TAN VS COMELEC FACTS: BP 885 or An Act Creating the Province of Negros del Norte was passed.

Petitioners who were residents of Negros Occidental, wanted to stop COM ! C fro" holding a ple#iscite. BP 885 provided that the ple#iscite was to #e cond$cted %&' da(s fro" the approval of the Act and that the President was to appoint the first officials. Petitioners arg$ed however, that the law was $nconstit$tional and contrar( to stat$te. )he Constit$tion states that no province, cit(, "$nicipalit(, or #arrio "a( #e created, divided, "erged, a#olished, or its #o$ndaries s$#stantiall( altered, e*cept in accordance with the criteria esta#lished in the !ocal +overn"ent Code, s$#,ect to approval #( a "a,orit( of votes cast in a ple#iscite. )he !+C set as a standard that a province "$st have at least -,5'' s.$are /ilo"eters as its territor(. )he 0olicitor +eneral arg$ed that BP 885 en,o(s a pres$"ption of legalit( and that the .$estion is "oot since the province of Negros del Norte had alread( #een proclai"ed. ISSUE: 1hether or not Negros del Norte was validl( created2 HELD: No. )wo political $nits wo$ld #e affected in case of a division of a province3the parent and the proposed province. )he Constit$tion co""ands that affected $nits #e considered in a ple#iscite. )he Co$rt noted that the case of Paredes v *ec$tive 0ecretar(, which involved the creation of a new "$nicipalit( where the parent $nit was not involved, co$ld not #e considered as a precedent. )hat case involved a #aranga( while this case involves a province. Al"ost half of the s$gar plantations wo$ld #e dis"e"#ered for" the parent province and so"e of its "ost i"portant cities. )he 0$pre"e Co$rt also considered the new province as lac/ing in the territor( re.$ire"ent since the land "ass of the new territor( was onl( &,854 s.$are /ilo"eters. )he Co$rt re,ected the s$ggestion of the 0olicitor +eneral that even the area of the 5 sho$ld #e considered in deter"ining the territorial re.$ire"ent

TATEL vs. MUNICIPALITY OF VIRAC FACTS: On March %644, the 7esidents of Barrio 0ta. lena co"plained against the dist$r#ance ca$sed #( the operation of the a#aca #ailing "achine inside the wareho$se of Mr. )atel. )he "achine was prod$cing s"o/e, o#no*io$s odor, and d$st. Conse.$entl(, the M$nicipal Co$ncil of 8irac appointed a co""ittee to investigate. Based on the investigation, the neigh#orhood was crowded and the roads were narrow which showed that the wareho$se was ha9ardo$s to fire and which is dangero$s to the area. On April %644, 7esol$tion No. &6 was passed #( the M$nicipal Co$ncil of 8irac, which declared the wareho$se as a p$#lic n$isance within the p$rview of Article 46: of the Civil Code. )atel filed an M7 #$t the sa"e was denied. ;ence, he filed this petition for prohi#ition. As for the co$ncil, it contended that )atel<s wareho$se violated Ordinance No. %- which prohi#ited the constr$ction of wareho$ses within &'' "eters fro" a #loc/ of ho$ses either in the po#lacion or #arrios. ;owever, )atel arg$ed that the Ordinance is $nconstit$tional, contrar( to d$e process and e.$al protection cla$se of the Constit$tion. ISSUE: 1hether or not Ordinance No. %-, in prohi#iting the constr$ction of wareho$ses in densel( pop$lated co""$nities, is a valid e*ercise of police power2 HELD: =es. M$nicipal Corporations are agencies of the 0tate for the pro"otion and "aintenance of local self>govern"ent and as s$ch are endowed with police powers to carr( o$t the o#,ects of their creation. ?ts a$thorit( e"anates fro" the general welfare cla$se of the Ad"in Code. @or an ordinance to #e valid, it "$st #e within the corporate powers of the "$nicipalit( to enact. Ordinances are re.$ired to #eA %. ?n accord with the Constit$tion or an( stat$teB &. not #e $nfair or oppressiveB -. not #e i"partial or discri"inator(B :. "$st not prohi#it #$t "a( reg$late tradeB 5. "$st #e general and consistent with p$#lic polic(, and 4. "$st not #e $nreasona#le. Ordinance No. %- "eets these criteria. )he ordinance reg$lates the constr$ction of wareho$ses located at a distance of &'' "eters fro" a #loc/ of ho$ses wherein infla""a#le "aterials are stored and not the constr$ction of a wareho$se per se. )he p$rpose is to avoid the loss of life and propert( in case of fire. No $nd$e restraint is placed $pon the petitioner or for an(#od( to engage in trade #$t "erel( a prohi#ition fro" storing infla""a#le prod$cts in the wareho$se #eca$se of the danger of fire to the lives and properties of the people residing in the vicinit(. As far as p$#lic polic( is concerned, there can #e no #etter polic( that what has #een conceived #( the "$nicipal govern"ent

&

VILLACORTA VS. BERNARDO FACTS: )his is a petition for certiorari against a decision of the Co$rt of @irst ?nstance of Pangasinan ann$lling an ordinance adopted #( the "$nicipal #oard of Cag$pan Cit(. Ordinance &&, or An Ordinance 7eg$lating 0$#division Plans over parcels of land in Cag$pan, which was passed #( the M$nicipal Board, was #eing .$estioned. )he co$rt declared the ordinance as void #eca$se it conflicts with and e*pands Act :64, which is a national law. @irst of all 0ec.% of the ordinance re.$ires that all s$#division plans #e s$#"itted to the Cit( ngineer #efore it can #e approved #( the Cirector of !ands. 0ec. - of the ordinance f$rther provides that a certification of the cit( engineer is needed #efore registration of s$#division plans can #e "ade with the 7egister of Ceeds. 0ection & also provides a service fee for s$#division plans. !astl(, the ordinance also i"poses a penalt( for violations co""itted. All of the afore"entioned sections of the ordinance contravenes Act :64 as the latter does not re.$ire s$#"ission of plans to the cit( engineer, nor the iss$ance of a certification #( the sa"e, nor does it provide an( penalties. )he Cit( of Cag$pan arg$es, on the other hand, that the ordinance #rings to a halt the s$rreptitio$s registration of lands #elonging to the govern"ent. ISSUES: 1hether or not Ordinance && is valid2 HELD: )he powers of the #oard in enacting s$ch a la$da#le ordinance cannot #e held valid when it shall i"pede the e*ercise of rights granted in a general law andDor "a/e a general law s$#ordinated to a local ordinance. )o s$stain the ordinance wo$ld #e to open the floodgates to other ordinances a"ending and so violating national laws in the g$ise of i"ple"enting the". )h$s, ordinances co$ld #e passed i"posing additional re.$ire"ents for the iss$ance of "arriage licenses, to prevent #iga"(B the registration of vehicles, to "ini"i9e carnapingB the e*ec$tion of contracts, to forestall fra$dB the validation of passports, to deter i"post$reB the e*ercise of freedo" of speech, to red$ce disorderB and so on. )he list is endless, #$t the "eans, even if the end #e valid, wo$ld #e ultra vires.

CRUZ VS. PARAS FACTS: )he Petitioners are nightcl$# operators in Boca$e, B$lacan. )he( have #een previo$sl( iss$ed licenses for their night cl$#s #( the M$nicipal Ma(or. B$t Ordinance no. 8:, 0eries of %6E5, was passed, which provided that no operator of night cl$#s, ca#arets or dance halls shall henceforth #e iss$ed per"itsDlicenses to operate within the ,$risdiction of the "$nicipalit( and no licenseDper"it shall #e iss$ed to an( professional hostess, hospitalit( girls and professional dancer for e"plo("ent in an( of the afore"entioned esta#lish"ents. ISSUE: 1hether or not a "$nicipal corporation can pass a ordinance which prohi#it the e*ercise of a lawf$l trade, operation of night cl$#s , and the p$rs$it of a lawf$l occ$pation, s$ch cl$#s e"plo(ing hostesses2 HELD: No. A "$nicipal corporation cannot prohi#it the operation of nightcl$#s. Nightcl$#s "a( #e reg$lated #$t not prevented fro" carr(ing on their #$siness. 7A 6-8, as originall( enacted, granted "$nicipalities the power to reg$late the esta#lish"ent, "aintenance and operation of nightcl$#s and the li/e. 1hile it is tr$e that on Ma( &%, %65:, the law was a"ended #( 7A 6E6 wDc p$rported to give "$nicipalities the power not onl( to reg$late #$t li/ewise to prohi#it the operation of nightcl$#s, the fact is that the title of the law re"ained the sa"e so that the power granted to "$nicipalities re"ains that of reg$lation, not prohi#ition. )o constr$e the a"endator( act as granting "$nicipal corporations the power to prohi#it the operation of nightcl$#s wo$ld #e to constr$e it in a wa( that it violates the constit$tional provision that Fever( #ill shall e"#race onl( one s$#,ect which shall #e e*pressed in the title thereof.F Moreover, the recentl(>enacted !+C GBP --EH spea/s si"pl( of the power to reg$late the esta#lish"ent, and operation of #illiard pools, theatrical perfor"ances, circ$ses and other for"s of entertain"ent. Certiorari granted.

QC vs. ERICTA FACTS: )he I$e9on Cit( Co$ncil passed Ordinance No. 4%%8, 0>4: reg$lating the esta#lish"ent, "aintenance and operation of private "e"orial ce"eter( or #$rial gro$nd within the ,$risdiction of I$e9on Cit( 0ection 6 of said ordinance states thatA At least si* G4H percent of the total area of the "e"orial par/ ce"eter( shall #e set aside for charit( #$rial of deceased persons who are pa$pers and have #een residents of I$e9on Cit( for at least 5 (ears prior to their death, to #e deter"ined #( co"petent Cit( A$thorities. )he area so designated shall i""ediatel( #e developed and sho$ld #e open for operation not later than si* "onths fro" the date of approval of the application. )hen, the I$e9on Cit( Co$ncil passed a resol$tion re.$esting the Cit( ngineer, I$e9on Cit(, to stop an( f$rther selling andDor transaction of "e"orial par/ lots in I$e9on Cit( where the owners thereof have failed to donate the re.$ired 4J space intended for pa$pers #$rial. P$rs$ant to this petition, the I$e9on Cit( ngineer notified respondent ;i"la(ang Pilipino, ?nc. in writing that 0ection 6 of Ordinance No. 4%%8, 0>4: wo$ld #e enforced. 7espondent ;i"la(ang Pilipino filed with the Co$rt of @irst ?nstance of 7i9al Branch K8??? at I$e9on Cit( a petition for declarator( relief, prohi#ition and "anda"$s with preli"inar( in,$nction, see/ing to ann$l 0ection 6 of the Ordinance in .$estion. ?t alleged that the sa"e is contrar( to the Constit$tion, the I$e9on Cit( Charter, the !ocal A$tono"( Act, and the 7evised Ad"inistrative Code. )he trial co$rt rendered the decision declaring 0ection 6 of Ordinance No. 4%%8, 0>4: n$ll and void. Petitioners arg$e that the ta/ing of the respondentLs propert( is a valid and reasona#le e*ercise of police power and that the land is ta/en for a p$#lic $se as it is intended for the #$rial gro$nd of pa$pers. ISSUE: ?s 0ection 6 of the ordinance in .$estion a valid e*ercise of the police power2 HELD: No. )here is no reasona#le relation #etween the setting aside of at least si* G4H percent of the total area of an private ce"eteries for charit( #$rial gro$nds of deceased pa$pers and the pro"otion of health, "orals, good order, safet(, or the general welfare of the people. The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area fro" a private ce"eter( to #enefit pa$pers. ?nstead of #$ilding or "aintaining a p$#lic ce"eter( for this p$rpose, the cit( passes the #$rden to private ce"eteries.

)he e*propriation witho$t co"pensation of a portion of private ce"eteries is not covered #( the 7evised Charter of I$e9on Cit( which e"powers the cit( co$ncil to prohi#it the #$rial of the dead within the center of pop$lation of the cit( and to provide for their #$rial in a proper place s$#,ect to the provisions of general law reg$lating #$rial gro$nds and ce"eteries.

