You are on page 1of 11

G.R. No.

L-19650
September 29, 1966
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC vs. ENRICO PALOMAR, in his capacity as THE
POSTMASTER GENERAL
FACTS:
In 1960, Caltex launched their "Caltex Hooded Pump Contest", which called for participants to
estimate the actual number of liters a hooded gas pump at each Caltex station will dispense
during a specified period.Participants were not required consideration nor pay a fee. No
purchase of Caltex products were also required to be made. Entry forms were to be made
available upon request at each Caltex station where a sealed can would be provided for the
deposit of accomplished entry stubs.
Foreseeing the extensive use of the mails not only as amongst the media for publicizing the
contest but also for the transmission of communications relative thereto, representations were
made by Caltex with the postal authorities for the contest to be cleared in advance for mailing,
having in view the Anti-lottery provisions of the Revised Administrative Code. Postmaster
General Enrico Palomar denied the request, arguing that the said contest violated the provisions
of the law on subject. CALTEX sought judicial intervention wherein the trial court ruled in its
favor. Respondent Palomar appealed, posing the same argument that the said contest violated
the prohibitive provisions of the Postal Law.
Issue:
Whether or not the "Caltex Hooded Pump Contest" fell on the purview of the prohibitive
provisions of the Postal Law.

HELD:
The Postal Law does not allow any lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of
money, or of any real or personal property by lot, chance, or drawing of any kind".
The Court held that the "Caltex Hooded Pump Contest" by CALTEX is not a lottery nor a gift
enterprise but rather a gratuitous distribution of property by chance, which the law does not
prohibit. The term "lottery" extends to all schemes for the distribution of prizes by chance, such
as policy playing, gift exhibitions, prize concerts, raffles at fairs, etc., and various forms of
gambling. The three essential elements of a lottery are: First, consideration; second, prize; and
third, chance. The contest in question, lacking the element of consideration, cannot be
deemed al lottery. The rules of the contest made no mention of a valuable consideration of
some kind being paid directly or indirectly for the chance to draw a prize. The term gift
enterprise also could not embrace the scheme at bar. As already noted, there is no sale of
anything to which the chance offered is attached as an inducement to the purchaser. The
contest is open to all qualified contestants irrespective of whether or not they buy the appellee's
products.
By virtue of noscitur a sociis which Opinion 217 aforesaid also relied upon although only
insofar as the element of chance is concerned it is only logical that the term under a
construction should be accorded no other meaning than that which is consistent with the nature
of the word associated therewith. Hence, if lottery is prohibited only if it involves a consideration,
so also must the term "gift enterprise" be so construed. Significantly, there is not in the law the
slightest indication of any intent to eliminate that element of consideration from the "gift
enterprise" therein included.

Director of Lands vs Court of Appeals


Director of Lands vs. CA
276 SCRA 276
G. R. No. 102858
July 28 1997
Facts:
Private Respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original registration of his title
under P. D. No. 1529. However, during the pendency of his petition, applicant died.
Hence his heirs represented by their aunt Josefa Abistado, who was appointed their
guardian ad litem, were substituted as applicants.
The Land Registration Court in its decision dismissed the petition for want of
jurisdiction. However, it found that the applicants through their predecessors-in-interest
had been in open, continuous, exclusive and peaceful possession of the subject land
since 1938. The trial court dismissed the petition for the reason that the applicants failed
to publish the notice of Initial Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines.
Private Respondents appealed to CA, which set aside the decision of the trial court and
ordered the registration of the title in the name of Teodoro Abistado.
The Director of Lands represented by the Solicitor General, brought the case to the
Supreme Court.
Issue:
W/N newspaper publication of the notice of Initial Hearing in an original land registration
case mandatory or directory.
Held:
It is mandatory. The word shall denotes an imperative and thus indicates the mandatory
character of a statute. The law used the term shall in prescribing the work to be done
by the Commissioner of Land Registration upon the latters receipt of the court order
setting the time for Initial Hearing. While concededly such literal mandate is not an
absolute rule in statutory construction, as its import ultimately depends upon its context
in the entire provision, we hold that in the present case the term must be understood in
its normal mandatory meaning.
Stat Con Principle: When the law is clear, it is not susceptible of interpretation. It must be
applied regardless of who may be affected, even if the law may be harsh or erroneous.
Legal Maxims: Verba Legis and Dura Lex Sed Lex

