republic Act No. 9497, otherwise known as the Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008

CAAP’s authority to prevent flight

Sec. 39, R.A. No. 9497

System and procedures for investigation of air accidents

Aircraft accident investigation and Inquiry board

Sec. 42, R.A. No. 9497

Establishment of registry of aircrafts

Sec. 43, R.A. No. 9497

Eligibility for registration of aircraft

Sec. 43, R.A. No. 9497, citing R.A. No. 776, P.D. No. 1278, E.O. No. 546, and B.P. Blg. 504

Nationality of aircraft

Sec. 47, R.A. No. 9497

Conveyance of aircraft required to be recorded in CAAP to be valid against third parties

Sec. 49, R.A. No. 9497

Form of conveyance

Sec. 50, R.A. No. 9497

CAAP’s aviation safety powers and functions

Sec. 55, R.A. No. 9497

The Chicago Convention

The Warsaw Convention of 1929

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, commonly known as the Warsaw Convention (WC)
Santos III v. Northwest Orient Airlines, G.R. No. 101538. June 23, 1992

Warsaw Convention; its application vis-à-vis Philippine laws

Mapa v. CA, G.R. No. 122308. July 8, 1997; 341 Phil. 281
Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., v. CA, G.R. No. 60501. March 5, 1993; 219 SCRA 520

Principal goal of the treaty

Twin purposes of the treaty

Scope of application of the treaty

International transportation

Art. 1[2], Warsaw Convention

High contracting party

Transportation by several successive air carriers deemed as one undivided transportation

Art. 1[3], Warsaw Convention

Carrier’s liability for damage in case of passenger’s death or injury

Art. 17, Warsaw Convention

Liability for damage for destroyed, lost or damaged articles

Art. 18, Warsaw Convention

Period of transportation by air

Liability of carrier for delay

Art. 19, Warsaw Convention

Provision limiting carrier’s liability for damage caused by its willful misconduct removed by Hague Protocol

Alitalia v. IAC, G.R. No. 71929. Dec. 4, 1990

Limit of carrier’s liability

Art. 22, Warsaw Convention

Exceptions to the limitations

Willful misconduct

Luna v. CA, G.R. No. 100374-75. Nov. 27, 1992
Northwest Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 120334. Jan. 20, 1998
Lhuiller v. British Airways, G.R. No. 171092. March 15, 2010

Airway bill defined

Warsaw Convention does not preclude the operation of the Civil Code and other laws

Stipulation relieving the carrier from or limiting its liability

Art. 23, Warsaw Convention
Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. IAC, G.R. No. 70462, 164 SCRA 268
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Cuenca, G.R. No. L-22425. Aug. 31, 1965; 14 SCRA 1063); or
Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines, G.R. No. L-28773. June 30, 1975; 64 SCRA 610
Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. CA, G.R. No. 114061. Aug. 3, 1994; 154 SCRA 211
Zulueta v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., G.R. No. L-28589. Jan. 8, 1973; 43 SCRA 397

Validity of stipulation relieving the carrier from or limiting its liability

Art. 23[1], Warsaw Convention

Notices of claim in case of damage or delay

Art. 26, Warsaw Convention

When right to damages is extinguished by prescription

Art. 29, Warsaw Convention
United Airlines v. Uy, G.R. No. 127768. Nov. 19, 1999

Recovery of claim covered by the Convention after 2 years

Art. 19, Warsaw Convention
Art. 24, Id.
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Savillo, G.R. No. 149547. July 4, 2008; 557 SCRA 66

Jurisdiction

“Destination” and “agreed stopping place”

Article 28(1) refers to jurisdiction not venue

Art. 28(1), Warsaw Convention
Art. 32, Id.

