Angelo N.

Nonato October 2, 2021

Legal Research Atty. Nesauro Firme

1. What is Holding out theory in Philippine jurisprudence?

This doctrine imposes liability, not as the result of the reality of a contractual relationship, but
rather because of the actions of a principal or an employer in somehow misleading the public
into believing that the relationship or the authority exists. (Irving v. Doctors Hospital of Lake
Worth, Inc., 415 So. 2d 55 (1982), quoting Arthur v. St. Peter's Hospital, 169 N.J. 575, 405 A 2d
443 (1979)). The concept is essentially one of estoppel.

Under the rule, the principal is bound by the acts of his agent with the apparent authority which
he knowingly permits the agent to assume, or which he holds to the agent out to the public as
possessing. The question in every case is whether the principal has by his voluntary act placed
the agent with business usages and the nature of the particular business, is justified in
presuming that such agent has authority to perform the particular act in question. (Hudson C.,
Loan Assn., Inc. v. Horowytz, 116 N.J.L. 605, 608 A 437 (Supp. Ct. 1936).

2. In what case is it cited? How was it used?

In the case of Advance Paper Corporation & George Hawvs. Arma Traders Corp., et al. (G.R.
No. 176897, December 11, 2013), penned by former Associate Justice Arturo Brion, the
Supreme Court emphatically enunciated the doctrine of apparent authority as:

“This doctrine of apparent authority provides that a corporation will be estopped from denying
the apparent authority does not apply if the principal did not commit any act or conductt’s
authority if it knowingly permits one of its officers or any other agent to act within the scope of
an apparent authority, and it holds him out to the public as possessing the power to do those
acts. The doctrine of ap which a third party knew and relied upon in good faith as a result of the
exercise of reasonable prudence. Moreover, the agent’s acts or conduct must have produced a
change of position to the third party’s detriment.”

It explains the doctrine in depth as to how it is and how it is not, and the factors that may or may
not cause for such doctrines to be applied.

3. How did you find the related case? State the steps one by one.

While looking for the definition of Holding out Theory in the Philippines I came across definitions
with cases attached to them. I searched for the cases given and cited by the definition of the
theory and used it in my answer.
 4. What is the Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction in Philippine jurisprudence?

a. In view of the principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues
until the court has done all that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. This principle also
means that once jurisdiction has attached, it cannot be ousted by subsequent happenings or
events, although of a character which would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the
first instance. The court, once jurisdiction has been acquired, retains that jurisdiction until it
finally disposes of the case (Abad vs. RTC Manila).

b. Even the finality of the judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the
case. What the court loses is the power to amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the
judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction to enforce and execute it (Echegaray
vs. Secretary of Justice), except in the case of the existence of a law that divests the court of
jurisdiction.

(https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2017/08/doctrine-of-adherence-of-jurisdiction.html)

5. In what case is it cited? How was it used?

G.R. No. L-65505 October 12, 1987

GABRIEL ABAD, PIO AGANON, MARIO ALARCIO, JOSE AQUINO, CESAR AURELIO,
SOTERO BERNARDO, AURELIO CABRAL, JESUS CARREON, ABELARDO CARILLO,
ET AL.

vs.

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH LII-HON. DAVID G. NITAFAN and THE
PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., respondents.

“Petitioners' allegations do not deserve merit. One of the important features in the Judiciary
Reorganization effected through B.P. 129 is the addition of paragraph (6), (P155,828.60).
Sec. 19, in defining the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts (which took the place of the
abolished Courts of First Instance), which reading as follows:

In all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or body
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. (emphasis supplied).

A provision not found in Sec. 44 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. It was the intention of the
legislative body to uncluttered the courts of cases which may be adjudicated, in the first
instance, by officials or bodies exercising quasi-judicial adjudicatory powers like the Labor
Arbiters or the National Labor Relations Commission a specialized body or bodies on labor
related provisions and are not restricted by the technical rules of pleading and evidence.
The Regional Trial Courts of today are actually the same courts that functioned as Courts of
First Instance before the Judiciary Reorganization Act (Batas Pambansa Bilang 129). There
might have been a change in the name and in some incidental features but essentially, they
are the same.

However, whereas before jurisdiction over money claims of laborers and employees
appertained to Courts of First Instance, the same are now to be taken cognizance of by
proper entities in the Department of Labor and Employment.

The rule of adherence of jurisdiction until a cause is finally resolved or adjudicated does not
apply when the change in jurisdiction is curative in character. Thus in the instant case, there
is nothing wrong in holding that Courts of First Instance /Regional Trial Courts no longer
have jurisdiction over aforesaid monetary claims of labor.”

It simply stated that a mere change of the court's name does not mean that it no longer has
authority over cases it handled. It solidified the idea of the jurisdiction of courts.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1987/oct1987/gr_l_65505_1987.html)

6. How did you find the related case? State the steps one by one.

While looking for the Doctrine of Continuity in the Philippine jurisdiction I came across definitions
with cases attached to them. I searched for the cases given and cited by the definition of the
theory and used it in my answer.

7. What are the surface rights in land registration cases?

Surface Rights means all rights to use, enter and occupy the surface of a Mineral Claim or
Mining Lease for the exploration and development or production of Minerals or placer minerals,
including the treatment of ore and concentrates, and all operations related to the exploration
and development or production of Minerals or placer minerals and the business of mining, and
all leases, licenses, contracts, agreements, Permits or other documents relating to such rights,
including without limitation, any and all surface rights related to infrastructure such as electric
power lines and roads, surface tenures issued by a Governmental Authority such as
investigative permits and temporary permits, and any lease to the surface of the Milligan
Property or license of occupation or other occupation right and includes any fee simple rights
over any part of the Milligan Property.

“Anent the first issue, petitioner claims that the CA erred in categorizing the reconstitution in this
case as reconstitution of ownership of the property itself (surface ownership), whenin law and in
fact, it is really a reconstitution of evidence of the grant by the state in favor of petitioner of the
right to explore and extract mineral deposits within the area described in the original certificate
of title; that the concept and nature of the right to explore and mine a piece of land (referred
to as mining patent) is separate and distinct from right and title of ownership over the
property itself and are not inconsistent to and exclusive of each other.” (UNGAY
MALOBAGO MINES, INC. vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_187892_2015.html)

8. In what case is it cited? How was it used?

UNGAY MALOBAGO MINES, INC. vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 187892,
January 14, 2015

“Anent the first issue, petitioner claims that the CA erred in categorizing the reconstitution in this
case as reconstitution of ownership of the property itself (surface ownership), whenin law and in
fact, it is really a reconstitution of evidence of the grant by the state in favor of petitioner of the
right to explore and extract mineral deposits within the area described in the original certificate
of title; that the concept and nature of the right to explore and mine a piece of land (referred
to as mining patent) is separate and distinct from right and title of ownership over the
property itself and are not inconsistent to and exclusive of each other.” (UNGAY
MALOBAGO MINES, INC. vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)

The decision of the supreme court defined the difference of mining patent to ownership of the
land (surface right). While one may mine for minerals under the PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No.
512, s.1974, it does not mean that those granted with mining permit or patent own the surface of
the land that they mine.

(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_187892_2015.html)

9. How did you find their related case? State the steps one by one.

While looking for the definition of surface rights in the Philippines I came across definitions with
cases attached to them. I searched for the cases given and cited by the definition of the theory
and used it in my answer.