FACTS:
intestate
1973)
without
(on
October
any
issue,
12,
legitimate,
natural,
acknowledged
adopted
or
spurious
children.
both
acknowledged
surnamed
natural
Pascual
children
the
of
the
late
Eligio
full
decedent
blood
brother
Don
Andres
of
the
Pascual.
Reiterate
Hereditary
Rights
and
Support
the
Memorandum
of
Motion
to
reiterate
inare
Regional
Trial
Court,
presided
over
Padolina
HERMES
by
Judge
issued
S.
PASCUAL,
Manuel
an
order,
S.
the
resolved
VS.
petitioners,
to
deny
this
motion
reiterating
rights.
BAUTISTA,
Their
their
ET
motion
AL.
hereditary
for
denied.
1992
Court
of
Appeals,
but
like
motion
the
for
ruling
reconsideration
of
CA,
their
was
also
dismissed.
certiorari,
that
they
do
petitioners
not
fall
squarely
contend
within
992
the
purview
of
Article
Philippines,
can
be
interpreted
to
acknowledged)
exclude
recognized
natural
(and
children
as
the
marriage
subsistence
when
such
of
a
prior
children
were
under
conception
CLEAR,
IT
IS
NOT
SUSCEPTIBLE
INTERPRETATION.
IT
REGARDLESS
OF
WHO
AFFECTED,
MAY
BE
EVEN
IF
THE
OR
ERRONEOUS.

Pascual vs. Pascual [G.R. No. 84240. March


25, 1992]
15AUG
Ponente: PARAS, J.
FACTS:
Don Andres Pascual died intestate (on October 12, 1973) without any issue, legitimate, acknowledged
natural, adopted or spurious children. Petitioners Olivia and Hermes both surnamed Pascual are the
acknowledged natural children of the late Eligio Pascual, the latter being the full blood brother of the
decedent Don Andres Pascual. Petitioners filed their Motion to Reiterate Hereditary Rights and the
Memorandum in Support of Motion to reiterate Hereditary Rights. the Regional Trial Court, presided over
by Judge Manuel S. Padolina issued an order, the dispositive portion of which resolved to deny this
motion reiterating their hereditary rights. Their motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioners
appealed their case to the Court of Appeals, but like the ruling of CA, their motion for reconsideration was
also dismissed. In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioners contend that they do not fall squarely
within the purview of Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude
recognized (and acknowledged) natural children as their illegitimacy is not due to the subsistence of a
prior marriage when such children were under conception.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Article 992 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, can be interpreted to exclude recognized
natural children from the inheritance of the deceased.
HELD:
NO. Petition is devoid of merit.
RATIO:
The issue in the case at bar, had already been laid to rest in Diaz v. IAC, where this Court ruled that
underArt.992 of the Civil Code, there exists a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a
succession ab intestado between the illegitimate child and the legitimate children and relatives of the
father or mother of said legitimate child.
[T]he interpretation of the law desired by the petitioner may be more humane but it is also an elementary
rule in statutory construction that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal,
their meaning must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean
exactly what is says.
Eligio Pascual is a legitimate child but petitioners are his illegitimate children and the term illegitimate
refers to both natural and spurious. It may be said that the law may be harsh but that is the law (DURA
LEX SED LEX).