CITY OF MANILA VS IAC FACTS: 8ivencio 0to. Co"ingo, 0r. died and was #$ried in North Ce"eter( which lot was leased #( the cit( to ?rene 0to. Co"ingo for the period fro" M$ne 4, %6E% to M$ne 4, &'&%. )he wife paid the f$ll a"o$nt of the lease. Apart, however fro" the receipt, no other doc$"ent e"#odied s$ch lease over the lot. Believing that the lease was onl( for five (ears, the cit( certified the lot as read( for e*h$"ation. On the #asis of the certification, Moseph ;el"$th a$thori9ed the e*h$"ation and re"oval of the re"ains of 8icencio. ;is #ones were placed in a #ag and /ept in the #odega of the ce"eter(. )he lot was also leased to another lessee. C$ring the ne*t all so$ls da(, the private respondents were shoc/ed to find o$t that 8icencio<s re"ains were re"oved. )he ce"eter( told ?rene to loo/ for the #ones of the h$s#and in the #odega. Aggrieved, the widow and the children #ro$ght an action for da"ages against the Cit( of ManilaB vangeline 0$va of the Cit( ;ealth OfficeB 0ergio Mallari, officer> in>charge of the North Ce"eter(B and Moseph ;el"$th, the latterLs predecessor as officer>in>charge of the said #$rial gro$nds owned and operated #( the Cit( +overn"ent of Manila. )he co$rt ordered defendants to give plaintiffs the right to "a/e $se of another lot. )he CA affir"ed and incl$ded the award of da"ages in favor of the private respondents. ISSUE: 1hether or not the operations and f$nctions of a p$#lic ce"eter( are a govern"ental, or a corporate or proprietar( f$nction of the Cit( of Manila. HELD: )he said operations and f$nction are Proprietar( in nat$re. Petitioners alleged in their petition that the North Ce"eter( is e*cl$sivel( devoted for p$#lic $se or p$rpose as stated in 0ec. -%4 of the Co"pilation of the Ordinances of the Cit( of Manila. Private respondents "aintain that the Cit( of Manila entered into a contract of lease which involve the e*ercise of proprietar( f$nctions with ?rene 0to. Co"ingo. )he cit( and its officers therefore can #e s$ed for an(>violation of the contract of lease. )he Cit( of Manila is a political #od( corporate and as s$ch endowed with the fac$lties of "$nicipal corporations to #e e*ercised #( and thro$gh its cit( govern"ent in confor"it( with law, and in its proper corporate na"e. ?t "a( s$e and #e s$ed, and contract and #e contracted with. ?ts powers are twofold in character>p$#lic, govern"ental or political on the one hand, and corporate, private and proprietar( on the other. +overn"ental powers are those e*ercised in ad"inistering the powers of the state and pro"oting the p$#lic welfare and the( incl$de the legislative, ,$dicial, p$#lic and political. M$nicipal powers on the one hand are e*ercised for the special #enefit and advantage of the co""$nit( and incl$de those which are "inisterial, private and corporate.

MAGTAJAS VS. PRYCE PROPERTIES CORP. INC. FACTS: PA+CO7 opened a #ranch in Caga(an de Oro. Cifferent sectors of the co""$nit( opposed the said corporation incl$ding the local govern"ent. )he Ma(or of the cit( #ro$ght this instant petition averring that ga"#ling as intrinsicall( har"f$l. ;e also cites vario$s provisions of the constit$tion and several decisions of the co$rt. ?n relation to this, the 0anng$niang pangl$ngsod passed an ordinance which prohi#ited the operation of casinos in their place. ISSUE: 1hether or not an ordinance "a( #e passed #( the 0angg$niang Pangl$ngsod prohi#iting the operation of casinos2 HELD: )he power of PA+CO7 to centrali9e and reg$late all ga"es o chance re"ains $ni"paired. PC %846 has not #een "odified #( the !ocal +overn"ent Code, which e"powers the local govern"ent to prevent or s$ppress onl( those for"s of ga"#ling prohi#ited #( law. Casino ga"#ling is a$thori9ed $nder PC %846. )his decree has the stat$s of a stat$te that cannot #e a"ended or n$llified #( a "ere ordinance. ;ence, it was not co"petent for 0angg$niang Pangl$ngsod of Caga(an de Oro cit( to enact ordinances prohi#iting the $se of #$ildings for the operation of a casino and prohi#iting the operation of casinos. )hose ordinances are contrar( to PC%846 and the p$#lic polic( anno$nced therein, therefore $ltra vires and void.

BASCO VS. PAGCOR FACTS: PA+CO7 was created and was granted a franchise to esta#lish, operate and "aintain ga"#ling casinos within the territorial ,$risdiction of the Philippines. ?ts operation was originall( cond$cted in the well /nown floating casino Philippine )o$rist. )he operation was considered a s$ccess for it proved to #e a potential so$rce of reven$e and to f$nd infrastr$ct$re and socio>econo"ic pro,ects, th$s PC %-66 was passed to attain this o#,ective. 0$#se.$entl(, PC %846 was passed to ena#le the govern"ent to reg$late and centrali9e all ga"es of chance a$thori9ed #( e*isting franchise or per"itted #( law, $nder the following, a"ong others, declared polic(. #H )o esta#lish and operate cl$#s and casinos, * * * G%H generate so$rces of additional reven$e * * *, G&H create recreation and integrated facilities which will e*pand and i"prove the countrys existing tourist attractions, and (3)minimize, if not totally eradicate, all the evils, "alpractices and corr$ptions that are nor"all( prevalent on the cond$ct and operation of ga"#ling cl$#s and casinos witho$t direct involve"ent. ?t is reported that PA+CO7 is the third largest so$rce of govern"ent reven$e. B$t the petitioners are .$estioning the validit( of PC %846. )he( contend that PC %846A %H constit$tes a waiver of the right of the Cit( of Manila to i"pose ta*es and legal fees and &H its e*e"ption cla$se is violative of local a$tono"(. ISSUE: 1hether or not PC %846 is n$ll and void HELD: No, PC %846 is not n$ll and void. )heir contention is witho$t "erit for the following reasonsA a. )he Cit( of Manila, #eing a "ere M$nicipal corporation, has no inherent right to i"pose ta*es. )he Charter or stat$te "$st plainl( show an confer that power or the "$nicipalit( cannot ass$"e it. #. )he Charter of the Cit( is s$#,ect to control #( Congress, which has the power to create and a#olish M$nicipal corporations d$e to its general legislative powers. ?f congress can grant the Cit( the power to ta*, it can also provide for e*e"ptions or even ta/e #ac/ the power. c. )he power of local govern"ents to reg$late ga"#ling thr$ grant of franchise, licenses or per"its was withdrawn and was vested e*cl$sivel( on the National +overn"ent. Necessaril(, the power to de"and or collect license fees, which is a conse.$ence of the iss$ance of licenses or per"its, is no long vested in the Cit(. d. !ocal govern"ents have no power to ta* instr$"entalities of the National +overn"ent. PA+CO7 is a govern"ent owned or controlled corporation with an 6

original charter. As s$ch, it sho$ld #e and act$all( is e*e"pt fro" local ta*es. Otherwise, its operation "ight #e #$rdened, i"peded or s$#,ected to control #( a "ere local govern"ent. e. )he power of local govern"ent to i"pose ta*es and fees is alwa(s s$#,ect to li"itations which Congress "a( provide #( law. 0ince PC %846 re"ains an operative law $ntil a"ended, repealed or revo/ed, its e*e"ption cla$se re"ains as an e*ception to the power to i"pose ta*es and fees. ?t cannot #e violative #$t rather is consistent with the principle of local a$tono"(.

%'

BINAY VS DOMINGO FACTS: On 0ept &E, %688, Petitioner Ma/ati, thro$gh its Co$ncil, approved 7esol$tion No. 4'. )he resol$tion provided for a #$rial assistance progra" where .$alified #eneficiaries Gto #e given P5''.''H are #ereaved fa"ilies whose gross "onthl( inco"e does not e*ceed & tho$sand per "onth. ?t will #e f$nded #( the $nappropriated availa#le f$nds in the "$nicipal treas$r(. Metro Manila Co""ission approved the resol$tion. )he "$nicipal secretar( certified a dis#$rse"ent f$nd of P:'','''.'' for the i"ple"entation of the progra". 1hen it was referred to the COA, the resol$tion was disapproved. According to COA, there is no relation #etween the o#,ective so$ght to #e attained $nder 7es. No. 4' and the alleged p$#lic safet( and general welfare of the people of Ma/ati. Moreover, it is not for a p$#lic p$rpose. ?t onl( see/s to #enefit a few individ$als. )he M$nicipal Co$ncil passed 7esol$tion No. &:which reaffir"ed 7es. No. 4'. ;owever, the progra" has #een sta(ed #( COA Cecision No. %%56. ISSUE: 1hether or not 7esol$tion No. 4', re>enacted $nder 7esol$tion No. &:-, of the M$nicipalit( of Ma/ati is a valid e*ercise of police power $nder the general welfare cla$se2 HELD: = 0. Police power is inherent in the state #$t not in "$nicipal corporations. Before a "$nicipal corporation "a( e*ercise s$ch power, there "$st #e a valid delegation of s$ch power #( the legislat$re which is the repositor( of the inherent powers of the 0tate. A valid delegation "a( arise fro" e*press delegation, or #e inferred fro" the "ere fact of the creation of the corporation, and as a general r$le, "$nicipal corporations "a( e*ercise police powers within the fair intent and p$rpose of their creation which are reasona#l( proper to give effect to the powers e*pressl( granted, and stat$tes conferring powers on p$#lic corporations have #een constr$ed as e"powering the" to do things essential to the en,o("ent of life and desira#le for the safet( of the people. )he inferred powers are as "$ch delegated powers as are those conferred in e*press ter"s. Police power> power to prescri#e reg$lations to pro"ote the health, "orals, peace, ed$cation, good order or safet( and general welfare of the people. ?t is not confined within narrow circ$"stances of precedents resting on past conditionsB it "$st follow the legal progress of a de"ocratic wa( of life. )he police power of a "$nicipal corporation is #road, and is co""ens$rate with, #$t not to e*ceed, the d$t( to provide for the real needs of the people in their health, safet(, and convenience as consistentl( as "a( #e with private rights. ?t e*tends to all the p$#lic needs. P$#lic p$rpose is not $nconstit$tional "erel( #eca$se it incidentall( #enefits a li"ited n$"#er of persons. )he care for the poor is generall( recogni9ed as a p$#lic d$t(. )he s$pport for the poor has long #een an accepted e*ercise of police power in the pro"otion of the co""on good. No violation of e.$al protection

