attyphiljuris.blogspot.com

STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case involves a dispute between the Heirs of the late Apolinario Caburnay (petitioners) and the Heirs of Teodulo Sison (respondents). The petitioners claim that they entered into a sale agreement with Teodulo Sison regarding a parcel of land, but upon Teodulo’s death, the sale was not completed, and the respondents, after executing an extrajudicial settlement of the estate, transferred the property to Jesus Sison, one of the heirs. The petitioners seek to declare the sale valid, and the property title in Jesus' name null and void, asserting that they had partially paid for the property. Respondents argue that the sale was invalid due to lack of consent from Teodulo's second wife, Perla, and that the action is barred by prescription. "In a nutshell, the present case involves a husband (Teodulo), who has married twice and has children (petitioners) from the first marriage. After the death of his first wife (Perpetua) and while married to his second...

  SC Declares Unconstitutional COMELEC Resolution Prohibiting Carrying of Knives: Unreasonable and Overly Broad The Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional the COMELEC Resolution No. 10015 provision prohibiting the carrying of knives and other bladed instruments during the election period.  In this case ,  the Court ruled that the prohibition was unreasonable, overly broad, and beyond the authority of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). The case involved Jovit Buella , who was charged for carrying a folding knife outside his residence during the 2016 elections. The Court found that COMELEC failed to properly define what constitutes a "deadly weapon," arbitrarily including all bladed instruments in its prohibition. This criminalized even the possession of ordinary tools like kitchen knives, utility blades, and carpentry tools , which have legitimate uses. Justice Leonen, in his concurring opinion, stressed that the blanket ban on knives violated due process ...

" The sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both the husband and the wife. The absence of the consent of one renders the sale null and void, while the vitiation thereof makes it merely voidable. Only in the latter case can ratification cure the defect. ” - SC STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case involves Spouses Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang (petitioners) who purchased a portion of conjugal property from Judie Corpuz , the husband of Gilda Corpuz (private respondent), without Gilda’s consent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Koronadal, South Cotabato and subsequently the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled the sale null and void under Article 124 of the Family Code , which requires spousal consent for the disposition of conjugal property. The petitioners, claiming that the transaction was merely voidable and later ratified through an amicable settlement , sought relief from the Supreme Court (SC). Arguments Petitioners (Spouses Guiang): The Deed of Transfer of Righ...

  Traffic Violation Does Not Justify a Warrantless Search Statement of the Case This case involves the conviction of Angelito Ridon for illegal possession of a firearm under Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act) . The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the firearm seized from Ridon during a warrantless search was admissible, given that the search was conducted following a mere traffic violation. Facts Incident: Angelito Ridon was driving a motorcycle when police officers stopped him for entering a one-way street in violation of traffic regulations. Instead of stopping, Ridon made a U-turn, prompting a chase. Apprehension: The police, with assistance from a Bantay Bayan (a civilian peacekeeping force), eventually cornered Ridon. In the process, Ridon fell off his motorcycle. As he attempted to reach for something at his waist, the Bantay Bayan restrained him. Search and Arrest: One of the officers frisked Ridon and found a...

  SC Clarifies: No Extension to File Answer in Ejectment Suits In Victoria G. Gachon and Alex Guevara vs. Hon. Norberto C. Devera, Jr. , G.R. No. 116695 , the Supreme Court clarified the application of the Rules on Summary Procedure , specifically whether the period for filing pleadings should be applied strictly or liberally . The Case The petitioners, Gachon and Guevara, were required to file an answer within ten days of receiving summons in a forcible entry case. They missed the deadline and filed a motion for an extension, which was rejected because such motions are prohibited under the Rule on Summary Procedure. The petitioners then sought to admit their late answer, but this was also denied. After the Municipal Trial Court ruled against them, they appealed to the Regional Trial Court, and then to the Supreme Court. The Issue The key issue was whether the court should apply the ten-day period for filing pleadings strictly, as outlined in the Rule on Summary Procedure, or whet...

  Facts: Employees of Holy Face Cell Corporation , operating as Tres Pares Fast Food, were informed on January 14, 2011, that the restaurant would close on January 19, 2011. The employees attempted to discuss the closure with the company's president, Hayden Kho, Sr ., but were unsuccessful. The restaurant closed as scheduled, leading the employees to file a complaint for illegal dismissal, seeking separation pay and other benefits. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that the failure to provide notice of closure constitutes a violation of procedural due process but does not amount to an unlawful or criminal act. The Court stated: "The failure to give notice is not an unlawful act because the law does not define such failure as unlawful." Consequently, the Court found no basis to hold Kho personally liable for the corporate liabilities arising from the case. Reasoning: The Court emphasized that non-compliance with the notice requirement results in a procedura...

  G.R. No. 168424 In Philippine jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has allowed the admission of secondary evidence when the proponent successfully establishes the basis for its presentation, in accordance with the Revised Rules on Evidence. In Heirs of Pedro Pasag v. Spouses Parocha (G.R. No. 168424, September 30, 2005) , the Court reiterated that secondary evidence of the contents of a document is admissible only upon compliance with Rule 130, Section 5, which requires: Proof of the execution or existence of the original document ; Proof of the loss, destruction, or unavailability of the original ; and A showing that the unavailability was not due to bad faith on the part of the proponent . ( Or laying the basis rule ) In this case, the petitioners were able to establish the loss of the original document and the due execution of the same, thereby satisfying the requirements for the admission of secondary evidence. Similarly, in Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) v. ...