Director of Lands vs. CA [G.R. No. 102858. July


28, 1997]
15AUG
Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.
FACTS:
Teodoro Abistado filed a petition for original registration of his title over 648 square meters of land under
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529. The land registration court in its decision dated June 13, 1989
dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction, in compliance with the mandatory provision requiring
publication of the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. The case was elevated to
respondent Court of Appeals which, set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the registration of
the title in the name of Teodoro Abistado. The Court of Appeals ruled that it was merely procedural and
that the failure to cause such publication did not deprive the trial court of its authority to grant the
application. The Director of Lands represented by the Solicitor General thus elevated this recourse to the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Director of Lands is correct that newspaper publication of the notice of initial hearing in
an original land registration case is mandatory.
HELD:
YES. Petition was granted.
RATIO:
The pertinent part of Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 requires publication of the notice of initial
hearing. It should be noted further that land registration is a proceeding in rem. Being in rem, such
proceeding requires constructive seizure of the land as against all persons, including the state, who have
rights to or interests in the property. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through
publication. This being so, the process must strictly be complied with.
The Supreme Court has no authority to dispense with such mandatory requirement. The law is
unambiguous and its rationale clear. Time and again, this Court has declared that where the law speaks
in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, vacillation or equivocation; there is
room only for application. There is no alternative. Thus, the application for land registration filed by private
respondents must be dismissed without prejudice to reapplication in the future, after all the legal
requisites shall have been duly complied with.

CALTEX (Philippines) Inc. v. Enrico Palomar as The


Postmaster General, G.R. No. L-19650, 29
September 1966
29JUN
[CASTRO, J.]
FACTS
Caltex launched its promo Caltex Hooded Pump Contest.
No puzzles, no rhymes? You dont need wrappers, labels or boxtops? You dont have to buy anything?
Simply estimate the actual number of liter the Caltex gas pump with the hood at your favorite Caltex
dealer will dispense from to , and win valuable prizes . . . .
In order to secure advance clearance for anticipated extensive use of mails, Caltex provided the
Postmaster General a copy of the contest rules and endeavored to justify its position that the contest
does not violate the anti-lottery provisions of the Postal Law.
SECTION 1954. Absolutely non-mailable matter. x x x.
Written or printed matter x x x concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme depending in
whole or in part upon lot or chance, or any scheme, device, or enterprise for obtaining any money or
property of any kind by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.
SECTION 1982. Fraud orders.Upon satisfactory evidence that any person or company is engaged in
conducting any lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme for the distribution of money, x x x the Director of
Posts may x x x return to the person, depositing the same in the mails, with the word fraudulent plainly
written or stamped upon the outside cover thereof, x x x.
SECTION 1983. Deprivation of use of money order system and telegraphic transfer service.The
Director of Posts may, upon evidence satisfactory to him that any person or company is engaged in
conducting any lottery, gift enterprise or scheme for the distribution of money, x x x forbid the issue or
payment by any postmaster of any postal money order or telegraphic transfer xxx.
The Postmaster General declined to grant the requested clearance, relying on Opinion 217 issued by the
Secretary of Justice. Caltex thereupon invoked judicial intervention by filing the present petition for
declaratory relief against Postmaster General Enrico Palomar, praying that judgment be rendered
declaring its Caltex Hooded Pump Contest not to be violative of the Postal Law, and ordering respondent
to allow petitioner the use of the mails to bring the contest to the attention of the public. The Postmaster
General argued that there is no question of construction because he simply applied the clear provisions
of the law to a given set of facts as embodied in the rules of the contest, hence, there is no room for
declaratory relief.

ISSUES
(1) Do we need to apply rules of construction to determine if Caltex Hooded Pump Contest promo
violates the Postal Law?
(2) What is the correct construction of the terms lottery and gift enterprise in relation to the Postal Law?
(3) Whether consideration as an element of lottery also applies to gift enterprise.

HELD
(1) YES.