%%

LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. COMELEC FACTS: C$ring the %&th Congress, Congress enacted into law 7.A. 6''6 a"ending 0ection :5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code #( increasing the ann$al inco"e re.$ire"ent for conversion of a "$nicipalit( into a cit( fro" P&' "illion to P%'' "illion in order to restrain Fthe "ad r$shF of "$nicipalities to convert into cities solel( to sec$re a larger share in the ?nternal 7even$e Allot"ent despite the fact that the( are incapa#le of fiscal independence. Prior to its enact"ent, a total of 5E "$nicipalities had cit( hood #ills pending in Congress #$t &: of the" were not converted d$ring the %%th Congress. )he ;o$se of 7epresentatives of the %&th Congress adopted Moint 7esol$tion No. &6 to e*e"pt the &: "$nicipalities whose cit(hood #ills were not approved in the %%th Congress #$t it was ad,o$rned witho$t the 0enateLs approval. C$ring the %-th Congress, %4 of the &: "$nicipalities "entioned in the $napproved Moint 7esol$tion No. &6 filed #etween Nove"#er and Cece"#er of &''4, thro$gh their respective sponsors in Congress, individ$al cit(hood #ills containing a co""on provision, as followsA Exemption from epu!lic "ct #o$ %&&%$' The (ity of x x x shall !e exempted from the income re)uirement prescri!ed under epu!lic "ct #o$ %&&%$ )hese cit(hood #ills lapsed into law on vario$s dates fro" March to M$l( &''E after President +loria Macapagal>Arro(o failed to sign the". Petitioners filed the present petitions to declare the Cit(hood !aws $nconstit$tional for violation of 0ection %', Article K of the %68E Constit$tion and as well as for violation of the e.$al protection cla$se. Petitioners also la"ent that the wholesale conversion of "$nicipalities into cities will red$ce the share of e*isting cities in the ?nternal 7even$e Allot"ent #eca$se "ore cities will share the sa"e a"o$nt of internal reven$e set aside for all cities $nder 0ection &85 of the !ocal +overn"ent Code. ISSUES: 1hether or not the Cit(hood !aws violate 0ection %', Article K of %68E Constit$tionB and whether or not the Cit(hood !aws violate the e.$al protection cla$se. HELD: )he Cit(hood !aws violate 0ection 4 and %', Article K of %68E Constit$tion and the e.$al protection cla$se, and are th$s $nconstit$tional. )he constit$tion providesA 0ection %', Article K of %68E Constit$tion. #o province, city, municipality, or !arangay shall !e created, divided, merged, a!olished or its !oundary su!stantially altered, except in accordance with the criteria esta!lished in the %&

local government code and su!*ect to approval !y a ma*ority of the votes cast in a ple!iscite in the political units directly affected$ ?n that case, the cit(hood #ills violated 0ection %', Article K of the Constit$tion. )he creation of local govern"ent $nits "$st follow the criteria esta#lished in the !ocal +overn"ent Code and not in an( other laws. )here is onl( one !ocal +overn"ent Code. )he Constit$tion re.$ires Congress to stip$late in the !ocal +overn"ent Code all the criteria necessar( for the creation of a cit(, incl$ding the conversion of a "$nicipalit( into a cit(. )he Congress cannot write s$ch criteria in an( other law, li/e the Cit(hood !aws. ?f the criteria in creating local govern"ent $nits are not $nifor" and discri"inator(, there can #e no fair and ,$st distri#$tion of the national ta*es to local govern"ent $nits. A cit( with an ann$al inco"e of onl( P&' "illion, all other criteria #eing e.$al, sho$ld not receive the sa"e share in national ta*es as a cit( with an ann$al inco"e of P%'' "illion or "ore. 0ince the Cit(hood !aws do not follow the inco"e criterion in 0ection :5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code, the( precl$de the fair and ,$st distri#$tion of the ?nternal 7even$e Allot"ent in violation of 0ection 4, Article K of the Constit$tion. )he .$al Protection Cla$se of the %68E Constit$tion per"its a valid classification $nder the following conditionsA +$ The classification must rest on su!stantial distinctions, -$ The classification must !e germane to the purpose of the law, 3$ The classification must not !e limited to existing conditions only, and .$ The classification must apply e)ually to all mem!ers of the same class$ )he e*e"ption to the P%'' "illion ann$al inco"e re.$ire"ent is $nconstit$tional for violation of the e.$al protection cla$se. 0ection :5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code, as a"ended #( 7A 6''6, does not contain an( e*e"ption. )he e*e"ption is contained in the Cit(hood !aws, which is $nconstit$tional #eca$se s$ch e*e"ption "$st #e prescri#ed in the !ocal +overn"ent Code as "andated in 0ection %', Article K of the Constit$tion. )he e*e"ption provision "erel( states, /Exemption from epu!lic "ct #o$ %&&% ' The (ity of x x x shall !e exempted from the income re)uirement prescri!ed under epu!lic "ct #o$ %&&%$/ )his one sentence e*e"ption provision contains no classification standards or g$idelines differentiating the e*e"pted "$nicipalities fro" those that are not e*e"pted. @$rther"ore, 7.A. 6''6 is a Prospective Application of the !aw. ?t too/ effect in &''% while %-

the cit(hood #ills #eca"e law "ore than five (ears later. ;ence, the retroactive application is inad"issi#le. 1; 7 @O7 , the Co$rt grants the petitions and declares NNCON0)?)N)?ONA! the Cit(hood !aws.

%:

PACQUING VS. GUINGONA FACTS: )he petition in +.7. No. %%5':: was dis"issed #( the @irst Civision of this Co$rt on '% 0epte"#er %66: #ased on a finding that there was Fno a#$se of discretion, "$ch less lac/ of or e*cess of ,$risdiction, on the part of respondent ,$dge OPac.$ingPF, in iss$ing the .$estioned orders. M$dge Pac.$ing had earlier iss$ed in Civil Case No. 88>:544', 7)C of Manila, Branch :', the following orders which were assailed #( the Ma(or of the Cit( of Manila, ;on. Alfredo 0. !i", in said +.7. No. %%5'::A a. order dated &8 March %66: directing Manila "a(or Alfredo 0. !i" to iss$e the per"itDlicense to operate the ,ai>alai in favor of Associated Cevelop"ent Corporation GACCH. #. order dated %% April %66: directing "a(or !i" to e*plain wh( he sho$ld not #e cited for conte"pt for non>co"pliance with the order dated &8 March %66:. c. order dated &' April %66: reiterating the previo$s order directing Ma(or !i" to i""ediatel( iss$e the per"itDlicense to Associated Cevelop"ent Corporation GACCH. )he order dated &8 "arch %66: was in t$rn iss$ed $pon "otion #( ACC for e*ec$tion of a final ,$dg"ent rendered on 6 0epte"#er %688 which ordered the Manila Ma(or to i""ediatel( iss$e to ACC the per"itD license to operate the ,ai>alai in Manila, $nder Manila Ordinance No. E'45 . On %- 0epte"#er %66:, petitioner +$ingona Gas e*ec$tivesecretar(H iss$ed a directive to then chair"an of the +a"es and A"$se"ents Board G+ABH @rancisco 7. 0$"$long, ,r. to hold in a#e(ance the grant of a$thorit(, or if an( had #een iss$ed, to withdraw s$ch grant of a$thorit(, to Associated Cevelop"ent Corporation to operate the ,ai>alai in the Cit( of Manila, $ntil the following legal .$estions are properl( resolvedA %. 1hether P.C. EE% which revo/ed all e*isting Mai>Alai franchisers iss$ed #( local govern"ents as of &' A$g$st %6E5 is $nconstit$tional. &. Ass$"ing that the Cit( of Manila had the power on E 0epte"#er %6E% to iss$e a Mai>Alai franchise to Associated Cevelop"ent Corporation, whether the franchise granted is valid considering that the franchise has no d$ration, and appears to #e granted in perpet$it(. -. 1hether the Cit( of Manila had the power to iss$e a Mai>Alai franchise to Associated Cevelop"ent Corporation on E 0epte"#er %6E% in view of e*ec$tive Order No. -6& dated % Man$ar( %65% which transferred fro" local govern"ents to the +a"es and A"$se"ents Board the power to reg$late Mai> Alai. )he national govern"ent contends that Manila Ordinance No. E'45 which p$rported to grant to ACC a franchise to cond$ct ,ai>alai operations is void and $ltra vires since 7ep$#lic Act %5

No. 65:, approved on &' M$ne %65-, or ver( "$ch earlier than said Ordinance No. E'45, the latter approved E 0epte"#er %6E%, in 0ection : thereof, re.$ires a legislative franchise, not a "$nicipal franchise, for the operation of ,ai>alai. Additionall(, the national govern"ent arg$es that even ass$"ing, arg$endo, that the a#ove"entioned ordinance is valid, ACCLs franchise was nonetheless effectivel( revo/ed #( Presidential decree No. EE%, iss$ed on &' A$g$st %6E5, 0ec. - of which e*pressl( revo/ed all e*isting franchises and per"its to operate all for"s of ga"#ling facilities Gincl$ding the ,ai>alaiH iss$ed #( local govern"ents. On the other hand, ACCLs position is that Ordinance No. E'45 was validl( enacted #( the Cit( of Manila p$rs$ant to its delegated powers $nder it charter, 7ep$#lic Act No. :'6. ACC also s.$arel( assails the constit$tionalit( of PC No. EE% as violative of the e.$al protection and non>i"pair"ent cla$ses of the Constit$tion. ?n this connection, co$nsel for ACC contends that this Co$rt sho$ld reall( r$le on the validit( of PC No. EE% to #e a#le to deter"ine whether ACC contin$es to possess a valid franchise. ISSUE: 1hether or not the Associated Cevelop"ent Corporation has a valid franchise to "aintain and operate ,ai>alai. HELD: NO. 7espondent ACC does not possess the re.$ired congressional franchise to operate and cond$ct the ,ai>alai $nder 7A 65: and PC EE%. Congress did not delegate to the Cit( of Manila the power Fto franchiseF wagers or #etting, incl$ding the ,ai>alai, #$t retained for itself s$ch power Fto franchiseF. 1hat Congress delegated to the Cit( of Manila in 7ep. Act No. :'6, with respect to wagers or #etting, was the power to Flicense, per"it, or reg$lateF which therefore "eans that a license or per"it iss$ed #( the Cit( of Manila to operate a wager or #etting activit(, s$ch as the ,ai>alai where #ets are accepted, wo$ld not a"o$nt to so"ething "eaningf$l NN! 00 the holder of the per"it or license was also @7ANC;?0 C #( the national govern"ent to so operate. Moreover, even this power to license, per"it, or reg$late wagers or #etting on ,ai>alai was re"oved fro" local govern"ents, incl$ding the Cit( of Manila, and transferred to the +AB on % Man$ar( %65% #( *ec$tive Order No. -6&. )he net res$lt is that the a$thorit( to grant franchises for the operation of ,ai>alai frontons is in Congress, while the reg$lator( f$nction is vested in the +AB. 0ince ACC has no franchise fro" Congress to operate the ,ai>alai, it "a( not so operate even if it has a license or per"it fro" the Cit( Ma(or to operate the ,ai>alai in the Cit( of Manila.

%4

SANGALANG VS. IAC FACTS: Mose and !$tgarda #oth s$rna"ed 0angalang, petitioners and Bel>Air 8illage Association, ?nc. GBA8AH, intervenor>petitioner, assailed the decision of the CA for the opening of M$piter 0treet for the p$#lic. )he petitioners contested that M$piter 0treet is for the e*cl$sive $se of BA8A residents and that A(ala Corporation did not contrive to ac.$ire "e"#ership at BA8A p$rposel( to #argain for access to M$piter 0treet #( the general p$#lic. )he petitioners appealed as well that the de"olition and opening of Or#it 0treet has led to the loss of privac( of BA8A residents and deprivation of propert( witho$t d$e process of law. ISSUE: 1hether or not the Ma(or of Ma/ati is vested with the power to order the de"olition and opening of 0treets witho$t the #ac/ing of an ordinance HELD: )he opening of M$piter and Or#it 0treets were warranted #( the de"ands of the co""on good, in ter"s of traffic decongestion and p$#lic convenience. )here is no "erit in BA8A<s clai" that the de"olition of the gates a"o$nts to deprivation of propert( witho$t d$e process of law or e*propriation witho$t ,$st co"pensation. )here is no ta/ing of propert( involved here. )he act of the Ma(or now challenged is, rather, in concept of police power. )he concept of police power is well>esta#lished in this ,$risdiction. ?t has #een defined as the state a$thorit( to enact legislation that "a( interfere with personal li#ert( of propert( in order to pro"ote the general welfare. As defined, it consists of G%H an i"position of restraint $pon li#ert( of propert(, G&H in order to foster the co""on good. ?t is not capa#le of an e*act definition #$t has #een, p$rposel(, veiled in general ter"s to $nderscore its all>co"prehensive e"#race. ?ts scope, ever>e*panding to "eet the e*igencies of the ti"es, even to anticipate the f$t$re where it co$ld #e done provides eno$gh roo" for an efficient and fle*i#le response to conditions and circ$"stance th$s ass$ring the greatest #enefits.

