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

1

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.

:

good order. 4%%8. )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$pers and the pro"otion of health.i"la(ang Pilipino. 0>4: n$ll and void. I$e9on Cit(. safet(. "aintenance and operation of private "e"orial ce"eter( or #$rial gro$nd within the .QC vs. to #e deter"ined #( co"petent Cit( A$thorities. the I$e9on Cit( Charter.$nction. The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area fro" a private ce"eter( to #enefit pa$pers. and the 7evised Ad"inistrative Code. 4%%8. P$rs$ant to this petition. ERICTA FACTS: )he I$e9on Cit( Co$ncil passed Ordinance No.$ired 4J space intended for pa$pers #$rial. ?nc. 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. in writing that 0ection 6 of Ordinance No. the I$e9on Cit( ngineer notified respondent . the cit( passes the #$rden to private ce"eteries.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. 4%%8.$risdiction of I$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$e9on Cit( for at least 5 (ears prior to their death. "orals. see/ing to ann$l 0ection 6 of the Ordinance in . 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. 7espondent . the !ocal A$tono"( Act. ?nstead of #$ilding or "aintaining a p$#lic ce"eter( for this p$rpose. )hen. prohi#ition and "anda"$s with preli"inar( in. ISSUE: ?s 0ection 6 of the ordinance in . ?t alleged that the sa"e is contrar( to the Constit$tion. )he trial co$rt rendered the decision declaring 0ection 6 of Ordinance No. 5 . 0>4: wo$ld #e enforced. the I$e9on Cit( Co$ncil passed a resol$tion re. 0>4: reg$lating the esta#lish"ent. )he area so designated shall i""ediatel( #e developed and sho$ld #e open for operation not later than si* "onths fro" the date of approval of the application.$estion.$estion a valid e*ercise of the police power2 HELD: No. or the general welfare of the people.$esting the Cit( ngineer.

ect to the provisions of general law reg$lating #$rial gro$nds and ce"eteries.)he e*propriation witho$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 #$rial in a proper place s$#. 4 .

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

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

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

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

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

a total of 5E "$nicipalities had cit( hood #ills pending in Congress #$t &: of the" were not converted d$ring the %%th Congress. 6''6 a"ending 0ection :5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code #( increasing the ann$al inco"e re. )he . ISSUES: 1hether or not the Cit(hood !aws violate 0ection %'. COMELEC FACTS: C$ring the %&th Congress. and are th$s $nconstit$tional. #o province.LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.o$se of 7epresentatives of the %&th Congress adopted Moint 7esol$tion No. 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". a!olished or its !oundary su!stantially altered.A. Article K of the %68E Constit$tion and as well as for violation of the e. HELD: )he Cit(hood !aws violate 0ection 4 and %'.$al protection cla$se. except in accordance with the criteria esta!lished in the %& .o$rned witho$t the 0enateLs approval. &6 to e*e"pt the &: "$nicipalities whose cit(hood #ills were not approved in the %%th Congress #$t it was ad. Petitioners also la"ent that the wholesale conversion of "$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 $nder 0ection &85 of the !ocal +overn"ent Code. individ$al cit(hood #ills containing a co""on provision. or !arangay shall !e created. Petitioners filed the present petitions to declare the Cit(hood !aws $nconstit$tional for violation of 0ection %'.$al protection cla$se. &6 filed #etween Nove"#er and Cece"#er of &''4. city.$al protection cla$se. Article K of %68E Constit$tion. municipality. thro$gh their respective sponsors in Congress. merged. Article K of %68E Constit$tionB and whether or not the Cit(hood !aws violate the e. )he constit$tion providesA 0ection %'.$ire"ent for conversion of a "$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. %4 of the &: "$nicipalities "entioned in the $napproved Moint 7esol$tion No. C$ring the %-th Congress. Article K of %68E Constit$tion and the e. divided. Congress enacted into law 7.