Construction, verily, is the art or process of discovering and expounding the meaning and intention of the
authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful,
amongst others, by reason of the fact that the given case is not explicitly provided for in the law . This is
precisely the case here. Whether or not the scheme proposed by the appellee is within the coverage of
the prohibitive provisions of the Postal Law inescapably requires an inquiry into the intended meaning of
the words used therein. To our mind, this is as much a question of construction or interpretation as any
other.
(2) The term lottery extends to all schemes for the distribution of prizes by chance, such as policy
playing, gift exhibitions, prize concerts, raffles at fairs, etc., and various forms of gambling. The three
essential elements of a lottery are: First, consideration; second, prize; and third, chance.Nowhere in the
said rules is any requirement that any fee be paid, any merchandise be bought, any service be rendered,
or any value whatsoever be given for the privilege to participate. A prospective contestant has but to go to
a Caltex station, request for the entry form which is available on demand, and accomplish and submit the
same for the drawing of the winner. Viewed from all angles or turned inside out, the contest fails to exhibit
any discernible consideration which would brand it as a lottery. Indeed, even as we head the stern
injunction, look beyond the fair exterior, to the substance, in order to unmask the real element and
pernicious tendencies which the law is seeking to prevent, we find none. In our appraisal, the scheme
does not only appear to be, but actually is, a gratuitous distribution of property by chance.
While an all-embracing concept of the term gift enterprise is yet to be spelled out in explicit words, there
appears to be a consensus among lexicographers and standard authorities that the term is commonly
applied to a sporting artifice of under which goods are sold for their market value but by way of
inducement each purchaser is given a chance to win a prize. As thus conceived, the term clearly cannot
embrace the scheme at bar. As already noted, there is no sale of anything to which the chance offered is
attached as an inducement to the purchaser. The contest is open to all qualified contestants irrespective
of whether or not they buy the appellees (Caltex) products.
(3) YES.
[I]n the Postal Law, the term in question is used in association with the word lottery. With the meaning of
lottery settled, and consonant to the well-known principle of legal hermeneutics noscitur a sociis which
Opinion 217 aforesaid also relied upon although only insofar as the element of chance is concerned it
is only logical that the term under a construction should be accorded no other meaning than that which is
consistent with the nature of the word associated therewith. Hence, if lottery is prohibited only if it involves
a consideration, so also must the term gift enterprise be so construed. Significantly, there is not in the
law the slightest indicium of any intent to eliminate that element of consideration from the gift enterprise
therein included.
About these ads

Baranda vs. Gustilo


GR No. 81163 September 26, 1988
FACTS: A parcel of land designated as Lot No. 4517 of the Cadastral Survey of Sta. Barbara,
Iloilo covered by original certificate of title no. 6406 is the land subject of the dispute between
petitioner (Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia) and respondents(Gregorio Perez, Maria
Gotera and Susan Silao). Both parties claimed ownership and possession over the said land.
However during the trial, it was found that the transfer certificate of title held by respondents
was fraudulently acquired. So the transfer certificate of title was ordered to be put in the name of
petitioners. In compliance with the order or the RTC, the Acting Register of Deeds Avito
Saclauso annotated the order declaring TCT T-25772 null and void, cancelled the same and
issued new certificate of titles in the name of petitioners. However, by reason of a separate case
pending in the Court of Appeals, a notice of lis pendens was annotated in the new certificate
of title. This prompted the petitioners to move for the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens in
the new certificates. Judge Tito Gustilo then ordered the Acting Register of Deeds for the
cancellation of the notice of lis pendens but the Acting Register of Deeds filed a motion for
reconsideration invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529.
ISSUE: What is the nature of the duty of the Register of Deeds to annotate or annul a notice of
lis pendens in a Torrens certificate of title?
HELD: Judge Gustilo abused his discretion in sustaining the Acting Register of Deeds stand
that the notice of lis pendens cannot be cancelled on the ground of pendency of the case in the
Court of Appeals. The function of the Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of
deeds, encumbrances, instrument and the like is ministerial in nature. The acting register of
deeds did not have any legal standing to file a motionfor reconsideration of the Judges Order
directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens. Sec. 10 of PD 1529 states that: It shall be the
duty of the register of deeds to immediately register an instrument presented for registration
dealing with real or personal property which complies with all the requisites for registration.
If the instrument is not registerable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and in form the
presentor or such denial in writing, stating the ground and reasons therefore, and advising him
of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Sec 117 of this decree. On the other hand,
Sec 117 of PD 117 states that: When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the
proper step to be taken or memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other
instrument presented to him for registration or where any party in interest does not agree with
the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to any such instrument, the question
shall be submitted to the Commission of Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the
party in interest through the Register of Deeds.