%E

MENZON VS PETILLA FACTS: On March &5, %688 the petitioner A$relio C. Men9on, a senior "e"#er of the 0angg$niang Panlalawigan was also designated #( 0ecretar( !$is 0antos to act as the 8ice> +overnor for the province of !e(te. )he petitioner too/ his oath of office #efore 0enator Al#erto 7o"$lo on March &6, %688. On Ma( &6, %686, the Provincial Ad"inistrator, )ente N. I$intero in.$ired fro" the Nndersecretar( of the Cepart"ent of !ocal +overn"ent, Macinto ). 7$#illar, Mr., as to the legalit( of the appoint"ent of the petitioner to act as the 8ice>+overnor of !e(te. ?n his repl( letter dated M$ne &&, %686, Nndersecretar( Macinto ). 7$#illar, Mr. stated that since B.P. --E has no provision relating to s$ccession in the Office of the 8ice>+overnor in case of a te"porar( vacanc(, the appoint"ent of the petitioner as the te"porar( 8ice> +overnor is not necessar( since the 8ice>+overnor who is te"poraril( perfor"ing the f$nctions of the +overnor, co$ld conc$rrentl( ass$"e the f$nctions of #oth offices. As a res$lt of the foregoing co""$nications #etween )ente N. I$intero and Macinto ). 7$#illar, Mr., the 0angg$niang Panlalawigan, in a special session held on M$l( E, %686, iss$ed 7esol$tion No. 5'5 where it held invalid the appoint"ent of the petitioner as acting 8ice> +overnor of !e(te. )he petitioner, on M$l( %', %686, thro$gh the acting !CP 7egional Co$nsel, Att(. 5osi"o Alegre, so$ght clarification fro" Nndersecretar( Macinto ). 7$#illar, Mr. regarding the M$ne &&, %686 opinion. On M$l( %&, %686, Nndersecretar( Macinto ). 7$#illar replied and e*plained his opinion which stated On the #asis of the foregoing and considering that the law is silent in case of te"porar( vacanc(, in the Office of the 8ice> +overnor, it is o$r view that the pec$liar sit$ation in the Province of !e(te, where the electoral controvers( in the Office of the +overnor has not (et #een settled, calls for the designation of the 0angg$niang Me"#er to act as vice>governor te"poraril( ?n view, of the clarificator( letter of Nndersecretar( 7$#illar, the 7egional Cirector of the Cepart"ent of !ocal +overn"ent, 7egion 8, 7es$rreccion 0alvatierra, on M$l( %E, %686, wrote a letter addressed to the Acting>+overnor of !e(te, !eopoldo . Petilla, re.$esting the latter that 7esol$tion No. 5'5 of the 0angg$niang Panlalawigan #e "odified accordingl(. On A$g$st -, %686, the 7egional Cirector wrote another letter to Acting>+overnor Petilla, reiterating his earlier re.$est. Cespite these several letters of re.$est, the Acting +overnor and the 0angg$niang Panlalawigan, ref$sed to correct 7esol$tion No. 5'5 and correspondingl( to pa( the petitioner the e"ol$"ents attached to the Office of 8ice>+overnor. )h$s, on Nove"#er %&, %686, the petitioner filed #efore this Co$rt a petition for certiorari and mandamus. )he petition so$ght the n$llification of 7esol$tion No. 5'5 and for the pa("ent of his salar( for his services as the acting 8ice>+overnor of !e(te. ?n the "eanti"e, however, the iss$e on the governorship of !e(te was settled and Adelina !arra9a#al was proclai"ed the +overnor of the province of !e(te.

%8

ISSUES: 1ON there is vacanc(2 HELD: =es. )he law on P$#lic Officers is clear on the "atter. )here is no vacanc( whenever the office is occ$pied #( a legall( .$alified inc$"#ent. A sensu contrario, there is a vacancy when there is no person lawfully authorized to assume and exercise at present the duties of the office. Gsee 0toc/ing v. 0tate, E ?nd. -&4, cited in Meche". A )reatise on the !aw on P$#lic Offices and Officers, at p. 4%H Appl(ing the definition of vacanc( to this case, it can #e readil( seen that the office of the 8ice>+overnor was left vacant when the d$l( elected 8ice>+overnor !eopoldo Petilla was appointed Acting +overnor. ?n the e(es of the law, the office to which he was elected was left #arren of a legall( .$alified person to e*ercise the d$ties of the office of the 8ice> +overnor. )here is no satisfactor( showing that !eopoldo Petilla, notwithstanding his s$ccession to the Office of the +overnor, contin$ed to si"$ltaneo$sl( e*ercise the d$ties of the 8ice> +overnor. )he nat$re of the d$ties of a Provincial +overnor call for a f$ll>ti"e occ$pant to discharge the". More so when the vacanc( is for an e*tended period. Precisel(, it was PetillaLs a$to"atic ass$"ption to the acting +overnorship that res$lted in the vacanc( in the office of the 8ice>+overnor. )he fact that the 0ecretar( of !ocal +overn"ent was pro"pted to appoint the petitioner shows the need to fill $p the position d$ring the period it was vacant. )he Cepart"ent 0ecretar( had the discretion to ascertain whether or not the Provincial +overnor sho$ld devote all his ti"e to that partic$lar office. Moreover, it is do$#tf$l if the Provincial Board, $nilaterall( acting, "a( revo/e an appoint"ent "ade #( a higher a$thorit(.

%6

FIVALDO VS. COMELEC AND RAUL LEE FACTS: On March &', %665, private respondent M$an +. @rivaldo filed his Certificate of Candidac( for the office of +overnor of 0orsogon in the Ma( 8, %665 elections. On March &-, %665, petitioner 7a$l 7. !ee, another candidate, filed a petition with the Co"elec doc/eted as 0PA No. 65>'&8 pra(ing that @rivaldo F#e dis.$alified fro" see/ing or holding an( p$#lic office or position #( reason of not (et #eing a citi9en of the Philippines,F and that his Certificate of Candidac( #e cancelled. On Ma( %, %665, the 0econd Civision of the Co"elec pro"$lgated a 7esol$tion granting the petition with the following dispositionA F1; 7 @O7 , this Civision resolves to +7AN) the petition and declares that respondent is C?0INA!?@? C to r$n for the Office of +overnor of 0orsogon on the gro$nd that he is NO) a citi9en of the Philippines. Accordingl(, respondentLs certificate of candidac( is cancelled.F )he Motion for 7econsideration filed #( @rivaldo re"ained $nacted $pon $ntil after the Ma( 8, %665 elections. 0o, his candidac( contin$ed and he was voted for d$ring the elections held on said date. On Ma( %%, %665, the Co"elec en !anc affir"ed the afore"entioned 7esol$tion of the 0econd Civision. )he Provincial Board of Canvassers co"pleted the canvass of the election ret$rns and a Certificate of 8ote dated Ma( &E, %665 was iss$ed showing the following votes o#tained #( the candidates for the position of +overnor of 0orsogonA Antonio ;. sc$dero, Mr. M$an +. @rivaldo 7a$l7.!ee ?sagani P. Oca"po 5%,'4' E-,::' 5-,-': %,6&5

On M$ne 6, %665, !ee filed in said 0PA No. 65>'&8, a Gs$pple"entalH petition6 pra(ing for his procla"ation as the d$l(>elected +overnor of 0orsogon. ?n an order dated M$ne &%, %665, #$t pro"$lgated according to the petition Fonl( on M$ne &6, %665,F the Co"elec en !ane directed Fthe Provincial Board of Canvassers of 0orsogon to reconvene for the p$rpose of proclai"ing candidate 7a$l !ee as the winning g$#ernatorial candidate in the province of 0orsogon on M$ne &6,%665 * * *.F Accordingl(, at 8A-' in the evening of M$ne -',%665, !ee was proclai"ed governor of 0orsogon. On M$l( 4, %665, @rivaldo filed with the Co"elec a new petition doc/eted as 0PC No. 65>-%E, pra(ing for the ann$l"ent of the M$ne -', %665 procla"ation of !ee and for his own procla"ation. ;e alleged that on M$ne -', %665, at &A'' in the afternoon, he too/ his oath of allegiance as a citi9en of the Philippines after Fhis petition for repatriation $nder P.C. E&5 which he filed with the 0pecial Co""ittee on Nat$rali9ation in 0epte"#er %66: had #een granted.F As s$ch, when Fthe said order Gdated &'

M$ne &%, %665H Gof the Co"elecH * * * was released and received #( @rivaldo on M$ne -', %665 at 5A-' oLcloc/ in the evening, there was no "ore legal i"pedi"ent to the procla"ation Gof @rivaldoH as governor * * *.F ?n the alternative, he averred that p$rs$ant to the two cases of 0a!o vs$ (omelec the 8ice>+overnor3 not !ee 3 sho$ld occ$p( said position of governor. On Cece"#er %6, %665, the Co"elec @irst Civision pro"$lgated the herein assailed 7esol$tion holding that !ee, Fnot having garnered the highest n$"#er of votes,F was not legall( entitled to #e proclai"ed as d$l(>elected governorB and that @rivaldo, Fhaving garnered the highest n$"#er of votes, and *** having reac.$ired his @ilipino citi9enship #( repatriation on M$ne -', %665 $nder the provisions of Presidential Cecree No. E&5 *** GisH .$alified to hold the office of governor of 0orsogonFB th$sA FP7 M?0 0 CON0?C 7 C, the Co""ission G@irst CivisionH, therefore 7 0O!8 0 to +7AN) the Petition. Consistent with the decisions of the 0$pre"e Co$rt, the procla"ation of 7a$l 7. !ee as +overnor of 0orsogon is here#( ordered ann$lled, #eing contrar( to law, he not having garnered the highest n$"#er of votes to warrant his procla"ation. Npon the finalit( of the ann$l"ent of the procla"ation of 7a$l 7. !ee, the Provincial Board of Canvassers is directed to i""ediatel( reconvene and, on the #asis of the co"pleted canvass, proclai" petitioner M$an +. @rivaldo as the d$l( elected +overnor of 0orsogon having garnered the highest n$"#er of votes, and he having reac.$ired his @ilipino citi9enship #( repatriation on M$ne -',%665 $nder the provisions of Presidential Cecree No. E&5 and, th$s, .$alified to hold the office of +overnor of 0orsogon. Confor"a#l( with 0ection &4' of the O"ni#$s lection Code G1$2$ 1lg$ 33+H, the Cler/ of the Co""ission is directed to notif( ;is *cellenc( the President of the Philippines, and the 0ecretar( of the 0angg$niang Panlalawigan of the Province of 0orsogon of this resol$tion i""ediatel( $pon the d$e i"ple"entation thereof.F On Cece"#er &4,%665, !ee filed a "otion for reconsideration which was denied #( the Co"elec en !anc in its 7esol$tion pro"$lgated on @e#r$ar( &-, %664. On @e#r$ar( &4, %664, the present petition was filed. Acting on the pra(er for a te"porar( restraining order, this Co$rt iss$ed on @e#r$ar( &E, %664 a 7esol$tion which inter alia directed the parties Fto "aintain the status )uo prevailing prior to the filing of this petition.F ISSUE: 1as the repatriation of @rivaldo valid and legal2 ?f so, did it seasona#l( c$re his lac/ of citi9enship as to .$alif( hi" to #e proclai"ed and to hold the Office of +overnor2 ?f not, "a( it #e given retroactive effect2 ?f so, fro" when2 HELD: On the #asis of the partiesL s$#"issions, we are convinced that the pres$"ption of reg$larit( in the perfor"ance of official d$t( and the pres$"ption of legalit( in the repatriation of @rivaldo have not #een s$ccessf$ll( re#$tted #( !ee. )he "ere fact that the proceedings were speeded $p is #( itself not a gro$nd to concl$de that s$ch proceedings were necessaril( tainted. After all, the re.$ire"ents of repatriation $nder P.C. No. E&5 are not diffic$lt to co"pl( with, nor are the( tedio$s and c$"#erso"e. ?n fact, P.C. E&5 itself re.$ires ver( little of an applicant, and even the r$les and reg$lations to i"ple"ent the said decree were left to the 0pecial Co""ittee to pro"$lgate. )his is not $n$s$al since, $nli/e in &%

