Saturday, August 26, 2023

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. T.A.N. Properties [G.R. No. 154953, June 26, 2008]

 CASE DIGEST

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. T.A.N. Properties

G.R. No. 154953, June 26, 2008

FIRST DIVISION, CARPIO, J.

 

Property; Land Titles; Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title; Proof of Alienable and Disposable Land under RA 11573 

The burden of proving land's alienable and disposable status lies with the applicant. Certifications from DENR are insufficient; DENR Secretary's approval and survey verification are necessary. 

 

The case involves an application for the registration of a land parcel filed by T.A.N. Properties, Inc. for Lot 10705-B, covering 56.4007 hectares in Sto. Tomas, Batangas. Support its claim that land is alienable and disposable, TAN Properties submitted two certifications; certification from CENRO stating that the subject land as within the Alienable and Disposable Zone and certification from Forest Management Services of the DENR) which stated that the subect area falls within an alienable and disposable land.


Whether the land is alienable and disposable.

NO. The rule is that all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion presumably belong to the State. Anyone who applies for registration has the burden of overcoming otherwise.

In this case, TAN submitted two certifications issued by DENR. The certifications, however, are not sufficient.

A. CENRO – issues certificates of land classification status for areas below50 hectares. (It is the PENRO that issues certificates for lands covering 50hectares). Here, the area of the subject land covers over 50 hectares (564,007 square meters). The CENRO certificate covered the entire Lot10705 with an area of 596,116 square meters which is beyond the authority of the CENRO to certify as alienable and disposable.

B. FMS-DENR - has no authority under DAO (DENR-Admin Order) to issue certificates of land classification.

 

Moreover, it is not enough for the PENRO or CENRO to certify that a land is alienable and disposable. The applicant for land registration must prove that:

               i.    The DENR Secretary had approved the land classification and released the land of the public domain as alienable and disposable, and that the land subject of the application for registration falls within the approved area per verification through survey by the PENRO or CENRO.

              ii.    In addition, the applicant for land registration must (4) present a copy of the original classification approved by the DENR Secretary and certified as a true copy by the legal custodian of the official records.

These facts must be established to prove that the land is alienable and disposable. TAN failed to do so. As the respondent failed to prove the land's alienable and disposable nature, its application for registration was denied.

 

 

Whether TAN or its predecessors-in-interest had open, continuous, exclusive, and notorios possession and occupation of the land in the concept of an owner?

(Update: Under the new law, RA 11573 effective July 16, 2021 – the required period of possession is 20 years prior to the application of the petition for judicial confirmation of imperfect title)

NO. The Court find’s TAN’s uncorroborated witness testimony insufficient to prove that TAN’s predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the land in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years. Moreover, the tax declarations presented were only for the years starting1955. TAN did not present any credible explanation why the realty taxes were only paid starting 1955 considering the claim that the Dimayugas were allegedly in possession of the land before 1945.

Doctrine allowing private corporations to apply for registration doesn't apply when land was not already private when acquired. In this case, TAN acquired the land on 8 August 1997 from Porting, who, along with his predecessors-in-interest, has not shown to have been, as of that date, in open, continuous, and adverse possession of the land for 30years since 12 June 1945. Hence, TAN failed to prove that any portion of the land was already private land when it acquired it from Porting in 1997.

 

What is the required proof that Land is Alienable and Disposable under RA 11573:AN ACT IMPROVING THE CONFIRMATION PROCESS FOR IMPERFECT LAND TITLES

Under the new law, for purposes of judicial confirmation of imperfect titles, a duly signed certification by a duly designated DENR geodetic engineer that the land is part of alienable and disposable agricultural lands of the public domain is sufficient proof that the land is alienable; and the certification shall state the applicable Forestry Administrative Order, DENR Administrative Order, Executive Order, Proclamations and the Land Classification Project Map Number covering the subject land.

If such documents has no available copy, present a sworn statement declaring that said land classification map is existing in the inventory of LC Map records of the National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) and is being used by the DENR as land classification map.

Moreover, said Geodetic Engineer shall be presented in the witness stand during trial and hearing of the Petition for Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Titles.

