This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Partnership sold Lots 5 & 6 located at Block 31 of the Highway hills Subd., Mandaluyong, Rizal to Emma Chavez. The contract contained a stipulation that the lands will be exclusively used for residential purposes. Later on, these two lots titled TCT Nos. 101509 and 10511 were sold to Feati Bank and Trust Co., and Republic Flour Mills free from the stipulation stated. When Feati Bank and Trust Co. started constructing a building devoted to banking purposes, Ortgas and Co., demanded it to stop. Feati Bank reasoned out that it was building it in accordance with zoning regulations. Ortigas filed an application for writ of preliminary injunction, restraining and enjoining the continuation and completion of the building. The RTC dismissed the case. The subject restrictions were subordinate to Municipal Resolution No. 27. Upheld the classification of the area along EDSA as commercial and industrial zone.
Ortigas and Co. appealed to the Supreme Court. Issue: Whether or not Resol. No. 27-S-1960 is a valid exercise of police power and whether the said resolution can nullify or supersede the contractual obligations assumed by Feati Bank Trust Held: Resol. No. 27-S-1960 is a valid exercise of police power to safeguard and promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people. EDSA is the main arter of traffic, noise pollution, and it is hardly conducive to the health, safety or welfare of the residents in its route. Municipality of Mandaluyong is perfectly justified under the circumstances in passing the subject resolution. Non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guarded but the rule is not absolute since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power. Contractual obligations so assumed cannot prevail over Resol. No. 27 which validly exercised its Police Power through the said resolution.
Pulido vs. Court of Appeals Facts: The President of the Philippines reserved 94 lots, 2 of which owned by the gov’t, 49 owned by Phil. Nat’l Co., corp.owned by gov’t and the rest owned by private landholders for the construction of the Export Processing Zone Authority (EPZA). Some owners abided; some refused. The private land owners appealed to the Municipal Agrarian Reform which failed to act. The 76 farmers filed complaint against Cornelio T. Rivera, OIC, Cavite Export Processing Zone and J.H. Pajara Const. Corp to the Court of Agrarian Relations which issued a TRO.Later on, the case was dismissed for the lots were no longer agricultural lots by operation of law . Farmers appealed to the Court of Appeals which issued a TRO. The same was lifted upon posting of the bond of P500,000.00. Hence, the recourse to annul and set aside the appellate court’s decision. The Court issued TRO.
the issue is moot and academic. vs Zabaro.Other farmer’s withdrew the petition. Cebu. Rather it deals with the exercise by the gov’t of its authority and right to take private property for public use. Courts determine the authority of the gov’t entity. Furthermore.It is determined only after the court is satisfied with the propriety of the expropriation.000. The subject is the government’s exercise of eminent domain. J. ISSUE: Whether or not the court was justified in lifting the TRO upon payment of 10% of the just compensation of the property of Avelino Pulido HELD: The complaint for expropriation of the property occupied by Pulido had been filed with the Court of First Instance. Issue: Which court has jurisdiction over cases for eminent domain or expropriation proceedings Held: An expropriation suit does not involve the recovery of a sum of money. condemnation proceedings are within the jurisdiction of the CFI. Brgy.the Court had already issued an order for the issuance of a writ of execution over the property occupied by Avelino Pulido. a complaint to expropriate a property of the heirs of Francisco Pastor. Cavite. Overall civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary estimation. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. San Roque Talisay Cebu filed before MTC of Talisay. It is not the title or possession of a parcel of land. a matter that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.A. As held in Rep. Heirs of Francisco Pastor Panganiban. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. Wisdom of converting their ricelands into an industrial site is within the proper exercise of Presidential prerogatives and the court may not inquire into it. The gov’t does not dispute respondents’ title or possession of the same. the necessity of public expropriation and the observance of due processs. However. Interest of family should not stand in the way of progress and benefit of the greater majority of the inhabitants of the country. 7691. the latter was also lifted after payment of 10@ of the just compensation for the land of Pulido. The court lifted TRO except to the lands of Avelino Pulido. It held that it was within the jurisdiction of the MTC pursuant to R. . The just compensation is incidental to the expropriation suit.027. Barangay San Roque Talisay Cebu vs. The amount of P17. The case was also dismissed by the RTC for lack of jurisdiction because the value of the land was less than 20. The necessity and expediency of exercising the right of eminent domains are questions essentially political and not judicial in their character.00 equivalent to 10% of the just compensation of the property had already been deposited with the Cavite Branch of the PNB. The present suit is whether the government may expropriate property under the given set of cir cumstances. Hence.
