• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
I.
Legal Philosophy
Case Studies
Functionalist Perspective
Modern Legal Realist Perspective
Critical Legal Analysis
Policy Science
Esplana, Maria CarlaOctaviano, Clarence Yu, Benjamin3/1/2009
 
II.
Functionalist Perspectivea. Teresita Arobang v. Mayor Vicente Bermejob. Hon. Jejomar Binay and the Municipality of Makati v.Hon. Eufemio Domingo and the Commission of AuditIII.Modern Legal Realist Perspective
a.
Alejandro Estrada v. Soledad Escritorb.Ferdinand Marcos v. Hon. Raul ManglapusIV.Critical Legal Analysisa. International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) v.Hon. Leonardo A. QuisumbingV.Policy Science Perspective
a.
In the matter of the Petition for Habeas Corpus:Laurente C. Ilagan vs. Hon Juan Ponce Enrile
b.
Florentino Joya and Juan Tahimic and Domingo Joyav. Pedro Pareja VI.Scandinavian legal realisma. Primitivo Ansay, et al v. The Board of Directors of theNational Development Company et al.
 
Cases for functional perspectiveArrobang v. MartinezG.R. No. 153974 August 7, 2006Austria- Martinez, J.
Before this Court is a petition for review questioning the Decision of theCourt of Appeals (CA) dated March 20, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 47052, as wellthe Resolution dated June 11, 2002 denying petitioners Motion forReconsideration thereof.
Facts:
Petitioners are owners of parcels of land with a total area of about 20,424square meters, covered by Free Patent Nos. 7265, 7266, 7267, 7268, 7269,and 7270. On November 8, 1995, the Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipalityof Panay issued Resolution No. 95-29 authorizing the municipal governmentthrough the mayor to initiate expropriation proceedings. A petition forexpropriation was thereafter filed on April 14, 1997 by the Municipality of Panay (respondent) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18 of RoxasCity, docketed as Civil Case No. V-6958.Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the taking is not forpublic use but only for the benefit of certain individuals; that it is politicallymotivated because petitioners voted against the incumbent mayor and vice-mayor; and that some of the supposed beneficiaries of the land sought to beexpropriated have not actually signed a petition asking for the property buttheir signatures were forged or they were misled into signing the same.On July 31, 1997, the trial court denied petitioners Motion to Dismiss anddeclared that the expropriation in this case is for "public use" and therespondent has the lawful right to take the property upon payment of justcompensation. Petitioners filed an Answer on August 12, 1997 reassertingthe issues they raised in their Motion to Dismiss.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...