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

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

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

$ired congressional franchise to operate and cond$ct the . 7ep$#lic Act No. iss$ed on &' A$g$st %6E5. incl$ding the Cit( of Manila.$arel( assails the constit$tionalit( of PC No.$ires a legislative franchise. the latter approved E 0epte"#er %6E%. in 0ection : thereof. ACCLs position is that Ordinance No.$al protection and non>i"pair"ent cla$ses of the Constit$tion. ?n this connection. or reg$lateF which therefore "eans that a license or per"it iss$ed #( the Cit( of Manila to operate a wager or #etting activit(.ai>alai was re"oved fro" local govern"ents. -6&. or ver( "$ch earlier than said Ordinance No. 1hat Congress delegated to the Cit( of Manila in 7ep. co$nsel for ACC contends that this Co$rt sho$ld reall( r$le on the validit( of PC No. incl$ding the .ai>alai in the Cit( of Manila.?0 C #( the national govern"ent to so operate. Congress did not delegate to the Cit( of Manila the power Fto franchiseF wagers or #etting.ai>alai $nder 7A 65: and PC EE%.of which e*pressl( revo/ed all e*isting franchises and per"its to operate all for"s of ga"#ling facilities Gincl$ding the . EE%. not a "$nicipal franchise. approved on &' M$ne %65-. per"it. for the operation of .ai>alaiH iss$ed #( local govern"ents. :'6. %4 . EE% to #e a#le to deter"ine whether ACC contin$es to possess a valid franchise. ISSUE: 1hether or not the Associated Cevelop"ent Corporation has a valid franchise to "aintain and operate . that the a#ove"entioned ordinance is valid. #$t retained for itself s$ch power Fto franchiseF. with respect to wagers or #etting. wo$ld not a"o$nt to so"ething "eaningf$l NN! 00 the holder of the per"it or license was also @7ANC. E'45. On the other hand.ai>alai. :'6.No. it "a( not so operate even if it has a license or per"it fro" the Cit( Ma(or to operate the .ai>alai. ACC also s. )he net res$lt is that the a$thorit( to grant franchises for the operation of . . the national govern"ent arg$es that even ass$"ing. E'45 was validl( enacted #( the Cit( of Manila p$rs$ant to its delegated powers $nder it charter.ai>alai.ai>alai frontons is in Congress. 0ec. 65:. was the power to Flicense. Moreover. even this power to license. ACCLs franchise was nonetheless effectivel( revo/ed #( Presidential decree No. re. 7espondent ACC does not possess the re. per"it. and transferred to the +AB on % Man$ar( %65% #( *ec$tive Order No. HELD: NO. s$ch as the . Act No. or reg$late wagers or #etting on . while the reg$lator( f$nction is vested in the +AB. EE% as violative of the e. 0ince ACC has no franchise fro" Congress to operate the .ai>alai. Additionall(.ai>alai where #ets are accepted. arg$endo.

)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 . veiled in general ter"s to $nderscore its all>co"prehensive e"#race. )he act of the Ma(or now challenged is. )here is no ta/ing of propert( involved here. ?nc. )he petitioners contested that M$piter 0treet is for the e*cl$sive $se of BA8A residents and that A(ala Corporation did not contrive to ac. IAC FACTS: Mose and !$tgarda #oth s$rna"ed 0angalang. )he petitioners appealed as well that the de"olition and opening of Or#it 0treet has led to the loss of privac( of BA8A residents and deprivation of propert( witho$t d$e process of law. ?t has #een defined as the “state a$thorit( to enact legislation that "a( interfere with personal li#ert( of propert( in order to pro"ote the general welfare. “?ts scope. assailed the decision of the CA for the opening of M$piter 0treet for the p$#lic. rather. petitioners and Bel>Air 8illage Association. GBA8AH.$ire "e"#ership at BA8A p$rposel( to #argain for access to M$piter 0treet #( the general p$#lic.$risdiction.$st co"pensation. 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. 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$ring the greatest #enefits. )he concept of police power is well>esta#lished in this . p$rposel(. %E .” As defined.SANGALANG VS. in ter"s of traffic decongestion and p$#lic convenience. intervenor>petitioner. ?t is not capa#le of an e*act definition #$t has #een. ever>e*panding to "eet the e*igencies of the ti"es. 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. in concept of police power.