 

 

 

AQUINO V. MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN [G.R. No. 211356, September 29, 2014]

 CASE DIGEST

AQUINO V. MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN

G.R. No. 211356  [September 29, 2014]

THIRD DIVISION, VELASCO, JR.

 

Property; Nuisance; Demolition of Property in “no build zone”

LGC authorizes city and municipal governments, acting through their local chief executives, to issue demolition orders. insofar as illegal constructions are concerned, the mayor can, after satisfying the requirement of due notice and hearing, order their closure and demolition.

 

Crisostomo Aquino is the president of Boracay Island West Cove Management Philippines, Inc. (Boracay West Cove). The company applied for a zoning compliance for the construction of a three-story hotel on a parcel of land in Boracay Island. Despite already operating a resort in the area, the application was denied due to the proposed construction site being within the "no build zone" as per a municipal ordinance. The municipal government issued a Cease and Desist Order and later, Executive Order No. 10 was issued, ordering the closure and demolition of Boracay West Cove's hotel. Aquino argued that proper judicial proceedings should have been conducted before the demolition and that the municipality lacks jurisdiction over the forestland area. Aquino filed to certiorari petition on the validity of EO10 and the acts of concerned municipality.


Whether the issuance and implementation of Executive Order No. 10, that leads to the demolition of Hotel Property valid, absent prior judicial proceedings.

 

YES. It finds that the hotel was not a nuisance per se, but a nuisance per accidens due to its location. The mayor's power to order the demolition of illegal constructions is upheld, since the property was clearly build under a “no build zone”. In establishing no build zone through a municipal ordinance, the LGU effectively decided that constructions therein, without first securing exemptions from the local council, qualify as nuisances for they pose a threat to public safety. No build zones are intended for the protection of the public because the stability of the ground’s foundation is adversely affected by the nearby body of water.

Here, it is merely the hotel’s particular incident––its location––and not its inherent qualities that rendered it a nuisance. Otherwise stated, had it not been constructed in the no build zone, Boracay West Cove could have secured the necessary permits without issue. As such, petitioner is correct that the hotel is not a nuisance per se, but to Our mind, it is still a nuisance per accidens.

 

 

Whether the respondent mayor has the power to order the demolition of illegal constructions?

YES. Despite the hotel’s classification as a nuisance per accidens, however, we still find in this case that the LGU may nevertheless properly order the hotel’s demolition. This is because, in the exercise of police power and the general welfare clause, property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfil the objectives of the government. Moreover, the LGC authorizes city and municipal governments, acting through their local chief executives, to issue demolition orders. In the case at bar, petitioner admittedly failed to secure the necessary permits, clearances, and exemptions before the construction, expansion, and operation of Boracay Wet Cove’s hotel. Under the law, insofar as illegal constructions are concerned, the mayor can, after satisfying the requirement of due notice and hearing, order their closure and demolition.

 


CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

 

Rana v. Wong [G.R. No. 192861-62. June 30, 2014]

 CASE DIGEST

Rana v. Wong

G.R. No. 192861-62. [June 30, 2014]

SECOND DIVISION, PERLAS-BERNABE

 

Property; Nuisance; Abatement of Nuisance

Unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it cannot be summarily abated.

 

Teresita Lee Wong and Spouses Shirley and Ruben Ang Ong co-own a residential land in Cebu City. Across the road, Spouses Reynaldo and Linda Rana elevated and cemented a portion of the road and backfilled near the property of Spouses Wilson and Rosario Uy, without erecting a retaining wall that would hold the weight of the added filling materials.

This led to a legal case where Wong, et al., claimed the actions of Sps. Rana constituted a nuisance affecting road access and safety, through a Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance with Damages against Sps. Rana before the RTC. The RTC ruled that the backfilling was a nuisance. The backfilling done by Sps. Rana on their property exerted pressure on the perimeter fence of the Uy property, thereby constituting a nuisance. The Court of Appeals upheld these rulings.

 

Whether the elevated and cemented road portion created by Spouses Reynaldo and Linda Rana considered a nuisance per se.

  

NO. The court discusses the legal definitions of nuisances and clarifies that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it cannot be summarily abated. The court rules that the elevated road portion is not a nuisance per se, as it does not inherently endanger health, safety, or obstruct passage, and thus, its demolition was unwarranted.  Consequently, its summary abatement without judicial permission is not justified. 