nat$rali9ation where an alien covets a first'time entr( into Philippine political life, in repatriation the applicant is a for"er nat$ral>#orn @ilipino who is "erel( see/ing to reac.$ire his previo$s citi9enship. ?n the case of @rivaldo, he was $ndo$#tedl( a nat$ral>#orn citi9en who openl( and faithf$ll( served his co$ntr( and his province prior to his nat$rali9ation in the Nnited 0tates 3 a nat$rali9ation he insists was "ade necessar( onl( to escape the iron cl$tches of a dictatorship he a#horred and co$ld not in conscience e"#race 3 and who, after the fall of the dictator and the re>esta#lish"ent of de"ocratic space, wasted no ti"e in ret$rning to his co$ntr( of #irth to offer once "ore his talent and services to his people. 0o too, the fact that ten other persons, as certified to #( the 0olicitor +eneral, were granted repatriation arg$es convincingl( and concl$sivel( against the e*istence of favoritis" vehe"entl( posited #( 7a$l !ee. At an( rate, an( contest on the legalit( of @rivaldoLs repatriation sho$ld have #een p$rs$ed #efore the Co""ittee itself, and, failing there, in the Office of the President, p$rs$ant to the doctrine of e*ha$stion of ad"inistrative re"edies. Nnder 0ec. -6 of the !ocal +overn"ent Code, FGaHn elective local official "$st #eA Q a citi9en of the PhilippinesB Q a registered voter in the #aranga(, "$nicipalit(, cit(, or province * * * where he intends to #e electedB Q a resident therein for at least one G%H (ear i""ediatel( preceding the da( of the electionB Q a#le to read and write @ilipino or an( other local lang$age or dialect.F Q ?n addition, Fcandidates for the position of governor * * * "$st #e at least twent(>three G&-H (ears of age on election da(.F @ro" the a#ove, it will #e noted that the law does not specif( an( partic$lar date or ti"e when the candidate "$st possess citi9enship, $nli/e that for residence Gwhich "$st consist of at least one year4s residency immediately preceding the da( of electionH and age Gat least twent( three (ears of age on election day)$ Philippine citi9enship is an indispensa#le re.$ire"ent for holding an elective p$#lic office, and the p$rpose of the citi9enship .$alification is none other than to ens$re that no alien, i.e., no person owing allegiance to another nation, shall govern o$r people and o$r co$ntr( or a $nit of territor( thereof. Now, an official #egins to govern or to discharge his f$nctions onl( $pon his procla"ation and on the da( the law "andates his ter" of office to #egin. 0ince @rivaldo re>ass$"ed his citi9enship on M$ne -', %6653the ver( da( the ter" of office of governor Gand other elective officialsH #egan3he was therefore alread( .$alified to #e proclai"ed, to hold s$ch office and to discharge the f$nctions and responsi#ilities thereof as of said date. B$t to re"ove all do$#ts on this i"portant iss$e, we also hold that the repatriation of @rivaldo 7 )7O AC) C to the date of the filing of his application on A$g$st %E,%66:. &&

&-

JABELLANA VS. DILG FACTS: Att(. rwin Mavellana was elected Cit( Co$ncilor of Bago Cit(, Negros Occidental. Cit( ngineer Civinagracia filed an Ad"inistrative Case against Mavellana for contin$o$sl( engaging in the practice of law witho$t sec$ring a$thorit( fro" the 7egional Cirector of the C?!+. ?t also alleged that Mavellana filed a case against Civinagracio for ?llegal Cis"ilssal and 7einstate"ent with Ca"ages. ISSUE: 1hether or not Mavellana properl( engaged in the practice of law2 HELD: No. !+C, 0ec. 6'. 0angg$nian "e"#ers "a( practice their professions, engage in an( occ$pation, or teach in schools e*cept d$ring session ho$rs. Provided, that sangg$nian "e"#ers who are also "e"#ers of the Bar shall notA Appear as co$nsel #efore an( co$rt in an( civil case wherein a local govern"ent $nit or an( office, agenc(, or instr$"entalit( of the govern"ent is the adverse part(B Collect an( fee for their appearance in ad"inistrative proceedings involving the !+N of which he is an official. )he co"plaint for illegal dis"issal filed #( Maviero and Catapang against Cit( ngineer Civinagracia is in effect a co"plaint against the Cit( +overn"ent of Bago Cit(, their real e"plo(er, of which petitioner Mavellana is a co$ncil"an. ;ence, ,$dg"ent against Civinagracia wo$ld act$all( #e a ,$dg"ent against the Cit( +overn"ent. B( serving as co$nsel for the co"plaining e"plo(ees and assisting the" to prosec$te the clai"s against Civinagracia, the petitioner violated Me"o Circ$lar No. E:>58 prohi#iting a govern"ent official fro" engaging in the private practice of his profession, is s$ch practice wo$ld represent interests adverse to the govern"ent.

&:

PROVINCE OF CEBU VS. IAC: FACTS: )he facts of the case are not in disp$te. On @e#r$ar( :, %64:, while then inc$"#ent +overnor 7ene spina was on official #$siness in Manila, the 8ice>+overnor, Priscillano Al"endras and three G-H "e"#ers of the Provincial Board enacted 7esol$tion No. %88, donating to the Cit( of Ce#$ &%' province. owned lots all located in the Cit( of Ce#$, with an aggregate area of over -8' hectares, and a$thori9ing the 8ice>+overnor to sign the deed of donation on #ehalf of the province. )he deed of donation was i""ediatel( e*ec$ted in #ehalf of the Province of Ce#$ #( 8ice>+overnor Al"endras and accepted in #ehalf of the Cit( of Ce#$ #( Ma(or 0ergio Os"eRa, Mr. )he doc$"ent of donation was prepared and notari9ed #( a private law(er. )he donation was later approved #( the Office of the President thro$gh *ec$tive 0ecretar( M$an Cancio. According to the .$estioned deed of donation the lots donated were to #e sold #( the Cit( of Ce#$ to raise f$nds that wo$ld #e $sed to finance its p$#lic i"prove"ent pro,ects. )he Cit( of Ce#$ was given a period of one G%H (ear fro" A$g$st %5, %64: within which to dispose of the donated lots. Npon his ret$rn fro" Manila, +overnor spina deno$nced as !egal and i""oral the action of his colleag$es in donating practicall( all the patri"onial propert( of the province of Ce#$, considering that the latterLs inco"e was less than one. fo$rth G%D:H of that of the Cit( of Ce#$. )o prevent the sale or disposition of the lots, the officers and "e"#ers of the Ce#$ Ma(orLs !eag$e Gin #ehalf of their respective "$nicipalitiesH along with so"e ta*pa(ers, incl$ding Att(. +arcia, filed a case see/ing to have the donation declared illegal, n$ll and void. +overnor spina, apprehensive that the lots wo$ld #e irretrieva#l( lost #( the Province of Ce#$, decided to go to co$rt. ;e engaged the services of respondent +arcia in filing and prosec$ting the case in his #ehalf and in #ehalf of the Province of Ce#$. +arcia filed the co"plaint for the ann$l"ent of the deed of donation with an application for the iss$ance of a writ of preli"inar( in,$nction, which application was granted on the sa"e da(, A$g$st 4, %645. On M$ne &5, %6E:, a co"pro"ise agree"ent was reached #etween the province of Ce#$ and the cit( of Ce#$. On M$l( %5, %6E:, the co$rt approved the co"pro"ise agree"ent and a decision was rendered on its #asis. @or services rendered in Civil Case no. &-8>BC, C@? of Ce#$, respondent Pa#lo P. +arcia filed thro$gh co$nsel a Notice of Attorne(Ls !ien, dated April %:, %6E5, pra(ing that his state"ent of clai" of attorne(Ls lien in said case #e entered $pon the records thereof, p$rs$ant to 0ection -E, 7$le %-8 of the 7$les of Co$rt. )o said notice, petitioner Province of Ce#$ filed thro$gh co$nsel, its opposition dated April &-, %6E5, stating that the pa("ent of attorne(Ls fees and rei"#$rse"ent of incidental e*penses are not allowed #( law and settled ,$rispr$dence to #e paid #( the Province. A re,oinder to this opposition was filed #( private respondent +arcia. After hearing, the Co$rt of @irst ?nstance of Ce#$, then presided over #( M$dge Alfredo Marigo"en, rendered ,$dg"ent dated Ma( -', %6E6, in favor of private respondent and against petitioner Province of Ce#$, declaring that the for"er is entitled to recover attorne(Ls fees on the #asis of .$ant$" "er$it and fi*ing the a"o$nt thereof at P-','''.''. Both &5

parties appealed fro" the decision to the Co$rt of Appeals. ?n the case of private respondent, however, he appealed onl( fro" that portion of the decision which fi*ed his attorne(Ls fees at P-','''.'' instead of at -'J of the val$e of the properties involved in the litigation as stated in his original clai" On Octo#er %8, %685, the ?nter"ediate Appellate Co$rt rendered a decision affir"ing the findings and concl$sions of the trial co$rt that the private respondent is entitled to recover attorne(Ls fees #$t fi*ing the a"o$nt of s$ch fees at 5J of the "ar/et val$e of the properties involved in the litigation as of the date of the filing of the clai" in %6E5. Both parties went to the 0$pre"e Co$rt with private respondent .$estioning the fi*ing of his attorne(Ls fees at 5J instead of -'J of the val$e of the properties in litigations as pra(ed for in his clai"s. ISSUE: 1ON Att(. Pa#lo P. +arcia is entitled to attorne(<s lien2 HELD: =es, 1e appl( a r$le in the law of "$nicipal corporationsA Fthat a "$nicipalit( "a( #eco"e o#ligated $pon an i"plied contract to pa( the reasona#le val$e of the #enefits accepted or appropriated #( it as to which it has the general power to contract. )he doctrine of i"plied "$nicipal lia#ilit( has #een said to appl( to all cases where "one( or other propert( of a part( is received $nder s$ch circ$"stances that the general law, independent of e*press contract i"plies an o#ligation $pon the "$nicipalit( to do ,$stice with respect to the sa"e. )he petitioner can not set $p the plea that the contract was $ltra vires and still retain #enefits there$nder. ;aving regarded the contract as valid for p$rposes of reaping so"e #enefits, the petitioner is estopped to .$estion its validit( for the p$rposes of den(ing answera#ilit(. Act$all( it was +overnor spina who filed the case against Ce#$ Cit( and Ma(or Os"eRa. +arcia ,$st happened to #e the law(er, 0till Att(. +arcia is entitled to co"pensation. )o den( private respondent co"pensation for his professional services wo$ld a"o$nt to a deprivation of propert( witho$t d$e process of law.

&4

PILAPIL VS. CA FACTS: )he petitioners>spo$ses Ghereinafter, PilapilsH own a 4,568 s.$are "eter parcel of land sit$ated in Baha/, Po#lacion, !iloan, Ce#$ and covered #( )a* Ceclaration No. %5'4E. )he said parcel corresponds to !ot No. -&' and !ot -&- and that portion covered #( Plan Ps$>'E>''5''E, d$l( approved #( the 7egional Cirector of 7egion 8?? of the B$rea$ of !ands. )he land for"erl( #elonged to Marcelo Pilapil, the grandfather of petitioner 0ocrates Pilapil. Private respondents Ghereinafter, Colo"idasH, who are residents of Manda$e Cit(, p$rchased on : M$ne %68% fro" steria vda. de Ceni9a and the heirs of !eoncio Ceni9a a parcel of land, also located at Baha/, Po#lacion, !iloan, Ce#$, covered #( )a* Ceclaration No. %6E4: and descri#ed as followsA . . . Bo$ndariesA N>+regorio !onga/itB 0>+regorio !onga/itB >ManglarB 1> +regorio !ong/itB AreaA %',6%' s.. "etersB Sind of landA Past$re cocal and woodB ?"prove"entsA &' cocos prod.B Assessed 8al$eA P%,-4'.''B Present PossessorsA )he herein petitioners. )his parcel of land, per Plan Ps$>'E>''&E4-, was fo$nd to contain onl( 4,::8 s.$are "eters. ?t is now covered #( @ree Patent No. G8??>%H>%5::8, iss$ed on &- March %68&, and Original Certificate of )itle No. P>&'588 of the 7egister of Ceeds of the Province of Ce#$ iss$ed in the na"e of the Colo"idas and is located aro$nd E' "eters fro" the National 7oad. )he Colo"idas clai" that the( had ac.$ired fro" 0esenando !ong/it a road right of wa( which leads towards the National 7oadB this road right of wa(, however, ends at that portion of the propert( of the Pilapils where a camino vecinal e*ists all the wa( to the said National 7oad. ?n the earl( part of M$l( of %68%, the Colo"idas Ftried to i"prove the road of /camino vecinal/, for the convenience of the p$#lic,F #$t the Pilapils harassed and threatened the" with F#odil( har" fro" "a/ing said i"prove"ent.F )he Pilapils also threatened to fence off the camino vecinal. )h$s, on %4 M$l( %68%, the Colo"idas filed against the Pilapils a petition for in,$nction and da"ages with a pra(er for a writ of preli"inar( "andator( andDor prohi#itor( in,$nction with the 7egional )rial Co$rt of Ce#$. and pra( that $pon the filing of the petition, a restraining order #e iss$ed directing the Pilapils or an(one acting in their #ehalf to cease and desist fro" preventing or harassing the" GColo"idasH fro" $sing the camino vecinal andDor fencing off the sa"e, and after hearing, a writ of preli"inar( in,$nction #e iss$ed co""anding the Pilapils to cease and desist fro" proceeding with the acts co"plained of. )he Pilapils filed their Answer in Civil Case No. 7>&'E-&. )he( specificall( den( therein the e*istence of a /camino vecinal/ on their propert( and allege, inter alia, that the enclosing of their propert( and allege, inter alia, that the enclosing of their propert( #( a fence was done in the valid e*ercise of their right of ownership and that if the Colo"idas were pre,$diced there#(, the( onl( have the"selves to #la"e for #$(ing said propert( witho$t verif(ing its condition and &E