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

it was PetillaLs a$to"atic ass$"ption to the acting +overnorship that res$lted in the vacanc( in the office of the 8ice>+overnor. notwithstanding his s$ccession to the Office of the +overnor. )he nat$re of the d$ties of a Provincial +overnor call for a f$ll>ti"e occ$pant to discharge the". ?n the e(es of the law. A )reatise on the !aw on P$#lic Offices and Officers. cited in Meche". )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. 0tate.$alified inc$"#ent. it is do$#tf$l if the Provincial Board. )here is no satisfactor( showing that !eopoldo Petilla. -&4. "a( revo/e an appoint"ent "ade #( a higher a$thorit(. )he law on P$#lic Officers is clear on the "atter.ISSUES: 1ON there is vacanc(2 HELD: =es. the office to which he was elected was left #arren of a legall( . More so when the vacanc( is for an e*tended period. 4%H Appl(ing the definition of vacanc( to this case. $nilaterall( acting. Precisel(. contin$ed to si"$ltaneo$sl( e*ercise the d$ties of the 8ice> +overnor. A sensu contrario. E ?nd. )here is no vacanc( whenever the office is occ$pied #( a legall( . it can #e readil( seen that the office of the 8ice>+overnor was left vacant when the d$l( elected 8ice>+overnor !eopoldo Petilla was appointed Acting +overnor. at p. )he Cepart"ent 0ecretar( had the discretion to ascertain whether or not the Provincial +overnor sho$ld devote all his ti"e to that partic$lar office.$alified person to e*ercise the d$ties of the office of the 8ice> +overnor. %6 . 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. Moreover.

when Fthe said order Gdated &' . respondentLs certificate of candidac( is cancelled.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. private respondent M$an +.F Accordingl(. %665. filed a petition with the Co"elec doc/eted as 0PA No.%665. @rivaldo 7a$l7. .C.F As s$ch.e alleged that on M$ne -'. )he Provincial Board of Canvassers co"pleted the canvass of the election ret$rns and a Certificate of 8ote dated Ma( &E. another candidate.6&5 On M$ne 6.. %665. petitioner 7a$l 7. %665 was iss$ed showing the following votes o#tained #( the candidates for the position of +overnor of 0orsogonA Antonio . the Co"elec en !anc affir"ed the afore"entioned 7esol$tion of the 0econd Civision. COMELEC AND RAUL LEE FACTS: On March &'. On M$l( 4. 7 @O7 . E&5 which he filed with the 0pecial Co""ittee on Nat$rali9ation in 0epte"#er %66: had #een granted. %665 procla"ation of !ee and for his own procla"ation. 65>'&8 pra(ing that @rivaldo F#e dis. On Ma( %. 65>'&8.FIVALDO VS. %665. @rivaldo filed his Certificate of Candidac( for the office of +overnor of 0orsogon in the Ma( 8. @rivaldo filed with the Co"elec a new petition doc/eted as 0PC No. sc$dero. %665. %665. 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.-': %. On Ma( %%. !ee was proclai"ed governor of 0orsogon. he too/ his oath of allegiance as a citi9en of the Philippines after Fhis petition for repatriation $nder P.%665 * * *. Accordingl(.F and that his Certificate of Candidac( #e cancelled. ?n an order dated M$ne &%. !ee filed in said 0PA No. Oca"po 5%. %665. %665.F )he Motion for 7econsideration filed #( @rivaldo re"ained $nacted $pon $ntil after the Ma( 8. his candidac( contin$ed and he was voted for d$ring the elections held on said date.$alified fro" see/ing or holding an( p$#lic office or position #( reason of not (et #eing a citi9en of the Philippines. %665. 0o. the 0econd Civision of the Co"elec pro"$lgated a 7esol$tion granting the petition with the following dispositionA F1. 65>-%E. pra(ing for the ann$l"ent of the M$ne -'. !ee. at &A'' in the afternoon. Mr. %665 elections. at 8A-' in the evening of M$ne -'.!ee ?sagani P. %665. On March &-. a Gs$pple"entalH petition6 pra(ing for his procla"ation as the d$l(>elected +overnor of 0orsogon. %665 elections. M$an +. #$t pro"$lgated according to the petition Fonl( on M$ne &6.::' 5-.'4' E-.

