Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Marcos
G.R. No. L-26100. February 28, 1969
FACTS:
On July 25, 1961, the Director of Lands in the
Court of First Instance of Baguio instituted the
reopening of the cadastral proceedings under
Republic Act 931. It is not disputed that the
land here involved was amongst those declared
public lands by final decision rendered in that
case on November 13, 1922. Respondent
Belong Lutes petitioned the cadastral court to
reopen said Civil Reservation Case No. 1 as to
the parcel of land he claims and prayed that
the land be registered in his name.
On December 18, 1961, private petitioners
Francisco G. Joaquin, Sr., Francisco G. Joaquin,
Jr., and Teresita J. Buchholz registered
opposition to the reopening. The petitioners
questioned the cadastral court's jurisdiction
over the petition to reopen.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the reopening petition was filed
outside the 40 year period preceding the
approval of Republic Act 931.
HELD:
Yes. The cadastral proceedings sought to be
reopened were instituted on April 12, 1912.
Final decision was rendered on November
13, 1922. Lutes filed the petition to reopen on
July 25, 1961. It will be noted that the title of
R.A. 931 authorizes "the filing in the proper
court, under certain conditions, of certain
claims of title to parcels of land that have been
declared public land, by virtue of judicial
decisions rendered within the forty years next
preceding the approval of this Act." The body of
the statute, however, in its Section 1, speaks of
People v. Echaves
G.R. Nos. L-47757-61. January 28, 1980
FACTS:
On October 25, 1977 Fiscal Abundio R. Ello filed
with the lower court separate information
against sixteen persons charging them with
squatting as penalized by Presidential Decree
No. 772. The information provides that
sometime in the year 1974 continuously up to
the present, the above-named accused, with
stealth and strategy, enter into, occupy and
cultivate a portion of a grazing land physically
occupied, possessed and claimed by Atty.
Vicente de la Serna, accused's entrance into
the area has been and is still against the win of
the offended party; did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously squat and cultivate
Nera v. Garcia
G.R. No. L-13160. January 30, 1960
FACTS:
Petitioner Nera was at the time of his
suspension, serving as clerk in the Maternity
and Children's Hospital. In the course of his
employment, he served as manager and
cashier of the Maternity Employer's
Cooperative Association, Inc. On May 11,
1956, he was charged with malversation for
allegedly misappropriating the sum of
P12,636.21 belonging to the association.
Simplicio Balcos, husband of the suspended
administrative officer and cashier of the
Maternity and Children's Hospital, named
Gregoria Balcos, filed an administrative
complaint case then pending against him. On
December 19, 1956, Nera received a
communication from respondent Director of
Hospital suspending him from office as clerk of
the Maternity and Children's Hospital. This
suspension carried the approval of respondent
Garcia, Secretary of Health. Petitioner sought
for the annulment of the order of suspension
on the ground that assuming for a moment that
petitioner were guilty of malversation or
misappropriation of the funds of the
association, nevertheless, said irregularity had
no connection with his duly as clerk of the
Maternity and Children's Hospital.
ISSUE:
Whether or not suspension on the ground of
dishonesty or misconduct under Section 694 of
the Revised Penal Code need have to be in
relation to the performance of duty.
HELD:
Arroyo v De Venecia
Facts:
Petitioners are members of the House
of Representatives. They brought this
suit against respondents charging violation of
the rules of the House which petitioners claim
are "constitutionally mandated" so that their
violation is tantamount to a violation of the
Constitution. In the course of his interpellation,
Rep. Arroyo announced that he was going to
raise a question on the quorum, although until
theend of his interpellation he never did.On the
same day, the bill was signed by the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the President
of the Senate and certified by the respective
secretaries of both Houses of Congress as
having been finally passed by the House
of Representatives and
by the Senate on November 21, 1996.
The enrolled bill was signed into law by
President Fidel V. Ramos on November
22,1996.
Issue:
Whether R.A. No. 8240 is null and void because
it was passed in violation of the rules of the
House; Whether the certification of Speaker De
Venecia that the law was properly passed is
false and spurious; Whether the Chair, in the
process of submitting and certifying the law
violated House Rules; and Whether a
certiorari/prohibition will be granted.