The court also addresses the subject backfilling, deeming it a nuisance and ordering Linda Rana to construct a retaining wall to rectify the issue.

 

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT


Thursday, August 24, 2023

SAN FELIX v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION [G.R. No. 198404, October 14, 2019]

 CASE DIGEST

SAN FELIX v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

G.R. No. 198404, October 14, 2019

THIRD DIVISION, HERNANDO J.

 

Powers, Function and Jurisdiction of Civil Service Commission 

DOCTRINE: CSC's role as the central personnel agency responsible for upholding the integrity of the civil service system and maintaining the merit and rewards system. The case establishes that the CSC's jurisdiction extends to matters of integrity, honesty, and misconduct within the civil service, regardless of changes in specific examination administration authority.

 

San Felix was accused of allowing another person to take a police officer exam in his place, leading to the CSC's imposition of penalties. The CSC found San Felix guilty of dishonesty for allegedly allowing someone else to take a police officer examination on his behalf and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service along with other related penalties. San Felix contested this, claiming that the CSC lacked jurisdiction to conduct investigations and render administrative decisions due to a law transferring examination authority to the National Police Commission (NPC). The petition concerns the legal challenge against the Court of Appeals' decision to uphold the Civil Service Commission's (CSC) findings against Melvin G. San Felix.

 

Whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) retains jurisdiction to conduct investigations and render administrative decisions based on alleged anomalies in police entrance and promotional examinations after the creation of the National Police Commission (NPC).

 

YES. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) retains authority and jurisdiction to investigate anomalies and irregularities in civil service examinations and impose appropriate sanctions. The court found that the CSC has the power to administer the merit system and carry out measures to ensure the integrity of the civil service, including investigations related to examination fraud. Although a law transferred examination authority for police officers to the National Police Commission (NPC), the CSC's jurisdiction remained for investigations involving integrity and falsification of information in personal data sheets. The court held that the petitioner's act of dishonesty by allowing someone else to take an examination for him and making false statements on his personal data sheet warranted disciplinary action, as it was in violation of the merit and rewards system. Therefore, the court upheld the CSC's jurisdiction and its decision to impose sanctions on the petitioner.

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROVINCE OF BATAAN V. CASIMIRO [G.R. No. 197510-11, April 18, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

PROVINCE OF BATAAN V. CASIMIRO

G.R. No. 197510-11, April 18, 2022

SECOND DIVISION, HERNANDO J.

 

Certiorari, Ombudsman, Mootness, Hierarchy of Courts 

DOCTRINE: Mootness of the case due to subsequent events, particularly the advancement of criminal trials and administrative proceedings in the Sandiganbayan, leads to the issues raised becoming irrelevant and non-justiciable.

 

In this case, Provincial Agriculturist Imelda D. Inieto requested a patrol boat equipped with a 6-cylinder gas engine to aid the Bataan Provincial Anti-Illegal Fishing Task Force. A series of irregularities occurred during the procurement process, involving alterations in specifications, lack of competitive bidding, and payment for a patrol boat that was not delivered on time. The Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) recommended a limited source bidding and awarded the contract to Ernesto R. Asistin Jr. for a 4-cylinder gas engine patrol boat instead of the requested 6-cylinder one. The Ombudsman found various public officials and individuals guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and falsification of documents in the procurement process. Subsequently, criminal and administrative cases were filed, and the case reached the Court of Appeals and later the Supreme Court through petitions and motions, raising questions about the legality of the proceedings and the involvement of various individuals in the irregularities.

  

Whether or not the case should be dismissed due to mootness and failing to adhere to the hierarchy of courts?  

  

NO. The consolidated petitions involve legal challenges related to criminal and administrative cases against public officials accused of wrongdoing. In a complex sequence of events, the involved officials were charged with offenses, such as violation of RA 3019 and falsification of public documents. The issues spanned issues of jurisdiction, abuse of discretion, proper procedures, and the existence of probable cause. Over time, certain accused were dropped from cases, trials commenced, and appeals were made.

The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the hierarchy of courts, highlighting that administrative cases should be appealed through appropriate channels, particularly through Rule 43 petitions filed with the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the court dismissed the petitions, underscoring the principle of mootness and the significance of respecting the hierarchy of courts.