$ires ver( little of an applicant.%665.$alified to hold the office of +overnor of 0orsogon.%665 $nder the provisions of Presidential Cecree No. Fhaving garnered the highest n$"#er of votes. E&5 are not diffic$lt to co"pl( with. and even the r$les and reg$lations to i"ple"ent the said decree were left to the 0pecial Co""ittee to pro"$lgate.$ire"ents of repatriation $nder P. the Co"elec @irst Civision pro"$lgated the herein assailed 7esol$tion holding that !ee. %665 $nder the provisions of Presidential Cecree No. )his is not $n$s$al since. there was no "ore legal i"pedi"ent to the procla"ation Gof @rivaldoH as governor * * *.C. %664 a 7esol$tion which inter alia directed the parties Fto "aintain the status )uo prevailing prior to the filing of this petition.F was not legall( entitled to #e proclai"ed as d$l(>elected governorB and that @rivaldo. @rivaldo as the d$l( elected +overnor of 0orsogon having garnered the highest n$"#er of votes. !ee filed a "otion for reconsideration which was denied #( the Co"elec en !anc in its 7esol$tion pro"$lgated on @e#r$ar( &-. and he having reac. 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#$tted #( !ee.$ired his @ilipino citi9enship #( repatriation on M$ne -'. !ee as +overnor of 0orsogon is here#( ordered ann$lled. the Provincial Board of Canvassers is directed to i""ediatel( reconvene and.$alified to hold the office of governor of 0orsogonFB th$sA FP7 M?0 0 CON0?C 7 C. No. 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. .is *cellenc( the President of the Philippines. )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. #eing contrar( to law.M$ne &%. and *** having reac. %665. this Co$rt iss$ed on @e#r$ar( &E.F ?n the alternative.F ISSUE: 1as the repatriation of @rivaldo valid and legal2 ?f so. the procla"ation of 7a$l 7. %664. %665 at 5A-' oLcloc/ in the evening. he not having garnered the highest n$"#er of votes to warrant his procla"ation. the Co""ission G@irst CivisionH. 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. After all. %664. ?n fact. P.C. on the #asis of the co"pleted canvass. fro" when2 HELD: On the #asis of the partiesL s$#"issions. did it seasona#l( c$re his lac/ of citi9enship as to . E&5 *** GisH . proclai" petitioner M$an +. the present petition was filed. Consistent with the decisions of the 0$pre"e Co$rt. %665H Gof the Co"elecH * * * was released and received #( @rivaldo on M$ne -'. Npon the finalit( of the ann$l"ent of the procla"ation of 7a$l 7. On Cece"#er %6.$alif( hi" to #e proclai"ed and to hold the Office of +overnor2 ?f not. Fnot having garnered the highest n$"#er of votes. therefore 7 0O!8 0 to +7AN) the Petition. E&5 itself re. the re. E&5 and. On @e#r$ar( &4. !ee. the Cler/ of the Co""ission is directed to notif( . Confor"a#l( with 0ection &4' of the O"ni#$s lection Code G1$2$ 1lg$ 33+H.F On Cece"#er &4. $nli/e in &% .$ired his @ilipino citi9enship #( repatriation on M$ne -'. th$s. Acting on the pra(er for a te"porar( restraining order. "a( it #e given retroactive effect2 ?f so. nor are the( tedio$s and c$"#erso"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. -6 of the !ocal +overn"ent Code. B$t to re"ove all do$#ts on this i"portant iss$e.%66:. an official #egins to govern or to discharge his f$nctions onl( $pon his procla"ation and on the da( the law "andates his ter" of office to #egin. an( contest on the legalit( of @rivaldoLs repatriation sho$ld have #een p$rs$ed #efore the Co""ittee itself. At an( rate.F Q ?n addition. p$rs$ant to the doctrine of e*ha$stion of ad"inistrative re"edies. it will #e noted that the law does not specif( an( partic$lar date or ti"e when the candidate "$st possess citi9enship.F @ro" the a#ove. wasted no ti"e in ret$rning to his co$ntr( of #irth to offer once "ore his talent and services to his people. were granted repatriation arg$es convincingl( and concl$sivel( against the e*istence of favoritis" vehe"entl( posited #( 7a$l !ee. to hold s$ch office and to discharge the f$nctions and responsi#ilities thereof as of said date. after the fall of the dictator and the re>esta#lish"ent of de"ocratic space. ?n the case of @rivaldo. %6653the ver( da( the ter" of office of governor Gand other elective officialsH #egan3he was therefore alread( . Now. no person owing allegiance to another nation. && .. i. Fcandidates for the position of governor * * * "$st #e at least twent(>three G&-H (ears of age on election da(. 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$ld not in conscience e"#race 3 and who.$alification is none other than to ens$re that no alien. and the p$rpose of the citi9enship .$alified to #e proclai"ed. in the Office of the President.nat$rali9ation where an alien covets a first'time entr( into Philippine political life. in repatriation the applicant is a for"er nat$ral>#orn @ilipino who is "erel( see/ing to reac. the fact that ten other persons.$ire"ent for holding an elective p$#lic office. failing there. $nli/e that for residence Gwhich "$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. Nnder 0ec. 0ince @rivaldo re>ass$"ed his citi9enship on M$ne -'. 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$age or dialect.e. 0o too.$ire his previo$s citi9enship. "$nicipalit(. cit(. FGaHn elective local official "$st #eA Q a citi9en of the PhilippinesB Q a registered voter in the #aranga(. as certified to #( the 0olicitor +eneral. shall govern o$r people and o$r co$ntr( or a $nit of territor( thereof. and.