Special rules on the liabilities of airline carriers

Philippine Airlines, Inc., v. CA, G.R. No. L-82619. Sept. 15, 1993);
Zalamea v. CA, G.R. No. 104235. Nov. 18, 1993
Lufthansa German Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 83612. Nov. 24, 1994
KLM Dutch Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. No. L-31150. July 22, 1975; 65 SCRA 237

Rule in case of various successive carriers

Remedies of parties in carriage of passengers and goods

Art. 30, Warsaw Convention

Contract of carriage performed by different carriers

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. British Overseas Airways Corp., G.R. No. L-65773-74. April 30, 1987,
Art. VI, Res. 850 of the IATA
American Airlines v. CA, G.R. No. 116044-45. March 9, 2000; 384 Phil. 227

Distinction between damage to baggage and injury to passenger due to the misconduct of airline employees

Limitations to the liability of air carriers under the Convention

Art. 22, Warsaw Convention
Art. 25, Id.

WEEK 17 – FINAL EXAM

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »

Engr. Alvin Claridades

A fine WordPress.com site

TRANSPORTATION LAW SYLLABUS (COURSE OUTLINE), PUP COLLEGE OF LAW, 2ND SEMESTER, AY 2023-2024, SATURDAYS, 10:00 AM-12:00 NN, PROF. ALVIN CLARIDADES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 SYLLABUS (COURSE OUTLINE), WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, 2ND SEMESTER, AY 2022-2023

LEGAL AND JURISPRUDENTIAL DOCTRINES

COURSE OUTLINE (SYLLABUS) FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 – 1ST SEM, AY 2022-2023, WUP COLLEGE OF LAW

COURSE OUTLINE (SYLLABUS) FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES – COLLEGE OF LAW

FIRST SEMESTER, AY 2022-2021

ATTY. ALVIN CLARIDADES

Article I. CHAPTER I

Article II. CONSTITUTION IN GENERAL

Article III. CHAPTER II

Article IV. CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES

2.1. Philippine Constitutions

2.2. The Malolos Constitution

2.3. The Philippine Organic Act of 1902

2.4. The Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916

2.5. The 1935 Constitution

2.6. The 1943 Constitution

2.7. The 1973 Constitution

2.8. The 1986 Freedom Constitution

2.9. The 1987 Constitution

Article V. CHAPTER III

Article VI. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

3.1. Constitutional Law

3.2. Kinds of Constitutional Law

3.3. Fundamental concepts underlying Constitutional Law

3.4. Constitutionalism

3.5. Republicanism

3.6. Constitutional supremacy

3.7. Separation of powers

3.8. Checks and balances

3.9. Due process of law

3.10. Judicial review

3.11. Ancillary concepts in Constitutional Law

Article VII. CHAPTER IV

Article VIII. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

4.1. BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKDROP

4.2. MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

4.3. THE PREAMBLE

1. Meaning and function of the Preamble

1. Preamble of the 1987 Constitution

2. Preamble shows Constitution as a social contract between the people and the government

3. Patrimony construed

1. Meaning of the phrase “imploring the aid of Almighty God”

4.4. ARTICLE I: NATIONAL TERRITORY

1. Scope of Philippine territory

2. Philippine archipelago

3. Treaty of Paris as key reference in definition of national territory

4. Phrase “all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction” construed

5. Archipelagic principle

6. Territorial waters or territorial sea

7. Seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, and other submarine areas

8. Internal waters or archipelagic

4.5. ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

1. Principles and State Policies in Article II of the Constitution

2. Principles under Article II not intended to be self-executing

4.5.1. SECTION 1, ARTICLE II: The Philippines as a democratic and republican State

1. Democratic State

2. State as a concept of political science and public law

3. Elements of a State

4. Population

5. Population of the Philippines

6. Territory and Territoriality principle

7. Territory of the Philippines

8. Philippines’ territorial claims

9. Government distinguished from administration

10. Functions of government

11. Classes of government according to legitimacy

12. Kinds of de facto government

13. Government of the Philippines

14. Sovereignty or imperium vis-à-vis dominium

15. Concept of sovereignty

16. Types of sovereignty

17. Characteristics of sovereignty

18. Change of sovereignty; effects

· Roa v. Collector of Customs, GR L-7011. Oct. 30, 1912, 23 Phil. 315

19. Principle of jus postliminium

20. Act of State