e*isting ease C$ring trial on the "erits in Civil Case No. 7>&'E-&, the Colo"idas presented the following witnessesA +orgonio Colo"ida, Mr. hi"self, 0esenado !onga/it and @lorentino Pepito. )he( also offered in evidence doc$"entar( e*hi#its. the "ore relevant and "aterial of which are G%H 7esol$tion No. %'4 of the M$nicipal Co$ncil of !iloan passed on %8 A$g$st %6E- and entitled FA$thori9ing the 7esidents of Baha/, Po#lacion, !iloan to 7epair and ?"prove a (amino 5ecinal in their 0itioF and G&H a s/etch prepared #( witness 0esenando !onga/it p$rportedl( showing that the camino vecinal traverses the propert( of the Pilapils. Both !onga/it and Pepito testified on the said camino vecinal, insisting that it traverses the propert( of the Pilapils. Npon the other hand, the Pilapils presented the following as their witnessesA 7o"an 0$ngahid, ngineer pifanio Mordan Gthe M$nicipal Planning and Cevelop"ent Coordinator of the M$nicipalit( of !iloanH and petitioner 0ocrates Pilapil. ngineer Mordan testified on !iloanLs Nr#an !and Nse Plan or 9oning "ap which he prepared $pon the instr$ction of then M$nicipal Ma(or Cesar B$tai and which was approved #( the 0angg$niang Ba(an of !iloan. Per the said plan, the camino vecinal in sitio Baha/ does not traverse, #$t r$ns along the side of the Pilapil propert(. On 8 @e#r$ar( %688, the trial co$rt rendered its decision in favor of the Colo"idas "ents. )he CA in its decision affir"ing in toto the 8 @e#r$ar( %688 r$ling of the trial co$rt. ;ence, the "atter was #ro$ght #efore the 0C. ISSUE: 1ON the 9oning plan "$st give wa( the clai"s of #oth parties2 HELD: No. )he propert( of provinces, cities and "$nicipalities is divided into propert( for p$#lic $se and patri"onial propert(. 40 )he first consists of the provincial roads, cit( streets, "$nicipal streets, s.$ares, fo$ntains, p$#lic waters, pro"enades, and p$#lic wor/s for p$#lic service paid for #( the said provinces, cities or "$nicipalities. 41 )he( are governed #( the sa"e principles as propert( of p$#lic do"inion of the sa"e character. 4 Nnder the applica#le law in this case, Batas Pa"#ansa Blg. --E G)he !ocal +overn"ent CodeH, the 0angg$niang Ba(an, the legislative #od( of the "$nicipalit(, 4! had the power to adopt 9oning and s$#division ordinances or reg$lations s$#,ect to the provisions of e*isting laws, and to provide for the constr$ction, i"prove"ent, repair and "aintenance of "$nicipal streets, aven$es, alle(s, sidewal/s, #ridges, par/s and other p$#lic places, reg$late the $se thereof and prohi#it the constr$ction or placing of o#stacles or encroach"ents on the" as provided in 0ection %', Chapter &, )itle One, Boo/ ? of said Code. A camino vecinal is a "$nicipal road. ?t is also propert( for p$#lic $se. P$rs$ant, therefore, to the a#ove powers of a local govern"ent $nit, the M$nicipalit( of !iloan had the $nassaila#le a$thorit( to GaH prepare and adopt a land $se "ap, G#H pro"$lgate a 9oning ordinance which "a( consider, a"ong other things, the "$nicipal roads to #e constr$cted, "aintained, i"proved or repaired and GcH close an( "$nicipal road.

?n the instant case, the M$nicipalit( of !iloan, thro$gh the 0angg$niang Ba(an, approved the Nr#an !and Nse PlanB this plan was d$l( signed #( the M$nicipal Ma(or G *hi#it F%FH. B( doing so, the said legislative #od( deter"ined, a"ong others, the location of the camino vecinal in sitio Baha/. As f$rther declared #( ngineer Mordan, this camino vecinal in sitio &8

Baha/ Fpasses the side of the land of 0ocrates Pilapil. )his is the proposed road leading to the national highwa(.F "1 )he Colo"idas presented no re#$ttal witness to show that #( the approval of the 9oning "ap #( the 0angg$niang Ba(an, the( were effectivel( deprived of access to the national highwa( fro" their propert(. Of co$rse, the( "a( arg$e that the 9oning "ap was prepared for and approved #( the 0angg$niang Ba(an after the filing of their petition in Civil Case No. 7>&'E-&. Be that as it "a(, this preparation and approval, clearl( a s$pervening event, was relied $pon, introd$ced in evidence witho$t o#,ection on the part of the Colo"idas and eval$ated #( the trial co$rt. ?n short, the latter allowed the iss$e raised #( the s$pervening event to #e tried. )here was nothing proced$rall( o#,ectiona#le to thisB on the contrar(, 0ection 5, 7$le %' of the 7$les of Co$rt allows it. 0$ch s$pervening fact, d$l( proved to #e an official act of the M$nicipalit( of !iloan, #inds not onl( the Pilapils and the Colo"idas, #$t also the general p$#lic. )he sole"n declarations of old people li/e 0esenando !onga/it and @lorentino Pepito cannot overt$rn the decision of the M$nicipalit( of !iloan.

&6

CABRERA VS CA FACTS: On 0ept %646, the Provincial Board of Catand$anes adopted 7esol$tion No. %58 which closed the old road leading to the new Capitol Bldg of the province and to give to the owners of the properties traversed #( the new road e.$al area as per the s$rve( of the ;ighwa( Cistrict ngineer. Ceeds of e*change were e*ec$ted $nder which the province conve(ed to several persons, the portions of the closed road in e*change for their own respective properties on which was s$#se.$entl( laid a new concrete road. ?n %6E8, the part of the northern end of the old road fronting the petitioner<s ho$se was planted with vegeta#les in %6EE #( . Ale,andro. Ansel"o PeRa, who #o$ght 8argas<s share, also in the sa"e part of the road, converted it into a pigger( far". )hen on Cece"#er &6, %6E8, the petitioner filed a co"plaint for 7estoration of P$#lic 7oad andD or A#ate"ent of N$isanceT ;e arg$ed that the land fronting his ho$se was a p$#lic road owned #( the province in its govern"ental capacit( and that it is therefore #e(ond the co""erce of "an. Ca#rera contended that 7esol$tion No. %58 is not an order for a clos$re of the road #$t an a$thorit( to #arter. A p$#lic road co$ld not #e s$#,ect of a #arter witho$t a prior order of clos$re. )he clos$re of the road has in,$red hi" since the( can no longer $se the old road in going to the old capitol #$ilding #$t "$st instead pass thro$gh a s"all passagewa(. ISSUE: 1hether or not the provincial #oard can order the clos$re of a road and $seD conve( it for other p$rposes. HELD: = 0. 7esol$tion %58 clearl( sa(s that it is here#( resolved to close the old road. )he a$thorit( of the provincial #oard to close that road and $se or conve( it for other p$rposes is derived fro" 7A 5%85 in relation to 0ection &&:4 of the Ad"in. Code. 7A 5%85, 0ec. %% G??H GaHA A "$nicipal co$ncil "a( close an( "$nicipal road, street, alle(, par/, etc. Propert( th$s withdrawn fro" p$#lic servit$de "a( #e $sed or conve(ed for an( p$rpose for which said other propert( #elonging to the "$nicipalit( "ight #e lawf$ll( $sed or conve(ed. 1hile the cases on this s$#,ect dealt with cit( co$ncils and not provincial #oards, there is no reason for not appl(ing the doctrine anno$nced therein with respect to the clos$re of provincial roads. )his a$thorit( is infera#le fro" the grant #( congress of the f$nds to the province for the constr$ction of provincial roads.

-'

CRUZ VS. CA: FACTS: Petitioner 7icardo Cr$9 states that he and his #$siness associates lpidio )alastas, @eliciana Alcantara and others have #een the owners and operators of the Padre 7ada Mar/et at )ondo, Manila for "ore than twent(>five G&5H (ears. )he "ar/et was a$thori9ed to #e operated as a p$#lic "ar/et of the Cit( of Manila #( virt$e of 7esol$tion No. &-', as a"ended #( 7esol$tion No. :'4, #oth series of %6:6. On Ma( &4, %6E', the "anage"ent of said "ar/et represent #( petitioner Cr$9 wrote Ma(or 8illegas that the "anage"ent was withdrawing three>fo$rths of the area of the "ar/et Ffro" the direct s$pervision and control of the Cit( )reas$rerLs Office effective on M$ne %5, %6E', and fro" said date the withdrawn portion shall cease to f$nction and operate as a p$#lic "ar/et.F )he respondent>vendors, who were li/ewise notified of s$ch withdrawal, protested s$ch "ove, After several e*changes of referrals, indorse"ents, and co""$nications, Ma(or 8illegas allowed the withdrawal in the light of the Co$rt of AppealsL decision in CA>+. 7. Nos. -6666>7, and :''''>7 $pholding the right of the operators of the lcano Mar/et to withdraw their propert( fro" its $se as a p$#lic "ar/et stating, a"ong others, that approval for the withdrawal #( the Cit( of Manila is not even necessar(. Motions for reconsiderations were denied. ;ence, herein private respondents instit$ted Civil Case No. 8'EE-. )he lower co$rt $pheld the decision of Ma(or 8illegas in withdrawing the Pedra 7ada Mar/et as a p$#lic Mar/et and dis"issing the plaintiff<s co"plaint. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial co$rt and denied the withdrawal of the "a(or s$pervision F$ntil legal conditions and e.$ita#le ,$stification for the withdrawal #( private parties o#tain.F A s$#se.$ent "otion for reconsideration was denied. ;ence, this present petition. ISSUE: )he "ain iss$e centers on whether or not the Cit( Ma(or "a( validl( withdraw Padre 7ada Mar/et as a p$#lic "ar/et2 HELD: No. )he respondent Co$rt of Appeals held that Ma(or 8illegas had no a$thorit( to allow s$ch withdrawal as Fit is a*io"atic that onl( the power that created it can withdraw it.F On the other hand, the petitioner contends that the Padre 7ada Mar/et was not created #$t "erel( a$thori9ed to operate as a p$#lic "ar/et #( the M$nicipal Board. Accordingl(, there is nothing in the said resol$tions which o#ligates or co"pels petitioner Cr$9 and his #$siness associates to contin$e operating the said "ar/et for as long as the M$nicipal Board desires it. )he records show that the petitioner wants to convert the "a,or portion of the Padre 7ada Mar/et into a private "ar/et to ena#le hi" to raise the rentals for the stalls. ?t is o#vio$s that he wants to re"ove the "ar/et fro" the control and s$pervision of cit( a$thorities. )he private respondents also contend that to re"ove three>fo$rths of the "ar/et fro" its stat$s as a p$#lic "ar/et wo$ld practicall( res$lt in the total withdrawal of the entire "ar/et. )he re"aining one fo$rth is no longer #eing $sed #( the owner for its avowed p$rpose. B( the -%

ver( nat$re of a "ar/et, # its location, opening, operations, and clos$re "$st #e reg$lated #( govern"ent. ?t is not a .$estion of the petitionerLs right to r$n his "ar/et as he pleases #$t what agenc( or office sho$ld s$pervise its operations. )he 0C agree with the Co$rt of Appeals that the Ma(or had no legal a$thorit( to, #( hi"self, allow the petitioner to withdraw the "a,or portion of Padre 7ada Mar/et fro" its $se as a p$#lic "ar/et, there#( also withdrawing it fro" the cit(Ls constant s$pervision. )he esta#lish"ent and "aintenance of p$#lic "ar/ets is #( law a"ong the legislative powers of the Cit( of Manila. 0ince the operation of Padre 7ada Mar/et was a$thori9ed #( a "$nicipal #oard resol$tion and approved #( the Cit( Ma(or, as provided #( law, it follows that a withdrawal of the whole or an( portion fro" $se as a p$#lic "ar/et "$st #e s$#,ect to the sa"e ,oint action of the Board and the Ma(or. )he Ma(or of Manila, #( hi"self, cannot provide for the opening, operations, and clos$re of a p$#lic "ar/et.