&- .

B( serving as co$nsel for the co"plaining e"plo(ees and assisting the" to prosec$te the clai"s against Civinagracia. !+C. their real e"plo(er. engage in an( occ$pation.” ISSUE: 1hether or not Mavellana properl( engaged in the practice of law2 HELD: No.$dg"ent against the Cit( +overn"ent. &: . .ence. is s$ch practice wo$ld represent interests adverse to the govern"ent. agenc(. 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$thorit( fro" the 7egional Cirector of the C?!+. that sangg$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 $nit or an( office. Negros Occidental. the petitioner violated Me"o Circ$lar No. 6'. of which petitioner Mavellana is a co$ncil"an.JABELLANA VS. ?t also alleged that Mavellana filed a case against Civinagracio for “?llegal Cis"ilssal and 7einstate"ent with Ca"ages.$dg"ent against Civinagracia wo$ld act$all( #e a . rwin Mavellana was elected Cit( Co$ncilor of Bago Cit(. . or teach in schools e*cept d$ring session ho$rs. or instr$"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. 0ec. DILG FACTS: Att(. Provided. 0angg$nian "e"#ers "a( practice their professions. )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(. E:>58 prohi#iting a govern"ent official fro" engaging in the private practice of his profession.

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

he appealed onl( fro" that portion of the decision which fi*ed his attorne(Ls fees at P-'. +arcia . )he petitioner can not set $p the plea that the contract was $ltra vires and still retain #enefits there$nder. %685. Both parties went to the 0$pre"e Co$rt with private respondent . ISSUE: 1ON Att(. ?n the case of private respondent.'' instead of at -'J of the val$e of the properties involved in the litigation as stated in his original clai" On Octo#er %8.$estioning the fi*ing of his attorne(Ls fees at 5J instead of -'J of the val$e of the properties in litigations as pra(ed for in his clai"s. 0till Att(. . +arcia is entitled to co"pensation. however.parties appealed fro" the decision to the Co$rt of Appeals. &4 . Act$all( it was +overnor spina who filed the case against Ce#$ Cit( and Ma(or Os"eRa. independent of e*press contract i"plies an o#ligation $pon the "$nicipalit( to do . 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$e of the properties involved in the litigation as of the date of the filing of the clai" in %6E5. the petitioner is estopped to .$stice with respect to the sa"e. +arcia is entitled to attorne(<s lien2 HELD: =es. Pa#lo P.'''.aving regarded the contract as valid for p$rposes of reaping so"e #enefits.$st happened to #e the law(er. 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$"stances that the general law. )o den( private respondent co"pensation for his professional services wo$ld a"o$nt to a deprivation of propert( witho$t d$e process of law.$estion its validit( for the p$rposes of den(ing answera#ilit(.

