Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Death by Digests - Santiago vs. Republic (Consti1) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jericho Uy
    32 views2 pages
    1) Petitioner Ildefonso Santiago donated land to the Bureau of Plant Industry on the condition that the Bureau construct a building and lighting facilities, but failed to do so. 2) Santiago filed a case to revoke the donation contract, but the trial court dismissed it, claiming it was a suit against the government without consent. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the government impliedly waived immunity by accepting the donation terms but not complying, so Santiago had the right to be heard in court.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Death by digests_ Santiago vs. Republic (Consti1).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Petitioner Ildefonso Santiago donated land to the Bureau of Plant Industry on the condition that the Bureau construct a building and lighting facilities, but failed to do so. 2) Santiago filed a case to revoke the donation contract, but the trial court dismissed it, claiming it was a suit against the government without consent. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the government impliedly waived immunity by accepting the donation terms but not complying, so Santiago had the right to be heard in court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    32 views2 pages

    Death by Digests - Santiago vs. Republic (Consti1) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Jericho Uy
    1) Petitioner Ildefonso Santiago donated land to the Bureau of Plant Industry on the condition that the Bureau construct a building and lighting facilities, but failed to do so. 2) Santiago filed a case to revoke the donation contract, but the trial court dismissed it, claiming it was a suit against the government without consent. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the government impliedly waived immunity by accepting the donation terms but not complying, so Santiago had the right to be heard in court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    10/16/2020 Death by digests: Santiago vs.

    Republic (Consti1)

    Higit Pa

    Death by digests
    Saturday, June 23, 2012 Blog Archive
    ▼ 2012 (34)
    Santiago vs. Republic (Consti1) ▼ June (34)
    Shauf v. CA (consti1)
    Ildefonso Santiago, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, Alfredo T. Santiago, petitioner, vs. The
    Government of the Republic of the Philippines, represented by Director, Bureau of Plant Co v. HRET (Re: Citizenship issue only)
    [consti1]
    Industry, and the Regional Director, Region IX, Zamboanga City, repondent.
    Roa v. Collector of Customs (Consti1)
    December 19, 1978
    Amigable v. Cuenca (Consti1)

    Fernando, J: US v. Ruiz (Consti1)

    Malong v. PNR (Consti1)


    Facts:
    People v. Echegaray (CRIM1)
    Petitioner Ildefonso Santiago donated a parcel of land to the Bureau of Plant Magno vs. CA (Crim1)
    Industry on the terms that the Bureau should construct a building and install lighting
    People vs. Oanis (Crim1)
    facilities on the said lot.
    People v. De La Cruz (Crim1)
    When time passed and there were still no improvements on the lot, Santiago filed a
    People of the Philippines v. Carlos
    case pleading for the revocation of such contract of donation but the trial court (CRIM1)
    dismissed the petition claiming that it is a suit against the government and should
    Adiong v. COMELEC (CRIM1)
    not prosper without the consent of the government.
    US vs. Guinto (Consti1)

    Republic vs. Villasor (Consti1)


    Issue:
    EPG Construction Co. vs. Vigilar
    Whether or not the respondent government has waived its immunity from suit. (Consti1)
    Held:
    Republic vs. Feliciano (Consti1)
    Yes.
    De Los Santos vs. IAC (Consti1)
    Ratio:
    Lansang vs. Court of Appeals (Consti1)

    Harden vs. Director of Prisons (Crim1)


    The government's waiver of immunity was implied by virtue of the terms provided in
    the deed of donation. The government is a beneficiary of the terms of the donation People vs. Ferrer (Crim1)

    but it did not comply with such terms. Thus, the donor Santiago has the right to be US vs. Diaz-Conde (Crim1)
    heard in the court. Also, to not allow the donor to be heard would be unethical and People vs. Formigones (Crim1)
    contrary to equity which the government so advances. The Court of First Instance
    Gascon vs. Arroyo (Consti1)
    is hereby directed to proceed with the case.
    Santiago vs. Republic (Consti1)

    Commissioner of Public Highways vs.


    Posted by Unknown at 8:32 PM Burgos (Consti1)

    Republic vs. Nolasco (Consti1)

    No comments: Republic vs. Judge, Branch XV (Consti1)

    Republic vs. Sandoval (Consti1)

    Padilla vs. Dizon (Crim1)


    Post a Comment US vs. Ah Chong (Crim1)

    People vs. Puno (Crim1)


    Enter your comment... People vs. Talingdan (Crim1)

    People v. Rosenthal & Osmena (Crim1)

    People vs. Silvestre and Atienza (Crim1)

    Comment as: mariaisabella.m Sign out

    About Me
    Publish Preview Notify me
    Unknown

    View my complete
    profile

    Newer Post Home Older Post

    diegestd16.blogspot.com/2012/06/santiago-vs-republic-consti1.html 1/2
    10/16/2020 Death by digests: Santiago vs. Republic (Consti1)
    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

    Watermark theme. Powered by Blogger.

    diegestd16.blogspot.com/2012/06/santiago-vs-republic-consti1.html 2/2

    You might also like