The petition was denied for lack for lack merit. Mendiola’s authority to represent the municipality. The motion was denied.Hon.Duty of fiscal to represent provinces and provincial subdivisions in litigations.of Justice to appoint an acting provincial fiscal in place of the provincial who declined to handle and prosecute its case in court (Sec. ISSUE: Whether or not the filing of the petition by the private counsel is in violation of law and jurisprudence HELD: Sec.Atty. SC affirmed the judgment with modification. Atty.It was remanded to RTC for execution. Mendiola filed motion in behalf of Pillila Rizal for the examination of PPC’s gross sales. The provision is mandatory. 1683-Revised Administrative Code. the appearance of herein private counsel is without authority of law.Indeed . PPC filed a motion questioning Atty. Facts: The RTC of Tanay Rizal. Mendiola filed petition for certiorari at the SC.1679 of Revised Ad. Mayor’s permit fee. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for having been filed by a private counsel in violation of law and jurisprudence. it is not a question of who has a better title or right. for the gov’t does not even claim that it has title to property. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed. Atty. Mendiola argued that the Mayor could not have waived the balance for there was already a lien on it for his consultancy fees.Arturo Marave et. The RTC was directed to hear nithe case. Municipality of Pililla Rizal. It merely asserts its inherent sovereign power to appropriate and control individual property for the public benefit as the public necessity. It became final and executory. Branch 80 rendered judgment in favor of Mun. . The case was referred to the CA. Court of Appeals. The motion was denied for the judgement was already satisfied.al. convenience or welfare may demand. On the Motin for Reconsideration. hence. There is nothing in the records to show that the prov’l fiscal is disqualified. storage permit fee. The petition was granted.It impliedly dismissed his lawyer.It ordered PPC to pay plaintiff tax business due. Only provincial fiscal/municipal attorney can represent a province or municipality in their lawsuits. Municipal council should request the Sec. It was deemed to be revoked when the municipal mayor entered into the Compromise Agreement and when it filed Satisfaction of Judgment and a Release of Quitclaim.of Pillila Rizal against PPC. Felix E. vs. sanitary inspection fee. Fiscal’s refusal is not legal justification from employing the services of private counsel. Legality of his representation can be questions at any stage of the proceedings. The order was set aside.Code). cost of suit. The municipality’s authority to employ a private lawyer is expressly limited only to situations where the provincial fiscal is disqualified to represent it.