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

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

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

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

B( the -% .$ita#le . Accordingl(. ?t is o#vio$s that he wants to re"ove the "ar/et fro" the control and s$pervision of cit( a$thorities. Manila for "ore than twent(>five G&5H (ears. #oth series of %6:6. 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. 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.ence. and fro" said date the withdrawn portion shall cease to f$nction and operate as a p$#lic "ar/et.$stification for the withdrawal #( private parties o#tain. )he re"aining one fo$rth is no longer #eing $sed #( the owner for its avowed p$rpose. )he records show that the petitioner wants to convert the "a. -6666>7.F )he respondent>vendors. CA: FACTS: Petitioner 7icardo Cr$9 states that he and his #$siness associates lpidio )alastas. Motions for reconsiderations were denied. @eliciana Alcantara and others have #een the owners and operators of the Padre 7ada Mar/et at )ondo. 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. 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. that approval for the withdrawal #( the Cit( of Manila is not even necessar(. :'4. as a"ended #( 7esol$tion No. &-'.F A s$#se. a"ong others.CRUZ VS. %6E'.$ent "otion for reconsideration was denied. the CA reversed the decision of the trial co$rt and denied the withdrawal of the "a(or s$pervision F$ntil legal conditions and e. 7. herein private respondents instit$ted Civil Case No. indorse"ents. .or portion of the Padre 7ada Mar/et into a private "ar/et to ena#le hi" to raise the rentals for the stalls. )he lower co$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. )he respondent Co$rt of Appeals held that Ma(or 8illegas had no a$thorit( to allow s$ch withdrawal as Fit is a*io"atic that onl( the power that created it can withdraw it. who were li/ewise notified of s$ch withdrawal. this present petition. 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 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$lt in the total withdrawal of the entire "ar/et. protested s$ch "ove. After several e*changes of referrals.F On the other hand. 8'EE-. Nos. On Ma( &4. and co""$nications. %6E'. )he "ar/et was a$thori9ed to #e operated as a p$#lic "ar/et of the Cit( of Manila #( virt$e of 7esol$tion No. On appeal. . Ma(or 8illegas allowed the withdrawal in the light of the Co$rt of AppealsL decision in CA>+.ence.

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

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

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

?n the Co$rt of appeals. %56 which resolved to "anage the %656 Malasi. ?f the in. Meanwhile 7esol$tion No. -5 . @ontanilla. 0ec. )he said co""ittee organi9ed a s$#co""ittee on entertain"ent and stage with Mose Macaraeg as chair"an. @ontanilla<s heirs filed a clai" against the M$nicipalit(. )he 9ar9$ela entitled Midas *travagan9a was donated #( an association of Malasi. )he M$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. can #e had fro" the "$nicipalit( $nless there is an e*isting stat$te on the "atter. Macaraeg s$pervised the constr$ction of the stage. Nnder the doctrine of respondent s$perior. P%'' was appropriated for the constr$ction of & stagesA for the 9ar9$ela and the cancionan. thro$gh its “Co""ittee” wo$ld #$ild a stage strong eno$gh to s$pport the perfor"ance.TORIO VS FONTANILLA F$%&s: On Octo#er &% %658. Pangasinan. )he Co$ncilors did not directl( participate in the constr$ction of the stage so the( co$ld not #e held lia#le. . Onl( P%'' was appropriated for the two stages and the posts and #races were onl( "ade of #a"#oo. one of the perfor"ers.$i town fiesta. and that when the M$nicipalit( accepted it.$i. 1ith respect to proprietar( f$nctions. the participants in the stage show had the right to e*pect that the M$nicipalit(. )he perfor"ance was a donation offered #( the respondents. )he "ere fact that the cele#ration. as a r$le. no recover(. passed 7esol$tion No. was not to sec$re profit or gain #$t "erel( to provide entertain"ent is not a concl$sive test. &&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. HELD: ?t was Proprietar( in character. nor fro" its officers. a "$nicipal corporation can #e held lia#le to third persons e* contract$ or e* delicto. )he #asic ele"ent is that it is govern"ental in essence. %8& was also passed creating the )own @iesta *ec$tive Co""ittee. the M$nicipal Co$ncil of Malasi.$r( is ca$sed in the co$rse of the perfor"ance of a govern"ental f$nction or d$t(. ISSUE: 1hether the cele#ration of a town fiesta is an e*ercise of a "$nicipalit(<s govern"ental or p$#lic f$nction or one of a proprietar( character. as long as the( perfor"ed their d$ties honestl( and in good faith or that the( did not act wantonl( and "alicio$sl(.$i e"plo(ees of the Manila 7ailroad Co"pan( in Caloocan. died #eca$se the stage collapsed and he got pinned $nderneath. as clai"ed. the "$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(.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(. the( held that there was negligence.

