CASE DIGESTS

Volunteers of the Salonga Center were declared best mooters in the 6th National IHL Moot Court Competition held in Manila last November 17-19, 2010. Milmon Bryce Tenorio bagged the Best Mooter Award in the General Rounds, while co-oralist Micah Dagaerag was declared Best Mooter in the Final Round. Representing the SU College of Law, Dagaerag and Tenorio successfully defended their positions which qualified them for the semi-finals and ultimately in the final round where they grabbed the championship trophy against the University of the Philippines, Diliman. The competition was participated by 14 law schools in the country namely: Ateneo de Davao University, Ateneo de Manila University, Far Eastern University, Lyceum of the Philippines University, San Beda College, St. Louis University, Silliman University, Southwestern University, University of Batangas, University of Cebu, the University of the Philippines-Diliman, University of St. La Salle, University of San Carlos and Xavier Uni

PEOPLE vs.NATIVIDAD FRANKLIN, G.R. No. L-21507 June 7, 1971 Appeal taken by the Asian Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga dated April 17, 1963, forfeiting the bail bond posted by it for the provisional release of Natividad Franklin, the accused in Criminal Case No. 4300 of said court, as well as from the latter's orders denying the surety company's motion for a reductions of bail, and its motion for reconsideration thereof. It appears that an information filed with the Justice of the Peace Court of Angeles, Pampanga, docketed as Criminal Case No. 5536, Natividad Franklin was charged with estafa. Upon a bail bond posted by the Asian Surety & Insurance Company, Inc. in the amount of P2,000.00, she was released from custody. After the preliminary investigation of the case, the Justice of the Peace Court elevated it to the Court of First Instance of Pampanga where the Provincial Fiscal filed the corresponding informa

FACTS: The plaintiff-appellee-Soco (lessor) and the defendant-appellant-Francisco (lessee) entered into a contract of lease on for commercial building and lot for a monthly rental of P800.00 for a period of 10 years renewable for another 10 years at the option of the lessee. One time, Francisco noticed that Soco did not anymore send her collector for the payment of rentals and at times there were payments made but no receipts were issued. Soon after Soco learned that Francisco sub-leased a portion of the building to NACIDA, at a monthly rental of more than P3,000.00 which is definitely very much higher than what Francisco was paying to Soco under the Contract of Lease, the latter felt that she was on the losing end of the lease agreement so she tried to look for ways and means to terminate the contract. Taking into account the factual background setting of this case, the Court holds that there was in fact a tender of payment of the rentals made by Francisco to Soco through Comtrust an

J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. VS. JAVIER G.R. NO. L-28569 February 27, 1970 FACTS: On September 7, 1954, petitioner J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. entered a contract to sell with respondent Ligaya Javier a parcel of land known as Lot No. 28, Block No. 356, PSD 30328, of the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision for the sum of Php3,691.20 with 10% interest per annum; Php396.12 will be payable upon execution of the contract, and an installment of Php43.92 monthly for a period of ten (10) years. It was further stipulated in the contract, particularly the sixth paragraph, that upon failure of respondent to pay the monthly installment, she is given a one month grace period to pay such installment together with the monthly installment falling on the said grace period. Furthermore, failure to pay both monthly installments, respondent will pay an additional 10% interest. And after 90 days from the end of the grace period, petitioner can rescind the contract, the payments made by respondent will be consider

NEW PACIFIC TIMBER & SUPPLY CO. INC. VS. SENERIS 10 SCRA 686 FACTS: Petitioner, New Pacific Timber & Supply Co. Inc. was the defendant in a complaint for collection of money filed by private respondent, Ricardo A. Tong. In this complaint, respondent Judge rendered a compromise judgment based on the amicable settlement entered by the parties wherein petitioner will pay to private respondent P54,500.00 at 6% interest per annum and P6,000.00 as attorney’s fee of which P5,000.00 has been paid. Upon failure of the petitioner to pay the judgment obligation, a writ of execution worth P63,130.00 was issued levied on the personal properties of the petitioner. Before the date of the auction sale, petitioner deposited with the Clerk of Court in his capacity as the Ex-Officio Sheriff P50,000.00 in Cashier’s Check of the Equitable Banking Corporation and P13,130.00 in cash for a total of P63,130.00. Private respondent refused to accept the check and the cash and requested for the auction s

