Obra vs Brett

Answer

The issue on the case of Obra vs Court of Appeals is whether or not Art 32 of the Civil Code was violated
when a truck owned by the respondents were illegally seized. The court on their review affirmed the
resolution by the Court of Appeals that the petitioners acted illegally against the private respondents.
According to Article 32 of the Code, it shall be unlawful to deprive a person the rights to his property
without due process. Such as the case that the petitioner alleged that the private respondent did not
have the proper mining permits and a seizure of their mining trucks was subsequent towards their
apprehension prompted the claim for the violation. The court further added that the participation of
Gen. Dumpit, a public officer, as the decisive factor in the violation of the provision from the code.

Samson vs Daway

The issue seeks to answer the inquiry of petitioner Daway on the grounds that a prejudicial question
prior the pendency of the civil suit charged against him. He asserted that there must be a judicial
decision that he has violated the intellectual property of the private respondent. The court resolved this
as such, according to Article 31 of the Civil Code that independent civil action may arise if the basis for
the civil charge is not dependent on the result of a criminal charge. What is important is that a
preponderance of substantial evidence that a charge for civil liability is present.

Hambon vs CA

The issue on the case presented is whether or not a claim for damages under civil liability would prosper
from an independent civil action when there was a failure to make a reservation to file the civil charges
independently from a criminal case. The court resolved that for claims for damages from civil liabilities, a
reservation must be made separate the criminal action. Absence of such shall result the dismissal of the
claim when the criminal case was also dismissed as provided by Art 32 from the Civil Code. On this case,
Hambon failed to file the separated civil action wherein the criminal case was ultimately dismissed.

RP vs Delizo

The case seeks to resolve whether or not a prejudicial question is necessary for the judicial decision on a
criminal case that is intimately connected with a cause for civil action. Under the present case,
petitioner Republic of the Philippines asserted that there is no need for a prejudicial question since the
substantial evidence presented for the civil action is the same as that of the criminal case. Under Art 36
of the Civil code, such instances that prejudicial question is required, the antecedent judgement will be
vital to the proceedings of the criminal case.

Pahang vs Vestil
The issue of the case seeks to resolve whether or not a prejudicial question is necessary for the
antecedent ruling of the CA when the issued the writ of possession against private petitioner from the
present case. The court ruled the same with Art 36 of the Civil code that to the effect a prejudicial
question is necessary to ascertain the judgement from a civil action as the decision is vital to the
proceeding case. The court further assailed that the petition of the respondent was immaterial since the
case filed was for a land incident registration case.