Landbank vs CA 249 SCRA 149 (1995)

FACTS: Private respondents are landowners whose holdings were acquired by DAR
and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under RA 6657.
Aggrieved by the alleged lapses by DAR and LBP with respect to the valuation and
payment of compensation for their land, private respondents filed a petition
questioning the validity of DAR AO Nos. 6 and 9. They sought to compel DAR to
deposit in cash and bonds the amounts respectively, carmarked, reserved and
deposited in trust accounts for private respondents and allow them to withdraw
the same.
ISSUE: Whether or not DAR overstepped the limits of its power when it issue AO No.
9
HELD: Yes, DAR overstepped the limits of its power when it issue AO No. 9. There
is no basis in allowing the opening of a trust account in behalf of the landowners as
compensation for his property because Sec 16 (c) of RA 6657 is specific that the
deposit must be made only in cash or LBP bonds. In the same vein, petitioners
cannot invoke LRA Circular No 29, 29-A and 54 because these implementing
regulations cannot outweigh the clear provision of the law. The respondent court
there, did not commit an error in striking down AO No. 9 for being null and void.

Province of Abra vs. Hernando, 107 SCRA 104 (1981)

Facts:
The petitioner through its provincial assessor made a tax assessment
on the properties of the respondent, the Roman Catholic Bishop, who then claimed
exemption from real estate tax through an action of declaratory relief. The
exemption was granted by summary judgment but the side of the petitioner was not
heard, hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not all properties belonging to a religious entity recognized
by the state are exempt from property taxes as contemplated in the Constitution
Held: No, not all are exempt. The grant of exemption from property tax given by
the Constitution does not only be a property exclusively for the use of a religious
group, but that it must be actually and directly used for religious purposes. The
exemption from taxation is not favored and never presumed, so that if granted, it
must be strictly construed against the taxpayer. In the present case, the judge
granted the action for declaratory relief without requiring the respondent Bishop to
provide proof of actual and direct use of the lands, buildings, and improvements for
religious or charitable purposes. The Court ruled that the case be remanded to the
lower court to hear the case on merit.

Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila vs Board of Transportation 119 SCRA

592
Facts:
A Memorandum Order no.77-42 was issued by the Board of Transportation (BOT)
which phases out old and dilapidated taxis and refusing registration to taxi units
within the NCR having models over 6 years old.Pursuant to such order the Director
of Bureau of Land Transportation issued implementing Circular 52 for the purpose of
information and implementation of M.O 77-42.
Issue:
Whether or not the Memorandum Circular is a valid administrative issuance?
Ruling:
Yes. The State, in the exercise of its police power can prescribe regulations to
promote health, morals, peace, good order, safety and general welfare of the
people. It can
prohibit all things harmful to comfort, safety and welfare of society.
Here in, PD 101
grants the BOT the power to fix just and reasonable standards,
classification and
regulation to be followed by operators of public utility motor
vehicles. The overriding
consideration is the issuance of M.C 77-42 for the safety
and comfort of the riding
public from the danger passed by old and dilapidated
taxis.