Baranda vs. Gustillo


Tuesday, August 12, 2014

Facts:

A petition for reconstitution of title was filed with the CFI (now RTC) of Iloilo
involving a parcel of land known as Lot No. 4517 of the Sta. Barbara Cadastre covered
by OCT No. 6406 in the name of Romana Hitalia.

The OCT was cancelled and TCT No. 106098 was issued in the names of
petitioners Baranda and Hitalia.

The Court issued a writ of possession which Gregorio Perez, Maria P. Gotera and
Susana Silao refused to honor on the ground that they also have TCT No. 25772 over
the same Lot No. 4517.

The Court found out that TCT No. 257772 was fraudulently acquired by Perez,
Gotera and Susana.

Thereafter, the court issued a writ of demolition which was questioned by Perez
and others so a motion for reconsideration was filed.

Another case was filed by Baranda and Hitalia (GR. NO. 62042) for the execution
of judgement in the resolutions issued by the courts.

In the meantime, the CA dismissed a civil case (GR. NO. 00827) involving the
same properties. (NOTE: This time three cases na ang involve excluding the case at
bar.)

The petitioners prayed that an order be released to cancel No.T-25772. Likewise


to cancel No.T-106098 and once cancelled to issue new certificates of title to each of
Eduardo S. Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia To cancel No.T-25772. Likewise to cancel No.T106098 and once cancelled to issue new certificates of title to each of Eduardo S.
Baranda and Alfonso Hitalia.

In compliance with the order or the RTC, the Acting Register of Deeds Avito
Saclauso annotated the order declaring TCT T-25772 null and void, cancelled the same
and issued new certificate of titles in the name of petitioners.

However, by reason of a separate case pending in the Court of Appeals, a notice


of lis pendens was annotated in the new certificate of title.

This prompted the petitioners to move for the cancellation of the notice of lis
pendens in the new certificates.

Judge Tito Gustilo then ordered the Acting Register of Deeds for the cancellation
of the notice of lis pendens but the Acting Register of Deeds filed a motion for
reconsideration invoking Sec 77 of PD 1529.

Issue: What is the nature of the duty of a Register of Deeds to annotate or annul a
notice of lis pendens in a torrens certificate of title.
Held:
Section 10, Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that "It shall be the duty of the Register
of Deeds to immediately register an instrument presented for registration dealing with
real or personal property which complies with all the requisites for registration. ... If the
instrument is not registrable, he shall forthwith deny registration thereof and inform
the presentor of such denial in writing, stating the ground or reasons therefore, and

advising him of his right to appeal by consulta in accordance with Section 117 of this
Decree."
Section 117 provides that "When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the
proper step to be taken or memoranda to be made in pursuance of any deed,
mortgage or other instrument presented to him for registration or where any party in
interest does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to
any such instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commission of Land
Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru the Register of
Deeds. ... ."
The function of ROD is ministerial in nature
The function of a Register of Deeds with reference to the registration of deeds
encumbrances, instruments and the like is ministerial in nature. The respondent Acting
Register of Deeds did not have any legal standing to file a motion for reconsideration of
the respondent Judge's Order directing him to cancel the notice of lis pendens
annotated in the certificates of titles of the petitioners over the subject parcel of land.
In case of doubt as to the proper step to be taken in pursuance of any deed ... or other
instrument presented to him, he should have asked the opinion of the Commissioner
of Land Registration now, the Administrator of the National Land Title and Deeds
Registration Administration in accordance with Section 117 of Presidential Decree No.
1529.
No room for construction for the laws on functions of ROD
The elementary rule in statutory construction is that when the words and phrases of
the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning must be determined from the
language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it says. The
statute concerning the function of the Register of Deeds to register instruments in a
torrens certificate of title is clear and leaves no room for construction.

Anselma Diaz v. IAC and Felisa Pamuti Jardin


GR No. L-66574

(150 SCRA 645)


Paras, J.