ARAÑAS VS. TUTAAN 127 SCRA 828 FACTS: On May 3, 1971 the lower court declared thatPetitioner Luisa Quijencio (and by her spouse Jose Arañas)was the owner of 400 shares including the stock dividendsthat accrued to said shares, of respondent Universal Textile Mills, Inc. (UTEX) as defendant and Gene Manueland B. R. Castañeda as co-defendants, and subsequently ordered UTEX to cancel said certificates and issue new ones in the name of Plaintiff and to deliver all dividendsappertaining to the same, whether in cash or in stocks.UTEX filed a motion for clarification whether thephrase “to deliver to her all dividends appertaining to thesame, whether in cash or in stocks” meant dividends properly pertaining to plaintiffs after the court’sdeclaration of plaintiff ownership of said 400 shares of stock. Defendant UTEX has always maintained it would rightfully abide by whatever decision may be rendered since such would be the logical consequence after the ruling in respect to the rightful ownership

G.R. No. L-26578, January 28, 1974 FACTS: Saldaña had entered into two written contracts with Legarda, a subdivision owner, whereby Legarda agreed to sell to him two of his lots for 1,500 per lot, payable over a span of 10 years on 120 monthly installments with 10% interest per annum. Saldaña paid for eight consecutive years but did not make any further payments due to Legarda’s failure to make the necessary improvement on the said lot which was promised by their representative, the said Mr. Cenon. Saldaña already paid a total of Php3,582.06. The statement of account shows that Saldaña paid Php1,682.28 of the principal and Php1,889.78 for the interest. It did not distinguish which of the two said lots was paid. Petitioner, then, rescinded the contract based on the stipulation of the contract that payments made by respondent shall be considered as rentals and any improvements made shall be forfeited in favor of the petitioner. The lower court ruled sustaining petitioner’s cancellation o

Facts: On January 7, 1988, Brillante, then a candidate for the position of Councilor in Makati, held a press conference at the Makati Sports Club which was attended by some 50 journalists. In the course of the press conference, Brillante accused Binay of plotting the assassination of Syjuco. He further accused Binay of terrorism, intimidation and harassment of the Makati electorate. Brillante also circulated among the journalists copies of an open letter to President Aquino which discussed in detail his charges against Binay.3 Several journalists who attended the press conference wrote news articles about the same. Angel Gonong, a writer for the People’s Journal, wrote a news article entitled "Binay Accused of Plotting Slays of Rivals." It was cleared for publication by Max Buan, Jr. (Buan), and Luis Camino (Camino), Editor-in-Chief and News Editor, respectively, of the People’s Journal. Gloria Hernandez (Hernandez) wrote a similar article entitled "Binay Slay Plan on Sy

Facts: During the May 10, 2004 Presidential Elections, Arroyo was declared as the candidate who garnered the most number of votes for the presidency while FPJ followed in the second place. July 23, 2004 FPJ filed an election protest at the Presidential Electoral Tribunal contesting the votes of Arroyo. On December 14, 2004, the Protestant died in the course of his medical treatment at St. Luke’s Hospital. Issue: May the widow substitute/intervene for the protestant who died during the pendency of the latter’s presidential protest case? Held: NO.Rule 14. Election Protest. Only the registered candidate for President or for Vice-President of the Philippines who received the second or third highest number of votes may contest the election of the President or the Vice-President, as the case may be, by filing a verified petition with the Clerk of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal within thirty (30) days after the proclamation of the winner. Since in this case, no real partie

Facts: Congress passed RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and makes it mandatory for candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other personalities, to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004 synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law. Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on candidates for Senator? Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. Under Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (

G.R. No. 175319 January 15, 2010 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSELITO NOQUE y GOMEZ Accused Joselito Noque sold 2.779 and 2. shabu’ and had in his possession and custody 679.215 grams of ‘shabu’. He avers that his conviction for the sale and possession of shabu, despite the fact that what was established and proven was the sale and possession of ephedrine, violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him since the charges in the Informations are for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride. ISSUE: Was the accused right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him violated? HELD: Accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations was not violated because when is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein. it is clear that the designations and allegations in the In

AASJS vs Datumanong Petitioner prays that a writ of prohibition be issued to stop respondent from implementing Republic Act No. 9225, entitled "An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, As Amended, and for Other Purposes." Petitioner avers that Rep. Act No. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution that states, "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law." ISSUE: By recognizing & allowing dual allegiance, is RA 9225 unconstitutional? HELD: No. Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who

Jacot vs. Dal Petitioner Nestor Jacot assails the Resolution of COMELEC disqualifying him from running for the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin, in the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections, on the ground that he failed to make a personal renouncement of US citizenship. He was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who became a naturalized citizen of the US on 13 December 1989. He sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225. ISSUE: Did Nestor Jacot effectively renounce his US citizenship so as to qualify him to run as a vice-mayor? HELD: No. It bears to emphasize that the oath of allegiance is a general requirement for all those who wish to run as candidates in Philippine elections; while the renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who have retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and who seek elective public posts, considering their special circumstance of having m