-&

VILLANUEVA VS CASTANEDA FACTS: )he petitioners are those vendors in the talipapa in the vicinit( of the p$#lic "ar/et of 0an @ernando, Pa"panga, along Mercado 0treet. )he( clai" that the( have a right to re"ain in and cond$ct #$siness in this area #( virt$e of a previo$s a$thori9ation granted to the" #( the "$nicipal govern"ent. )he respondents den( this and ,$stif( the de"olition of their stalls as illegal constr$ctions on p$#lic propert(. ISSUE: 1hether or not Petitioners had a right to sta( insisting that the( have lease contracts of the said place2 HELD: 1e r$le that the petitioners had no right in the first place to occ$p( the disp$ted pre"ises and cannot insist in re"aining there now on the strength of their alleged lease contracts. )he( sho$ld have reali9ed and accepted this earlier, considering that even #efore Civil Case No. &':' was decided, the "$nicipal co$ncil of 0an @ernando had alread( adopted 7esol$tion No. &6, series of %64:, declaring the area as the par/ing place and p$#lic pla9a of the "$nicipal

--

DACANAY V ASISTIO FACTS: On Man 5 %6E6, MMC Ordinance No. E6>'& was enacted #( the Co""ission, designating certain cit( and "$nicipal streets as sites for flea "ar/ets. )hen on Man$ar( %' %6E6A O No. %-5 was iss$ed #( Acting MMC Ma(or 8irgilio 7o#les which esta#lished the Caloocan Cit( @lea Mar/et A$thorit(. )he Caloocan Cit( "a(or opened E flea "ar/ets in their cit(. One of the streets designated was ;eroes del U64 where the petitioner lives. )he road was considered the "ost via#le and progressive, lessening $ne"plo("ent in the cit( and servicing the residents with afforda#le #asic necessities. ;owever, in %68EA Antonio Martine9, as O?C cit( "a(or of Caloocan, had the stalls de"olished. )he stall owners filed an action for prohi#ition against the Cit(, the O?C Ma(or, and the Cit( ngineer. ?n the )rial Co$rtA ;eroes del <64, 8. +o9on, and +on9ales 0ts. were considered part of p$#lic do"inion. )h$sA %. )he( cannot #e alienated or leased or otherwise #e the s$#,ect "atter of contractsB &. Cannot #e ac.$ired #( prescriptionB -. Not s$#,ect to attach"ent and e*ec$tionB :. Cannot #e #$rdened #( an( vol$ntar( ease"ent. !+C provides that the Cit( ngineer shall prevent the encroach"ent of private #ldgs and fences on the streets and p$#lic places. )he Charter of the Cit( of Caloocan grants the Cit( ngineer si"ilar powers. Asistio then #eca"e the "a(or. ;e did not p$rs$e Martine9<s polic( of clearing the cit( streets. Cacana( then filed a co"plaint in the O"#$ds"an. )he O"#$ds"an r$led that there is an o"ission of an act which o$ght to#e perfor"ed, in was a clear violation of 7A -'%6. ISSUE: 1hether or not p$#lic streets or thoro$ghfares "a( #e leased or licensed to "ar/et stall holders #( virt$e of a cit( ordinance or resol$tion passed #( the Metro Manila Co""ission. HELD: NO. )he disp$ted areas fro" which the "ar/et stalls are so$ght to #e evicted are p$#lic streets. A p$#lic street is propert( for p$#lic $se hence o$tside the co""erce of "an. ?t "a( not #e the s$#,ect of lease or other contract. As the stall holders pa( fees to the Cit( +overn"ent for the right to occ$p( portions of the p$#lic street, the Cit( +overn"ent, contrar( to law, has #een leasing portions of the streets to the". 0$ch leases are n$ll and void for #eing contrar( to law. )he interests of a few sho$ld not prevail over the good of the greater n$"#er in the co""$nit(. )he O iss$ed #( Acting Ma(or 7o#les a$thori9ing the $se of ;eroes del <64 0treet as a vending area contravenes the general law that reserves cit( streets and roads for p$#lic $se. Petitioner and general p$#lic have a legal right to the relief de"anded. 7espondents have the corresponding d$t( to clear the streets and restore the" to their specific p$#lic p$rpose. )herefore, the Manda"$s is proper.

-:

TORIO VS FONTANILLA F$%&s: On Octo#er &% %658, the M$nicipal Co$ncil of Malasi.$i, Pangasinan, passed 7esol$tion No. %56 which resolved to "anage the %656 Malasi.$i town fiesta. Meanwhile 7esol$tion No. %8& was also passed creating the )own @iesta *ec$tive Co""ittee. )he said co""ittee organi9ed a s$#co""ittee on entertain"ent and stage with Mose Macaraeg as chair"an. P%'' was appropriated for the constr$ction of & stagesA for the 9ar9$ela and the cancionan. Macaraeg s$pervised the constr$ction of the stage. )he 9ar9$ela entitled Midas *travagan9a was donated #( an association of Malasi.$i e"plo(ees of the Manila 7ailroad Co"pan( in Caloocan. @ontanilla, one of the perfor"ers, died #eca$se the stage collapsed and he got pinned $nderneath. @ontanilla<s heirs filed a clai" against the M$nicipalit(. )he M$nicipalit( however said that it perfor"s sovereign f$nctions and the holding of a town fiesta was an e*ercise of its govern"ental f$nctions for which no lia#ilit( can arise to answer for the negligence of its agents. ISSUE: 1hether the cele#ration of a town fiesta is an e*ercise of a "$nicipalit(<s govern"ental or p$#lic f$nction or one of a proprietar( character. HELD: ?t was Proprietar( in character. ?f the in,$r( is ca$sed in the co$rse of the perfor"ance of a govern"ental f$nction or d$t(, no recover(, as a r$le, can #e had fro" the "$nicipalit( $nless there is an e*isting stat$te on the "atter, nor fro" its officers, as long as the( perfor"ed their d$ties honestl( and in good faith or that the( did not act wantonl( and "alicio$sl(. 1ith respect to proprietar( f$nctions, a "$nicipal corporation can #e held lia#le to third persons e* contract$ or e* delicto. 0ec. &&8& of the Ad"in Code si"pl( a$thori9es the "$nicipalit( to cele#rate a (earl( fiesta #$t it does not i"pose a d$t( to o#serve one. ;olding a fiesta for whatever p$rpose is in essence an act for the special #enefit of the co""$nit( and not for the general welfare of the p$#lic perfor"ed in p$rs$ance of a state polic(. )he "ere fact that the cele#ration, as clai"ed, was not to sec$re profit or gain #$t "erel( to provide entertain"ent is not a concl$sive test. )he #asic ele"ent is that it is govern"ental in essence. Nnder the doctrine of respondent s$perior, the "$nicipalit( is to #e held lia#le for da"ages for the death of @ontanilla if that was attri#$ta#le to the negligence of the officers of the "$nicipalit(. ?n the Co$rt of appeals, the( held that there was negligence. Onl( P%'' was appropriated for the two stages and the posts and #races were onl( "ade of #a"#oo. )he perfor"ance was a donation offered #( the respondents, and that when the M$nicipalit( accepted it, the participants in the stage show had the right to e*pect that the M$nicipalit(, thro$gh its Co""ittee wo$ld #$ild a stage strong eno$gh to s$pport the perfor"ance. )he Co$ncilors did not directl( participate in the constr$ction of the stage so the( co$ld not #e held lia#le.

-5

RODRIGUEZ V. COMELEC FACTS: d$ardo 7odrig$e9 and Bienvenido Mar.$e9 were protagonists for the g$#ernatorial post of I$e9on in the %66& elections. 7odrig$e9 won and was proclai"ed governor. Mar.$e9 challenged the victor( #( arg$ing that 7odrig$e9 left the N0 where a charge is pending against hi" #efore the !A Co$rt for fra$d$lent ins$rance clai"s, grand theft, and atte"pted grand theft of personal propert(. 7odrig$e9 is therefore a f$gitive fro" ,$stice which is a gro$nd for his dis.$alification $nder 0ec. :' GeH of the !+C. )he COM ! C r$led that a T f$gitive fro" ,$stice incl$des not onl( those who flee after conviction to avoid p$nish"ent #$t li/ewise those who, after #eing charged, flee to avoid prosec$tion. )his definition finds s$pport fro" ,$rispr$dence and "a( #e so conceded as e*pressing the general and ordinar( connotation of the ter". ISSUE: 1hether or not 7odrig$e9 is considered as a f$gitive fro" ,$stice2 HELD: No. )he definition of f$gitive fro" ,$stice indicates that the intent to evade is the co"pelling factor that ani"ates one<s flight fro" a partic$lar ,$risdiction. 7odrig$e9< case ,$st cannot fit in this concept. )here is no disp$te that his arrival in the Philippines fro" the N0 preceded the filing of the felon( co"plaint in the !A Co$rt and of the iss$ance on even date of the arrest warrant #( the sa"e foreign co$rt, #( al"ost 5 "onths. ?t was i"possi#le for 7odrig$e9 to have /nown a#o$t s$ch felon( co"plaint and arrest warrant a the ti"e he left the N0, 1hat prosec$tion was 7odrig$e9 deli#eratel( r$nning awa( fro" with his depart$re fro" the N02 )he law of the case doctrine for#ids the Co$rt fro" crafting an e*panded re>definition of f$gitive fro" ,$stice. )he legal r$le in the Mar.$e9 Cecision "$st govern the instant petition. )he Co$rt specificall( refers to the concept of f$gitive fro" ,$stice as defined in the "ain opinion of Mar.$e9 which highlights the significance of an intent to evade. ?n Mar.$e9, the Co$rt r$led that A Uf$gitive fro" ,$stice< incl$des not onl( those who flee after conviction to avoid p$nish"ent #$t li/ewise those who, after #eing charged, flee to avoid prosec$tion.

-4

FLORES V. DRILON FACTS: 7A E&&E or the Bases Conversion and Cevelop"ent act of %66& $nder Ma(or 7ichard +ordon of Olongapo in #eing challenged. )he said act appointed +ordon as Chair"an and C O of 0BMA. )he petitioners contended that it infringes the provisions of 0ec. E, Art. ?K>B of the Constit$tion which states that no elective official shall #e eligi#le for appoint"ent or designation in an( capacit( to an( p$#lic office or position d$ring his ten$re. 0ection 6: of the !ocal +overn"ent Code. ;owever, per"its a local govern"ent official to hold a position if so allowed #( law. ISSUE: 1hether ot not +ordon<s appoint"ent p$rs$ant to a legislative act that contravenes the Constit$tion can #e s$stained2 HELD: No. ?n this case, the s$#,ect proviso directs the President to appoint an elective official, i.e. the Ma(or of Olongapo, to other govern"ent posts GChair"an of the Board and C O of 0BMAH. 0ince this is prohi#ited #( the Constit$tion, the law is $nconstit$tional. )he fact that the e*pertise of an elective official "a( #e "ost #eneficial to the higher interest of the #od( politic is of no "o"ent. ven tho$gh 0ec. 6: of the !+C per"its the appoint"ent of a local elective official to another post if so allowed #( law or the pri"ar( f$nctions of his office, it cannot #e deter"inative of the constit$tionalit( of 7A E&&E for no legislative act can prevail over the f$nda"ental law of the land. )he phrase shall #e appointed shows the intent to "a/e the 0BMA posts appointive and not "erel( ad,$nct to the post of "a(or of Olongapo. )he appointing power has the right of choice which he "a( e*ercise freel( according to his ,$dg"ent, deciding for hi"self who is #est .$alified a"ong those who have the necessar( .$alifications and eligi#ilities.