 

 

 CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DY BUNCIO V. RAMOS [G.R. No. 206120, March 23, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

DY BUNCIO V. RAMOS

G.R. No. 206120, March 23, 2022

SECOND DIVISION, HERNANDO J.

 

Certiorari, Agrarian Law, RA 6657, Jurisdiction, Agrarian Dispute, Tenancy, Relationship 

DOCTRINE: This principle emphasizes that issues related to agrarian disputes, particularly those involving tenancy arrangements and agricultural lands, should be primarily addressed by the DAR and its adjudicative bodies.

 

The case involves a complaint for Accion Reinvindicatoria and Damages filed by Buncio with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabanatuan City, alleging her ownership of a parcel of land and seeking to remove respondents Leontina and Fernando Ramos from the property. Respondents argued that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to a leasehold agreement, and a preliminary determination was made regarding the existence of tenancy. The RTC initially dismissed the special affirmative defenses of respondents, stating they failed to prove tenancy. Despite an ocular inspection, the RTC referred the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) based on allegations of an agrarian dispute. Buncio sought reconsideration but was denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed her certiorari petition against the RTC's resolution, deeming the recourse premature and ruling that her cause could be addressed through the DAR. Buncio then appealed to the Supreme Court.

 

Whether or not Buncio is entitled for Certiorari.

 

NO. The instant petition lacks merit as the Court of Appeals (CA) rightly dismissed Buncio's Petition for Certiorari due to its incorrect remedy. The CA emphasized that Buncio had alternative remedies available before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). The CA's decision cited Section 50-A of RA 6657, amended by RA 9700, which mandates the automatic referral of cases with allegations of agrarian nature and involving parties like farmers, farmworkers, or tenants to the DAR. The CA also clarified that Buncio did not acquire a vested right from a previous RTC order, as jurisdiction over the subject matter is granted by law, not by previous court rulings. It highlighted the factual nature of the core issue – the existence of a tenancy relationship – and the role of the DARAB and the DAR in agrarian disputes. The CA concluded that Buncio's immediate resort to the CA through a Petition for Certiorari was improper and correctly rejected by the appellate court.

 

 

 CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

 

 

 

 

VILLAMOR V. JUMAO-AS [A.C. No. 8111. February 15, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

VILLAMOR V. JUMAO-AS

A.C. No. 8111. February 15, 2022

SC EN BANC, HERNANDO J.

 

CPR, Conflict of Interest 

DOCTRINE: Lawyers shall uphold candor, fairness, and loyalty in their dealings with clients and avoiding any appearance of conflicting interests.

  

Court suspended Atty. Jumao-as from the practice of law for two years for violating Canon 15, CPR, which states that lawyers shall not represent conflicting interests except with the written consent of all concerned after full disclosure of the facts. Atty. Jumao-as facilitate the incorporation of a lending company owned by his client and later joining another lending company owned by someone else. Atty. Jumao-as persuaded his client to borrow money from the owner of the new lending company and even sent a demand letter on behalf of the new employer to collect the debt from his original client. 

In his motion to reduce penalty, Atty. Jumao-as acknowledged his faults and expressed remorse for his actions. He sought a reconsideration of the original two-year suspension.

 

Whether or not the lawyer violated the prohibition against representing conflicting interests.

 

YES. The court considered Atty. Jumao-as' acts of contrition and willingness to take responsibility for his actions; his speedy initiative to make amends and take responsibility of the entire debt is remarkable. He also expended extraordinary efforts to straighten out the corporate scuffles involving him and complainant Villamor and they have resumed their business dealings in good terms. Grave though his transgressions may have been, the sincerity of Atty. Jumao-as' remorse is reflected in his words and actions, which impresses this Court.

 Nonetheless, the SC emphasized that lawyers cannot claim ignorance of legal principles, including the prohibition against representing conflicting interests. The court however reduced the penalty to a one-year suspension from the practice of law.


CLICK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. vs. Edward King, G.R. No. 145901, December 15, 2005

 CASE DIGEST Easycall Communications Phils., Inc. vs. Edward King G.R. No. 145901, December 15, 2005 THIRD DIVISION, CORONA J.     C...