Held:
That after considering the arguments of the
parties, the Court finds no ground for holding
that Congress committed a grave abuse of
discretion in enacting R.A. No. 8240 This case is
therefore dismissed.
Ratio:
To disregard the "enrolled bill" rule in
such cases would-be to disregard the respect
due the other two departments of our
government. It would be an unwarranted
invasion of the prerogative of a coequal
department for this Court either to set-aside a
legislative action as void because the Court
thinks the House has disregarded its own rules
of procedure, or to allow those defeated in the
political arena to seek a rematch in the judicial
forum when petitioners can find their remedy
in that department itself. The Court has not
been invested with a roving commission to
inquire into complaints, real or imagined,
of legislative skullduggery. It would be acting
in excess of its power and would itself be guilty
of grave abuse of its discretion were it to do so.
The suggestion made in a case may instead
appropriately be made here: petitioners can
seek the enactment of a new law or the repeal
or amendment of R.A. No. 8240. In the absence
of anything to the contrary, the Court must
assume that Congress or any House thereof
acted in the good faith belief that its conduct
was permitted by its rules, and deference
rather than disrespect is due the judgment of
that body.
In view of what is essential:
Merely internal rules of procedure of the House
rather than constitutional requirements for the
enactment of a law, i.e., Art.VI, 26-27 are
VIOLATED. First, in Osmea v. Pendatun, it was
held: "At any rate, courts have declared that
'the rules adopted by deliberative bodies are
subject to revocation, modification or waiver
at the pleasure of the body adopting them.'
And it has been said that Parliamentary rules
are merely procedural, and with their
observance, the courts have no concern. They
.
In view of House Rules:
No rule of the House of Representatives has
been cited which specifically requires that
in cases such as this involving approval of
a conference committee report, the Chair must
restate the motion and conduct a viva voce or
nominal voting. Mr. TOLENTINO. The fact that
nobody objects means a unanimous action of
the House. Insofar as the matter of procedure
is concerned, this has been a precedent since I came
here seven years ago, and it has been the
procedure in this House that if somebody
objects, then a debate follows and after the
debate, then the voting comes in nor does the
Constitution require that the yeas and the nays
of the Members be taken every time a House
has to vote, except only in the following
instances: upon the last and third readings
of a bill at the request of one-fifth of the
Members
present, and in re-passing a bill over the
veto of the President
.
In view of grave abuse
Indeed, the phrase "grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" has
a settled meaning in the jurisprudence of
procedure. It means such capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment by a tribunal
exercising judicial or quasi judicial power as
to amount to lack of power.
In view of the enrolled bill doctrine
Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of
H. No. 7198 by the Speaker of the House and
the President of the Senate and the
certification by the secretaries of both Houses
of Congress that it was passed on November
21, 1996 are conclusive of its due
enactment. This Court quoted from Wigmore
Issue:
Whether or not the creation of the Province of
Dinagat complied with the requirements of the
law.
Held:
The Supreme Court granted the petition and
invalidated the law:
The territorial requirement in the Local
Government Code is adopted in the Rules and
Regulations Implementing the Local
Government Code of 1991 (IRR),thus:
ART. 9. Provinces.(a) Requisites for creation
A province shall not be created unless the
following requisites on income and either
population or land area are present:
(1) Income An average annual income of not
less than Twenty Million Pesos (P20,000,000.00)
for the immediately preceding two (2)
consecutive years based on 1991 constant
prices, as certified by DOF. The average annual
income shall include the income accruing to
the general fund, exclusive of special funds,
special accounts, transfers, and nonrecurring
income; and
(2) Population or land area Population which
shall not be less than two hundred fifty
thousand (250,000) inhabitants, as certified by
National Statistics Office; or land area which
must be contiguous with an area of at least two
thousand (2,000) square kilometers, as
certified by LMB. The territory need not be
contiguous if it comprises two (2) or more
islands or is separated by a chartered city or
cities which do not contribute to the income of
the province. The land area requirement shall