J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2017-0013: TEDDY CASTRO AND LAURO SEBASTIAN, VS. PABLITO V. MENDOZA, SR., ON HIS BEHALF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF RICARDO C. SANTOS, ARLENE C. MENDOZA, MARGIE AC DE LEON, NANCY S. REYES, MARITA PAGLINAWAN, NATIVIDAD C. MUNDA, MARILOU DE GUZMAN RAMOS, LEONCIA PRINCIPIO, CECILIA DINIO, ANGEL DELA CRUZ, ZENAIDA SANTOS, LOURDES S. LUZ, MARIFE F. CRUZ, ANTONIO H. SANTOS, CONSTANCIA SANTOS, MARCELINA ” SP. DAMEG, PLACIDO DE LEON, LILIAN SANTOS, (COLLECTIVELY ORGANIZED AS BUSTOS PUBLIC MARKET II VENDORS AND STALL OWNERS ASSOCIATION) AND MUNICIPALITY OF BUSTOS,   BULACAN,   (G.R. NO. 212778   26 APRIL 2017, JARDELEZA, J.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108859 is AFFIRMED. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in DARAB Case No. 749-Bulacan ’94 is directed to compute the amount of disturbance compensation to be paid pet1t10ners Teddy Casfro and Lauro Sebastian by public respondent Municipality of Bustos, Bulacan in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended. No costs.

SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IS RIGHT OF REDEMPTION AN ADJUDICATION OF OWNERSHIP?

NO BECAUSE ONE HAS TO REDEEM FIRST THE PROPERTY BEFORE IT CAN OWN IT.

IN THIS CASE THE PARAD RULING FAVORING PETITIONER SIMPLY RECOGNIZED THEIR PROPERTY RIGHT TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY BUT DID NOT RULE THAT THEY OWN THE PROPERTY.

SUPPOSE THERE IS ADJUDICATION OF OWNERSHIP. CAN THE COURT ISSUE WRIT FOR DELIVERY OF POSSESSION?

YES. POSSESSION IS AN INCIDENT OF OWNERSHIP AND WHOEVER OWNS THE PROPERTY HAS THE RIGHT TO POSSESS IT.

DOES CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER (CLT)  VEST OWNERSHIP IN ITS HOLDER?

NO. IT MERELY EVINCES THAT ITS GRANTEE IS QUALIFIED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE STATUTORY MECHANISM FOR THE ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND TILLED BY HIM AS PROVIDED UNDER P.D. NO. 27.

IT IS NOT A MUNIMENT OF TITLE THAT VESTS IN THE FARMER/GRANTEE ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF HIS TILLAGE.

IT IS ONLY AFTER COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS WHICH ENTITLE A FARMER/GRANTEE TO AN EMANCIPATION PATENT THAT HE ACQUIRES THE VESTED RIGHT OF ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP IN THE LANDHOLDING-A RIGHT WHICH THEN WOULD HAVE BECOME FIXED AND ESTABLISHED, AND NO LONGER OPEN TO DOUBT OR CONTROVERSY.  

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED IN ORDER TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION?

A) THE REDEMPTIONER MUST BE AN AGRICULTURAL LESSEE OR SHARE TENANT;

B) THE LAND MUST HAVE BEEN SOLD BY THE OWNER TO A THIRD PATTY WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SALE GIVEN TO THE LESSEE OR LESSEES AND THE DAR;

C) ONLY THE AREA CULTIVATED BY THE AGRICULTURAL LESSEE MAY BE REDEEMED; AND

D)  THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION MUST BE EXERCISED WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SALE BY THE VENDEE. 83

WHAT IS AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT IN EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION?

TENDER OR CONSIGNATION IS AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT.

HOW CAN AN OFFER TO REDEEM EFFECTED?

THROUGH:

• A FORMAL TENDER WITH CONSIGNATION OR

• A COMPLAINT FILED IN COURT COUPLED WITH CONSIGNATION OF THE REDEMPTION PRICE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD.

IS IT NOT SUFFICIENT THAT A PERSON OFFERING TO REDEEM MERELY MANIFESTS HIS DESIRE TO REPURCHASE?