June 17, 1987

Nature: Petition for Review

Doctrine: Right of Representation is admitted only within the legitimate family

Facts:

Felisa is a niece of Simona who together with Felisas mother Juliana were the
only legitimate children of spouses Felipe and Petronilla;
Juliana married Simon and out of their union were born Felisa and another
child who died during infancy;
Simona is the widow of Pascual and mother of Pablo;
Pablo was the only legitimate son of his parents Pascual and Simona;
Pascual died in 1970; Pablo in 1973 and Simona in 1976;
Pablo at the time of his death was survived by his mother Simona and six
minor natural children: four minor children with Anselma Diaz and two minor
children with Felixberta.
1976 Judge Jose Raval declared Felisa as the sole legitimate heir of Simona
Petitioners Anselma and Felixberta as guardians of their minor children file for
opposition and motion to exclude Felisa from further taking part or
intervening in the settlement of the intestate estate of Simona
1980 Judge Bleza issued an order excluding Felisa from further taking part
or intervening and declared her to be not an heir of Simona
Felisas motion for recon was denied, and she filed her appeal to the
Intermediate Appellate Court declaring her as the sole heir of Simona

Issue: Who are the legal heirs of Simona, her niece Felisa or her grandchildren (the
natural children of Pablo)? Felisa

Ruling:

The 6 minor children cannot represent their father Pablo in the succession of
the latter to the intestate estate of his legitimate mother Simona because of
the barrier provided for under Art. 992 of the Civil Code
o Art 992. An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from
the legitimate children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall
such children or relatives inherit in the same manner from the
illegitimate child.
Pablo is a legitimate child. However, his 6 minor children are illegitimate.
Art 992 provides a barrier or iron curtain in that it prohibits absolutely a
succession ab intestate between the illegitimate child and the legitimate
children and relatives of the father or mother of said legitimate child. They
may have a natural tie of blood, but this is not recognized by law for the
purposes of Art. 992.
JBL Reyes reflections on this which also finds full support from other civilists:
o In the Spanish Civil Code of 1989, the right of representation was
admitted only within the legitimate family.
o An illegitimate child cannot inherit ab intestate from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father and mother.
o The Civil Code of the Philippines adhered to this principle since it
reproduced Art 943 in its own Art 992, but with fine inconsistency in
subsequent articles (990, 995, 998) which allows the hereditary portion
of the illegitimate child to pass to his own descendants, whether
legitimate or illegitimate.

Tolentino versus Secretary of Finance


Facts:
Petitioner seeks re consideration on the on the decision of the Supreme Court
dismissing the cases for the declaration of unconstitutionality of R.A. No. 7716
otherwise known as the Expanded Value-added Tax Law. Petitioner claimed that the
law did not originate exclusively from the House of Representatives as required by Art.
VI Sec. 24 of the Constitution. Though its original version House Bill No. 11197 was filed
in the House of Representatives then sent to the Senate where only first reading was
conducted and then the senate passed another version of the bill (Senate Bill No.
1630). Tolentino contended that the Senate should have amended the House Bill No.
11197 by replacing it with the text of S. No. 1630. In this way, the bill remains a House
Bill and the Senate version becomes only the text of the House Bill.
Issues:
1. Whether the Senates action renders R.A. No. 7716 constitutionally invalid.
2. Whether the Senate committed grave abuse of its discretion by passing its own
version of the Bill.
Held:
No, R.A. No. 7716 is not unconstitutional. It is not the only instance in which the senate
proposed an amendment to a House revenue bill by enacting its own version. This has
happened twice during the eight Congress in R.A. No. 7369 and R.A. No. 7549.
Petitioners contention concerns only a matter of form and did not establish any
substantial difference on both Bills.
There was no grave abuse of discretion though Art. VI sec. 24 provides that all
appropriation and revenue bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives; it further provides that the Senate may propose or concur with
amendments. It is an accepted practice for the Senate to introduce what is known as an
amendment by substitution, which may entirely replace the bill initiated in the House of
Representatives.