1.

Matienzo vs Abellera

FACTS

The respondents admittedly operate "colorum" or "kabit" taxicab units. About the
second week of February, 1977, private respondents filed their petitions with the
respondent Board for the legalization of their unauthorized "excess" taxicab units citing
PD No. 101, wherein the respondent Board promulgated its orders setting the applications
for hearing and granting applicants provisional authority to operate their "excess taxicab
units" for which legalization was sought.

The petitioners, opposing the applications and seeking to restrain the grant of
provisional permits or authority, as well as the annulment of permits already granted
under PD 101, allege that the BOT acted without jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the
petitions for legalization and awarding special permits to the private respondents.

ISSUE

W/N THE BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION HAS THE POWER TO LEGALIZE, AT

THIS TIME, CLANDESTINE AND UNLAWFUL TAXICAB OPERATIONS UNDER
SECTION 1, P.D. 101.

RULING

WHEREFORE. the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The questioned
orders of the then Board of Transportation are AFFIRMED.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Justifying its action on private respondent's applications, the respondent Board

emphasizes public need as the overriding concern. It is argued that under PD 101, it is
the fixed policy of the State "to eradicate the harmful and unlawful trade of clandestine
operators by replacing or allowing them to become legitimate and responsible ones"
(Whereas clause, PD 101). In view thereof, it is maintained that respondent Board may
continue to grant to "colorum" operators the benefits of legalization under PD 101, despite
the lapse of its power, after six (6) months, to do so, without taking punitive measures
against the said operators.
 It is a settled principle of law that in determining whether a board or commission
has a certain power, the authority given should be liberally construed in the light of the
purposes for which it was created, and that which is incidentally necessary to a full
implementation of the legislative intent should be upheld as being germane to the law.
Necessarily, too, where the end is required, the appropriate means are deemed given

2. Solid homes vs Payawal

FACTS

A complaint was filed by a buyer, the herein private respondent, against the
petitioner, for delivery of title to a subdivision lot, which the latter failed to deliver the
corresponding certificate of title despite repeated demands because, as it appeared later,
the defendant had mortgaged the property in bad faith to a financing company. The
position of the petitioner, the defendant in that action, is that the decision of the trial court
is null and void ab initio because the case should have been heard and decided by what
is now called the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.

ISSUE

W/N the RTC has jurisdiction to try the case.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the challenged decision of the respondent court is REVERSED

and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is SET ASIDE, without
prejudice to the filing of the appropriate complaint before the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The applicable law is PD No. 957, as amended by PD No. 1344, entitled

"Empowering the National Housing Authority to Issue Writs of Execution in the
Enforcement of Its Decisions Under Presidential Decree No. 957."

The language of section 1 of PD No. 957, especially the italicized portions, leaves
no room for doubt that "exclusive jurisdiction" over the case between the petitioner and
the private respondent is vested not in the Regional Trial Court but in the National Housing
Authority.

This construction must yield to the familiar canon that in case of conflict between
a general law and a special law, the latter must prevail regardless of the dates of their
enactment.

Statutes conferring powers on their administrative agencies must be liberally

construed to enable them to discharge their assigned duties in accordance with the
legislative purpose.

It is settled that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may
be struck down at any time, even on appeal before this Court. 11 The only exception is
where the party raising the issue is barred by estoppel, 12 which does not appear in the
case before us.