HIS INTENTION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ACTUAL AND SIMULTANEOUS TENDER OF PAYMENT OF THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE REPURCHASE PRICE, I.E., THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE,

OTHERWISE THE OFFER TO REDEEM WILL BE HELD INEFFECTUAL.

WHY SHOULD THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE REDEMPTION PRICE BE CONSIGNED IN COURT?

BECAUSE ONLY BY SUCH MEANS CAN THE BUYER BECOME CERTAIN THAT THE OFFER TO REDEEM IS ONE MADE SERIOUSLY AND IN GOOD FAITH.

DID PETITIONER VALIDLY EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT OF REDEMPTION?

NO. WHEN THEY FILED THEIR COMPLAINT THEY DID NOT CONSIGN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE PRICE OF P1.2M WITH THE COURT.

CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO CONSIGN THE FULL REDEMPTION PRICE OF PL .2 MILLION WHEN THEY FILED THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE PARAD IN AUGUST 22, 1994, THERE WAS NO VALID EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY.

WHEN WILL A  REGISTERED OWNER BE PRECLUDED FROM RECOVERING POSSESSION OF HIS PROPERTY?

WHEN THERE WOULD BE IRREMEDIABLE INJURY  TO THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL?

IN ONE CASE  A REGISTERED OWNER FAILED TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF THE LITIGATED PROPERTY BECAUSE THE LAND OWNER ACQUIESCED TO PETITIONER MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY’S OCCUPATION OF THE  LAND.

IN THIS CASE THE PROPERTY IS NOW BEING USED AS PUBLIC MARKET.

BUT WHAT IS THE RELIEF AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONERS?

SINCE THEY ARE VALID TENANTS-POSSESSORS OF THE PROPERTY, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 36 (1)101 OF RA 3844, AS AMENDED.

CASE IS REMANED TO THE DARAB FOR DETERMINATION OF DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION DUE PETITIONERS RECKONED FROM THE TIME OF THEIR ACTUAL DISPOSSESSION FROM THE PROPERTY. THE DARAB, THROUGH THE PARAD, SHALL CONDUCT A HEARING AND RECEIVE EVIDENCE FROM BOTH PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION, AND THE AMOUNT OF RENTALS ALLEGEDLY COLLECTED BY PETITIONERS FROM THE VENDORS IN THE PUBLIC MARKET, IF ANY.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2017-0013-TEDDY CASTRO AND LAURO SEBASTIAN VS. PABLITO V. MENDOZA, SR., ET AL.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2017-0012: KNIGHTS OF RIZAL, VS. DMCI HOMES, INC., DMCI PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC., CITY OF MANILA\., NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS, NATIONAL MUSEUM, and NATIONAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION OF THE PHILIPPINES,  (G.R. No. 213948  25 APRIL 2017, CARPIO, J.:) (SUBJECTS: MANDAMUS; DEFINITION OF NUISANCE; NUISANCE PER SE; NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS)

 DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition for mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court on 16 June 2015 is LIFTED effective immediately.

SO ORDERED.”

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

CAN THE COURT ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AGAINST THE OFFICIALS OF THE CITY OF MANILA TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF DMCI-PDI’S TORRE DE MANILA PROJECT?

NO.

BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW PROHIBITING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TORRE DE MANILA.

WHAT IS NOT EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY PROHIBITED BY LAW MAY BE DONE, EXCEPT WHEN THE ACT IS CONTRARY TO MORALS, CUSTOMS AND I PUBLIC ORDER.

THIS PRINCIPLE IS FUNDAMENTAL IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY, TO PROTECT THE  WEAK AGAINST THE STRONG, THE MINORITY AGAINST THE MAJORITY, AND THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

IN ESSENCE, THIS PRINCIPLE, WHICH IS THE FOUNDATION OF A CIVILIZED SOCIETY UNDER THE RULE OF LAW, PRESCRIBES THAT THE FREEDOM TO ACT CAN BE CURTAILED ONLY THROUGH LAW.