The Cebu City treasurer certified availability of funds amounting to 2. The Compromise Agreement could not have ratified contract because it was a derivative of a previously void void Abattoir contract. 690 as the 3rd and final payment to contractor.Co for the construction.920.audit and settle all accounts pertaining to revenue and receipts of and expenditures or uses of funds and property. Domingo Facts: City of Cebu decided to construct a modern Abattoir.A. Ricardo Pestano issued a certification of availability of funds of P5. Eufemio C.500.00. Budget for calendar year 1986 included the 6. The COA declared that the City of Cebu entered into a null and void contract in its 2nd indorsement.419.920) was way beyond the appropriated amount (5. The Cebu City Abattoir project was awarded to H. 092. The PPC and City of Cebu entered into a Compromise Agreement with 1. The amount due to HFCCI is the sole liability of the officer or officers who entered to the said contract. 419.29 for the value of the work. HFCCI instituted a civil action for recovery of investment and damages.180) as certified by the City Treasurer. Antecedent of advance appropriation is thus essential to gov’tal liability on contracts. the Gov’t or any of its subdivisions. 142.Franco Const. Such contracts are not to be considered as final or binding unless such a certification as to funds availability is issued. Issue: Whether or not the COA has the autvhority to declare a contract already executed by a city void.964. invalid. It was referred to COA’s regional director. or pertaining to.00.000 as full and final settlement. HFCCI claimed the amount of 2. The obligation is a personal . Fund availability could is an indispensable pre-requisite to the execution of any gov’t contract involving the expenditure of public funds by all gov’t agencies at all levels. Held: COA has the power. Any contract entered into contrary to the foregoing requirements shall be void. The Auditing Code of the Phils( PD 1445) further provides that no contract involving the expenditure of public funds shall be entered into unless there is an appropriation therefor and the proper accounting official of the agency concerned shall have certified to the officer entering into the obligation that funds have been duly appropriated for the purpose and the amount necessary to cover the proposed contract for the current fiscal year is available for expenditure on account thereof. Osmena vs. City Treasurer.230 which was due and payable. Duterte entered into a contract with HFCCI with the contract cost of 8. owned or held in trust by. Hence the contract was properly declared void and unenforceable. 276. Tomas R.368. Senator John H. 368.Hon. Mayor Ronald R.180. authority and duty to examine. COA’s 3rd indorsement declared the C. COA and Hon. Osemena-OIC of Cebu ordered the suspension of the project and review of the contract by the COA. The contract entered into by the former Mayor Duterte was void from the very beginning since the agreed cost for the project (8. agencies or instrumentalities.
Judge Eva ngline S. He concluded that the challenged section gave to the secretary the power of control and not of supervision only as vested by the constitution in the Pres. Of the Phils. Agusan del Sur through its incumbent Mayor was cited for contempt and ordered to demolish the structures. LIM.X. Mayor admitted the allegations but explained that they were due to be demolished and they were not for personal purposes but for public interests. specifically Sec. Mun. Yurpio and Municipality of Burawan Romero. Pallatao declared Section 187 of the Local Gov't Code unconstitutional insofar as it empowered the Sec. J: This is a petition for review of the expropriation proceedings of the land of Moday. A TRO was issued against Judge Yurpio and the Mun. Violation is not only of Art. FRANKLIN M. Municipality of Burawan. OF JUSTICE VS. MAYOR ALFREDO S. and even constructed new blocktiendas. He declared Ordinance No. Of Justice had an appeal to him four oil companies and a tax payer. ATIENZA. HON. 4 thereof and of Sec 5 on the taxing powers of local gov't and the policy of local autonomy in general. Court of Appeals. VCIE-MAYOR JOSE L. DRILON IN HIS CAPACITY AS SEC. SANGGUNIANG PANLAAWIGAN AND THE CITY OF MANILA FACTS: The Sec. Issue: Whether or not the Mayor Moday should be cited for contempt for constructing the blocktiendas Whether or not her explanation that the buildings were for public use is tenable Held: The explanation is unacceptable. Moday sought resolution of Omnibus Motion for reinforcement of Restraining Order and Contempt. Respondent was duty bound to obey the injunction issued by the court. Percival Moday.Mayor continued to use the building on the subject land. . ANTHONY ACEVIDO. Judge Rodolfo C.of Justice to review the tax ordinances and inferentially to annul them. CITY TREAS. of Burawan thru its mayor enjoining it from using and occupying all buildings constructed within and from further constructing and building on the land. Zoturo Moday (deceased) and Leonora Moday vs.liability of petitioner pursuant to Sec 87 & 103 of PD 1445. 7784 otherwise known as the Manila Revenue Code null and void for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances and certain provisions were contrary to law. Petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The purpose for which the buildings were used is immaterial.
All he did in reviewing the said measure was determine if the petitioners were performing their functions in accordance with law. Drilon did set aside the Manila Revenue Code.ISSUE: Whether or not Sec. It was not an act of control but of mere supervision Judgement was reversed. . but he did not replace it with his own version of what the Code should be. Drilon exercised the power or control and not of supervision in declaring the Manila Revenue Code null and void for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the enactment of tax ordinances HELD: Sec.