$e9 challenged the victor( #( arg$ing that 7odrig$e9 left the N0 where a charge is pending against hi" #efore the !A Co$rt for fra$d$lent ins$rance clai"s. )he definition of “f$gitive fro" . ?n Mar.RODRIGUEZ V. grand theft. COMELEC FACTS: d$ardo 7odrig$e9 and Bienvenido Mar.$rispr$dence and "a( #e so conceded as e*pressing the general and ordinar( connotation of the ter". ?t was i"possi#le for 7odrig$e9 to have /nown a#o$t s$ch felon( co"plaint and arrest warrant a the ti"e he left the N0.$stice” indicates that the intent to evade is the co"pelling factor that ani"ates one<s flight fro" a partic$lar .” )he legal r$le in the Mar. the Co$rt r$led that “A Uf$gitive fro" .$st cannot fit in this concept. )he COM ! C r$led that a T “f$gitive fro" . )he Co$rt specificall( refers to the concept of “f$gitive fro" . flee to avoid prosec$tion.$stice” which is a gro$nd for his dis. #( al"ost 5 "onths.$stice< incl$des not onl( those who flee after conviction to avoid p$nish"ent #$t li/ewise those who. 7odrig$e9< case .$alification $nder 0ec. after #eing charged.$e9 Cecision "$st govern the instant petition.$stice.$stice” as defined in the "ain opinion of Mar.$e9 which highlights the significance of an intent to evade.$stice” incl$des not onl( those who flee after conviction to avoid p$nish"ent #$t li/ewise those who. 7odrig$e9 won and was proclai"ed governor. 1hat prosec$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$gitive fro" .$risdiction. flee to avoid prosec$tion. Mar.$e9. )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.$e9 were protagonists for the g$#ernatorial post of I$e9on in the %66& elections. )his definition finds s$pport fro" . :' GeH of the !+C.$stice2 HELD: No. ISSUE: 1hether or not 7odrig$e9 is considered as a f$gitive fro" . 7odrig$e9 is therefore a “f$gitive fro" .” -4 . after #eing charged. and atte"pted grand theft of personal propert(.

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

the winning candidate in their province. 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.of the 7$les and 7eg$lations ?"ple"enting the !+C of %66%.$stice” to refer onl( to a person “who has #een convicted #( final . )his case "$st #e re"anded to the COM ! C.$o warranto case against 7odrig$e9. Article E. for allegedl( #eing a f$gitive fro" .$o warranto case was o$trightl( dis"issed.$estioning the resol$tion of the COM ! C which dis"issed his . )he COM ! C in this case did not "a/e an( definite finding on whether or not. HELD: No.$dg"ent” is an inordinate and $nd$e circ$"spection of the law. in fact.$stice” since the .$e9 said that at the ti"e 7odrig$e9 filed his COC.MARQUEZ VS COMELEC FACTS: Mar.$stice.$stice” "$st #e a person who has #een convicted #( final . ISSUE: 1hether or not a “f$gitive fro" . Mar. to the e*tent that it confines the ter" “f$gitive fro" .$dg"ent. -8 . a defeated candidate for governor of I$e9on in the %66& elections filed a petition for certiorari .$e9. 7odrig$e9 is a “f$gitive fro" .

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

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

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

7ixth.$st distri#$tion of the national ta*es to local govern"ent $nits. even if the e*e"ption in the Cit(hood !aws were written in 0ection :5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code. the intent of "e"#ers of the %%th Congress to e*e"pt certain "$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. 7eventh. needing no resort to an( stat$tor( constr$ction.7econd.$ires that Congress shall prescri#e all the criteria for the creation of a cit( in the !ocal +overn"ent Code and not in an( other law. for converting a "$nicipalit( into a cit( are clear. the Constit$tion re. :& . 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. the Cit(hood !aws violate 0ection 4. 6ourth. 6ifth.$al protection cla$se. as a"ended #( 7A 6''6. incl$ding the Cit(hood !aws. Article K of the Constit$tion #eca$se the( prevent a fair and . Third. the e*e"ption wo$ld still #e $nconstit$tional for violation of the e. plain and $na"#ig$o$s. the criteria prescri#ed in 0ection :5' of the !ocal +overn"ent Code.

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