Tabasa vs CA In 1968, when petitioner was seven years old, his father, Rodolfo Tabasa, became a naturalized citizen of the United States. By derivative naturalization (citizenship derived from that of another as from a person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization), petitioner also acquired American citizenship. Petitioner theorizes that he could be repatriated under RA 8171 because he is a child of a natural-born Filipino, and that he lost his Philippine citizenship by derivative naturalization when he was still a minor. ISSUE: Is Jeovanie Tabasa a natural-born Filipino who had lost his Philippine citizenship by reason of political or economic necessity under RA 8171? HELD: He does not. The only persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following: a. Filipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b. Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political or economic

Carlos vs Ramos These petitions stemmed from the complaint-affidavit for deportation initiated by Luis T. Ramos against Jimmy T. Go alleging that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien. Luis alleged that while Jimmy represents himself as a Filipino citizen, Jimmy’s personal circumstances and other records indicate that he is not so. Luis argued that although it appears from Jimmy’s birth certificate that his parents, Carlos and Rosario Tan, are Filipinos, the document seems to be tampered, because only the citizenship of Carlos appears to be handwritten while all the other entries were typewritten. ISSUE: Did we adopt the jus soli or jus sanguinins principle? Does the principle of res adjudicata apply to decisions on citizenship? HELD: We adopted the jus sanguinis principle. The doctrine of jus soli was never extended to the Philippines. The doctrine of jus soli was for a time the prevailing rule in the acquisition of one’s citizenship. However, the Supreme Court abandoned

Section 12 G.R. No. 185710 January 19, 2010 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMULO TUNIACO, JEFFREY DATULAYTA and ALEX ALEMAN, Accused. ALEX ALEMAN, Appellant. Accused Tuniaco, Datulayta, and Aleman were charged with murder before the RTC of General Santos City. Accused Aleman raises two issues: a) whether or not the prosecution was able to present evidence of corpus delicti; and b) whether or not accused Aleman’s extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence. ISSUE: What is the doctrine of “interlocking confessions” ? Did the accused Aleman correctly invoked the Galit doctrine? HELD: It is improbable that the police fabricated Aleman’s confession and just forced him to sign it. The confession has details that only the person who committed the crime could have possibly known. What is more, accused Datulayta’s confession corroborate that of Aleman in important details. Under the doctrine of interlocking confessions, such corroboration is circumstantial evidence against

Kabataan Party-List vs. Comelec COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8585 on February 12, 2009 adjusting the deadline of voter registration for the May 10, 2010 national and local elections to October 31, 2009, instead of December 15, 2009 as previously fixed by Resolution No. 8514. The intense public clamor for an extension of the October 31, 2009 deadline notwithstanding, the COMELEC stood firm in its decision not to extend it, arguing mainly that it needs ample time to prepare for the automated elections. Via the present Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus filed on October 30, 2009, petitioners challenge the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 8585 and seek a declaration of its nullity. Issue: Does the Comelec have discretion to fix other dates for continuing registration? Held: The clear text of the law thus decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular offices hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special ele

PAUL JOSEPH WRIGHT vs. CA, G.R. No. 113213 August 15, 1994 Australia and the Government of the Philippines in the suppression of crime, entered into a Treaty of Extradition on the 7th of March 1988. The said treaty was ratified in accordance with the provisions of Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution in a Resolution adopted by the Senate on September 10, 1990 and became effective 30 days after both States notified each other in writing that the respective requirements for the entry into force of the Treaty have been complied with. Petitioner contends that the provision of the Treaty giving retroactive effect to the extradition treaty amounts to an ex post facto law which violates Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution. ISSUE: Can an extradition treaty be applied retroactively? HELD: Applying the constitutional principle, the Court has held that the prohibition applies only to criminal legislation which affects the substantial rights of the accused. This being so,

NPC vs. Dayrit (novation) Held: It is elementary that novation is never presumed; it must be explicitly stated or there must be manifest incompatibility between the old and the new obligations in every aspect. Thus the Civil Code provides: Art. 1292. In order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes the same, it is imperative that it be so declared in unequivocal terms, or that the old and the new obligations be on every point incompatible with each other. In the case at bar there is nothing in the May 14, 1982, agreement which supports the petitioner's contention. There is neither explicit novation nor incompatibility on every point between the "old" and the "new" agreements. Facts: Daniel Roxas sued NPC to compel the NPC to restore the contract of Roxas for security services which the former had terminated. However, they reached a compromise agreement, and the court approved it. One of the stipulations of the agreement was that the