WITHOUT THIS PRINCIPLE, THE RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OF CITIZENS CAN BE ARBITRARILY AND WHIMSICALLY TRAMPLED UPON BY THE SHIFTING PASSIONS OF THOSE WHO CAN SPOUT THE LOUDEST, OR THOSE WHO CAN GATHER THE BIGGEST CROWD OR THE MOST NUMBER OF INTERNET TROLLS.

IN THIS  CASE, THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OR PROOF THAT THE TORRE DE MANILA PROJECT IS !”CONTRARY TO MORALS, CUSTOMS, AND PUBLIC ORDER” OR THAT IT BRINGS HARM, DARIGER, OR HAZARD TO THE COMMUNITY.

THERE IS NO LAW PROHIBITING  THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TORRE DE MANILA DUE TO ITS EFFECT ON THE BACKGROUND “VIEW, VISTA, SIGHTLINE, OR SETTING” OF THE RIZAL MONUMENT.

WHAT IS NUISANCE?

ARTICLE 694 OF THE CIVIL CODE DEFINES A NUISANCE AS ANY ACT, OMISSION, ESTABLISHMENT, BUSINESS, CONDITION OF PROPERTY, OR ANYTHING ELSE WHICH: (1) INJURES OR ENDANGERS THE HEALTH OR SAFETY OF OTHERS; (2) ANNOYS OR OFFENDS THE SENSES; (3) SHOCKS, DEFIES OR DISREGARDS DECENCY OR MORALITY; (4) OBSTRUCTS OR INTERFERES WITH THE FREE PASSAGE OF ANY PUBLIC HIGHWAY OR STREET, OR ANY BODY OF WATER; OR (5) HINDERS OR IMPAIRS THE USE OF PROPERTY. I

WHAT ARE THE TWO KINDS OF NUISANCE?

NUISANCE PER SE AND NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS.

WHAT IS NUISANCE PER SE?

IT IS  “RECOGNIZED AS A NUISANCE UNDER ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, BECAUSE IT CONSTITUTES A DIRECT MENACE TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY, AND, FOR THAT REASON, MAY BE ABATED SUMMARILY UNDER THE UNDEFINED LAW OF NECESSITY.”

WHAT IS NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS?

THAT  WHICH “DEPENDS UPON CERTAIN CONDITIONS. AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND ITS EXISTENCE BEING A QUESTION OF FACT, IT CANNOT DECLARED  WITHOUT DUE HEARING THEREON IN A TRIBUNAL AUTHORIZED TO DECIDE WHETHER  SUCH A THING IN LAW CONSTITUTES A NUISANCE. ”

IS TORRE DE MANILA A NUISANCE PER SE?

NO.

THE TORRE DE MANILA PROJECT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A “DIRECT MENACE TO  PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.”

FIRST, CONDOMINIUM PROJECT IS  COMMONPLACE IN THE CITY OF MANILA.

SECOND, DMCI-PDI HAS COMPLIED WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS SET BY LAW. DMCI-PDI HAS BEEN GRANTED THE FOLLOWING PERMITS AND CLEARANCES PRIOR TO STARTING THE PROJECT: (1) HEIGHT CLEARANCE PERMIT FROM THE CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIP¥NES;91 (2) DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FROM THE HLURB;92 (3) ZONING CERTIFICATI<;M FROM THE HLURB;93 ( 4) CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANQE COMMITMENT FROM THE ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES;94 (5) BARANGAY CLEARANCER ( 6) ZONING PERMIT;96 (7) BUILDING PERMIT;97 (8) AND ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL PERMIT.98 I

LATER, DMCI-PDI ALSO OBTAINED THE RIGHT TO BUILD UNDER A VARIANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE MZBAA AND GRANTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA. THUS, THETE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE TORRE DE MANILA PROJECT IS NOT A NUISANCE PER SE.

IS TORRE DE MANILA A NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS?

IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT TORRE DE MANILA IS A NUISANCE BY ACCIDENS.

BY IDEFINITION, A NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS IS DETERMINED BASED ON ITS SURROUNDITJG CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. THESE CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE WELL ESTABLISHED, NOT MERELY ALLEGED.