-E

MARQUEZ VS COMELEC FACTS: Mar.$e9, a defeated candidate for governor of I$e9on in the %66& elections filed a petition for certiorari .$estioning the resol$tion of the COM ! C which dis"issed his .$o warranto case against 7odrig$e9, the winning candidate in their province, for allegedl( #eing a f$gitive fro" ,$stice. Mar.$e9 said that at the ti"e 7odrig$e9 filed his COC, a cri"inal charge against hi" for %' co$nts of ins$rance fra$d or grand theft of personal propert( was still pending #efore an !A co$rt. ISSUE: 1hether or not a f$gitive fro" ,$stice "$st #e a person who has #een convicted #( final ,$dg"ent. HELD: No. Article E- of the 7$les and 7eg$lations ?"ple"enting the !+C of %66%, to the e*tent that it confines the ter" f$gitive fro" ,$stice to refer onl( to a person who has #een convicted #( final ,$dg"ent is an inordinate and $nd$e circ$"spection of the law. )he COM ! C in this case did not "a/e an( definite finding on whether or not, in fact, 7odrig$e9 is a f$gitive fro" ,$stice since the .$o warranto case was o$trightl( dis"issed. )his case "$st #e re"anded to the COM ! C.

-8

DRILON VS. LIM FACTS: )he 0ecretar( of M$stice GCrilonH had, on appeal to hi" of fo$r oil co"panies and a ta*pa(er, declared Ordinance No. EE6:, otherwise /nown as the Manila 7even$e Code, n$ll and void for non>co"pliance with the prescri#ed proced$re in the enact"ent of ta* ordinances and for containing certain provisions contrar( to law and p$#lic polic(. ?n a petition for certiorari filed #( the Cit( of Manila, the 7egional )rial Co$rt of Manila revo/ed the 0ecretar(Ls resol$tion and s$stained the ordinance, holding inter alia that the proced$ral re.$ire"ents had #een o#served. More i"portantl(, it declared 0ection %8E of the !ocal +overn"ent Code as $nconstit$tional #eca$se of its vest$re in the 0ecretar( of M$stice of the power of control over local govern"ents in violation of the polic( of local a$tono"( "andated in the Constit$tion and of the specific provision therein conferring on the President of the Philippines onl( the power of s$pervision over local govern"ents. M$dge 7odolfo C. Palattao declared 0ection %8E of the !ocal +overn"ent Code $nconstit$tional insofar as it e"powered the 0ecretar( of M$stice to review ta* ordinances and, inferentiall(, to ann$l the". ;e cited the fa"iliar distinction #etween control and s$pervision, the first #eing Fthe power of an officer to alter or "odif( or set aside what a s$#ordinate officer had done in the perfor"ance of his d$ties and to s$#stit$te the ,$dg"ent of the for"er for the latter,F while the second is Fthe power of a s$perior officer to see to it that lower officers perfor" their f$nctions in accordance with law.F ;is concl$sion was that the challenged section gave to the 0ecretar( the power of control and not of s$pervision onl( as vested #( the Constit$tion in the President of the Philippines. )his was, in his view, a violation not onl( of Article K, specificall( 0ection : thereof, and of 0ection 5 on the ta*ing powers of local govern"ents, and the polic( of local a$tono"( in general. ISSUE: 1DN the act of the 0ecretar( of M$stice is valid2 HELD: =es. 0ection %8E a$thori9es the 0ecretar( of M$stice to review onl( the constit$tionalit( or legalit( of the ta* ordinance and, if warranted, to revo/e it on either or #oth of these gro$nds. 1hen he alters or "odifies or sets aside a ta* ordinance, he is not also per"itted to s$#stit$te his own ,$dg"ent for the ,$dg"ent of the local govern"ent that enacted the "eas$re. 0ecretar( Crilon did set aside the Manila 7even$e Code, #$t he did not replace it with his own version of what the Code sho$ld #e. ;e did not prono$nce the ordinance $nwise or $nreasona#le as a #asis for its ann$l"ent. ;e did not sa( that in his ,$dg"ent it was a #ad law. 1hat he fo$nd onl( was that it was illegal. All he did in reviewing the said "eas$re was deter"ine if the petitioners were perfor"ing their f$nctions in accordance with law, that is, with the prescri#ed proced$re for the enact"ent of ta* ordinances and the grant of powers to the cit( govern"ent $nder the !ocal +overn"ent Code. As we see it, that was an act not of control #$t of "ere s$pervision. An officer in control la(s down the r$les in the doing of an act. ?f the( are not followed, he "a(, in his discretion, order the act $ndone or re>done #( his s$#ordinate or he "a( even -6

decide to do it hi"self. 0$pervision does not cover s$ch a$thorit(. )he s$pervisor or s$perintendent "erel( sees to it that the r$les are followed, #$t he hi"self does not la( down s$ch r$les, nor does he have the discretion to "odif( or replace the". ?f the r$les are not o#served, he "a( order the wor/ done or re>done #$t onl( to confor" to the prescri#ed r$les. ;e "a( not prescri#e his own "anner for the doing of the act. ;e has no ,$dg"ent on this "atter e*cept to see to it that the r$les are followed. ?n the opinion of the Co$rt, 0ecretar( Crilon did precisel( this, and no "ore nor less than this, and so perfor"ed an act not of control #$t of "ere s$pervision.

:'

LEAGUE OF CITIES VS. COMELEC FACTS: C$ring the %%th Congress, Congress enacted into law -- #ills converting -"$nicipalities into cities. ;owever, Congress did not act on #ills converting &: other "$nicipalities into cities. C$ring the %&th Congress, Congress enacted into law 7ep$#lic Act No. 6''6 G7A 6''6H, which too/ effect on -' M$ne &''%. 7A 6''6 a"ended 0ection :5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code #( increasing the ann$al inco"e re.$ire"ent for conversion of a "$nicipalit( into a cit( fro" P&' "illion to P%'' "illion. )he rationale for the a"end"ent was to restrain, in the words of 0enator A.$ilino Pi"entel, Fthe "ad r$shF of "$nicipalities to convert into cities solel( to sec$re a larger share in the ?nternal 7even$e Allot"ent despite the fact that the( are incapa#le of fiscal independence. After the effectivit( of 7A 6''6, the ;o$se of 7epresentatives of the %& th Congress adopted Moint 7esol$tion No. &6, which so$ght to e*e"pt fro" the P%'' "illion inco"e re.$ire"ent in 7A 6''6 the &: "$nicipalities whose cit(hood #ills were not approved in the %% th Congress. ;owever, the %&th Congress ended witho$t the 0enate approving Moint 7esol$tion No. &6. @ollowing the advice of 0en. Pi"entel, %4 "$nicipalities filed, thro$gh their respective sponsors, individ$al cit(hood #ills. )he %4 cit(hood #ills contained a co""on provision e*e"pting all the %4 "$nicipalities fro" the P%'' "illion inco"e re.$ire"ent in 7A 6''6. On && Cece"#er &''4, the ;o$se of 7epresentatives approved the cit(hood #ills. )he 0enate also approved the cit(hood #ills in @e#r$ar( &''E, e*cept that of Naga, Ce#$ which was passed on E M$ne &''E. )he cit(hood #ills lapsed into law GCit(hood !awsH on vario$s dates fro" March to M$l( &''E witho$t the PresidentLs signat$re. )he Cit(hood !aws direct the COM ! C to hold ple#iscites to deter"ine whether the voters in each respondent "$nicipalit( approve of the conversion of their "$nicipalit( into a cit(. Petitioners filed the present petitions to declare the Cit(hood !aws $nconstit$tional for violation of 0ection %', Article K of the Constit$tion, as well as for violation of the e.$al protection cla$se. Petitioners also la"ent that the wholesale conversion of "$nicipalities into cities will red$ce the share of e*isting cities in the ?nternal 7even$e Allot"ent #eca$se "ore cities will share the sa"e a"o$nt of internal reven$e set aside for all cities $nder 0ection &85 of the !ocal +overn"ent Code. ISSUE: 1DN Cit(hood !aws violate 0ection %', of Art K of the Constit$tion2 HELD: )he Cit(hood !aws violate 0ections 4 and %', Article K of the Constit$tion, and are th$s $nconstit$tional. 6irst, appl(ing the P%'' "illion inco"e re.$ire"ent in 7A 6''6 to the present case is a prospective, not a retroactive application, #eca$se 7A 6''6 too/ effect in &''% while the cit(hood #ills #eca"e law "ore than five (ears later.

:%

7econd, the Constit$tion re.$ires that Congress shall prescri#e all the criteria for the creation of a cit( in the !ocal +overn"ent Code and not in an( other law, incl$ding the Cit(hood !aws. Third, the Cit(hood !aws violate 0ection 4, Article K of the Constit$tion #eca$se the( prevent a fair and ,$st distri#$tion of the national ta*es to local govern"ent $nits. 6ourth, the criteria prescri#ed in 0ection :5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code, as a"ended #( 7A 6''6, for converting a "$nicipalit( into a cit( are clear, plain and $na"#ig$o$s, needing no resort to an( stat$tor( constr$ction. 6ifth, the intent of "e"#ers of the %%th Congress to e*e"pt certain "$nicipalities fro" the coverage of 7A 6''6 re"ained an intent and was never written into 0ection :5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code. 7ixth, the deli#erations of the %%th or %&th Congress on $napproved #ills or resol$tions are not e*trinsic aids in interpreting a law passed in the %-th Congress. 7eventh, even if the e*e"ption in the Cit(hood !aws were written in 0ection :5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code, the e*e"ption wo$ld still #e $nconstit$tional for violation of the e.$al protection cla$se.

:&

MERCADO V. MANZANO FACTS: rnesto Mercado, +a#riel Ca9a ??? and d$ardo Man9ano were candidates for vice "a(or of Ma/ati in the %668 elections. Man9ano got %'-,85- votes, Mercado garnered %'',86: and Ca9a ac.$ired 5:,&E5 votes. )he procla"ation of Man9ano<s was s$spended d$e to a pending petition for dis.$alification on the gro$nd that he was a N0 citi9en. )he COM ! C granted the petition and ordered the cancellation of the COC of Man9ano on the gro$nd that he is a d$al citi9en. Petitioners site 0ec. :' GdH of the !+C on persons with d$al citi9enship. ;owever, COM ! C en #anc said that Man9ano was .$alified to r$n for vice "a(or. )he Board of Canvass then declared Man9ano as the winner. ISSUE: 1hether or not d$al citi9enship is a gro$nd for dis.$alification2 HELD: C$al citi9enship is different fro" d$al allegiance. )he for"er arises when, as a res$lt of the conc$rrent application of the different laws of & or "ore states, a person is si"$ltaneo$sl( considered a national #( the said states. C$al allegiance refers to the sit$ation in which a person si"$ltaneo$sl( owes, #( so"e positive act, lo(alt( to two or "ore states. 1hile d$al citi9enship is invol$ntar(, d$al allegiance is a res$lt of an individ$al<s volition. Art. ?8 0ec. 5 of the Constit$tion states that C$al allegiance of citi9ens is ini"ical to the national interest and shall #e dealt with #( law. ?n incl$ding this section, the concern of the Constit$tional Co""ission was not with d$al citi9ens per se #$t with nat$rali9ed citi9ens who "aintain their allegiance to their co$ntries of origin even after their nat$rali9ation. ;ence, the phrase d$al citi9enship in 7A E%4' 0ection :' GdH and in 7A E85: 0ec. &' "$st #e $nderstood as referring to d$al allegiance. Persons with "ere d$al citi9enship do not fall $nder the dis.$alification. ?t sho$ld s$ffice if, $pon the filing of their COC, the( elect Philippine citi9enship to ter"inate their stat$s as persons with d$al citi9enship considering that their condition is the $navoida#le conse.$ence of conflicting laws of different states. B( filing a COC when he ran for this post, Man9ano elected Philippine citi9enship and in effect reno$nced his A"erican citi9enship. ;is COC contained the following state"entA ? a" a @ilipino Citi9en3Nat$ral>Born.

:-