THE COURT CANNOT SIMPLY  ACCEPT THESE CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS ESTABLISHED FACTS.

THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHEN A NUISANCE EXISTS IS AN AUTHORITY TO FIND FACTS, TO ESTIMATE THEIR FORCE, AND TO APPLY RULES OF LAW TO THE CASE THUS MADE.

THE SUPREME COURT IS NO SUCH AUTHORITY. IT IS NOT A TRIER OF FACTS.

THE TASK TO RECEIVE AND EVALUATE EVIDENCE IS LODGED WITH THE TRIAL COURTS. THE QUESTION, THEN, OF WHETHER THE TORRE DE MANILA PROJECT IS A NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS MUST BE SETTLED AFTER DUE PROCEEDINGS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PROPER REGIONAL TRIAL COURT. THE KOR CANNOT CIRCUMVENT THE PROCESS IN THE GUISE OF PROTECTING NATIONAL CULTURE AND HERITAGE.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. THEN GO TO YOUR DOWNLOADED FILES, LOCATE THE CASE FILE AND OPEN IT.

SCD-2017-0012-KNIGHTS OF RIZAL VS. DMCI HOMES, INC., DMCI PROJECT DEVELOPERS, INC., CITY OF MANILA, NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS, NATIONAL MUSEUM, A 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2017-0011: ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION, PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALFI) AND ATTY. MARIA CONCEPCION S. NOCHE, ET AL.J VS. HON. JANETTE L. GARIN, ET AL. MARIA CONCEPCION S. NOCHE, ET AL. VS. HON. JANETTE L. GARIN, ET AL. (G.R. NO. 217872, ETC., 26 APRIL 2017, MENDOZA, J. (BRIEF TITLE: ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION ET AL VS HON. GARIN ET AL AND RELATED CASES)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the August 24, 2016 Decision is MODIFIED. Accordingly, the Food and Drug Administration is ordered to consider the oppositions filed by the petitioners with respect to the listed drugs, including Implanon and Implanon NXT, based on the standards of the Reproductive Health Law, as construed in lmbong v. Ochoa, and to decide the case within sixty (60) days from the date it will be deemed submitted for resolution.

After compliance with due process and upon promulgation of the decision of the Food and Drug Administration, the Temporary Restraining Order would be deemed lifted if the questioned drugs and devices are found not abortifacients.

After the final resolution by the Food and Drug Administration, any appeal should be to the Office of the President pursuant to Section 9 of E.O. No. 247.

As ordered in the August 24, 2016 Decision, the Food and Drug Administration is directed to amend the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 10354 so that it would be strictly compliant with the mandates of the Court in lmbong v. Ochoa.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

ARE COURTS OUSTED OF THEIR JURISDICTION WHENEVER ISSUES INVOLVE QUESTIONS OF SCIENTIFIC NATURE?

 NO.

A COURT IS NOT CONSIDERED INCOMPETENT EITHER IN REVIEWING THE FINDINGS OF THE FDA SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WILL BE WEIGHING THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY BOTH THE FDA AND ITS OPPOSITORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE CONTRACEPTIVE DRUG OR DEVICE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW.

IS FDA EXCUSED FROM COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS NOT STRICTLY BOUND BY THE TECHNICAL RULES ON EVIDENCE?

NO.

DUE PROCESS DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE FDA CONDUCT TRIAL-TYPE HEARING TO SATISFY ITS REQUIREMENTS. ALL THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES IS THAT THE FDA AFFORD THE PEOPLE THEIR RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND DECIDE ON THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE MAHS AFTER AFFORDING THE OPPOSITORS, LIKE THE PETITIONERS, A GENUINE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR SCIENCE BASED EVIDENCE.

WILL THE FINDINGS OF FDA BE APPEALABLE TO  THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH?

NO BECAUSE THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH IS A PARTY IN THE CASE. IT SHOULD BE APPEALABLE TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2017-0011-ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION, PHILIPPINES, INC. (ALFI) AND ATTY. MARIA CONCEPCION S. NOCHE, ET AL.J VS. HON. JANETTE L. GARIN, ET AL. MARIA CONC

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.