STARE DECISIS:

Fermin v. People
Facts:
Gossip Tabloid: Annabelle Rama Gutierrez fugitive from justice, going to US to avoid her pending
cases in PH (di niya binalik pera ng manuf.company of cookware)
Cristy Fermin(publisher) Bogs Tugas (EIC) libel, guilty by RTC
CA: acquit Tugas = non participation
Fermin: MR denied
Fermin: No participation in publication, not libelous, freedom of press
Issues:
Guilty of libel? YES
Held:
Proof of knowledge and participation not required
As president and publisher, affirmed regardless of actual knowledge and participation
Attained finality of CA = not adopted as precedent
Courts should follow rule in SC
SD: once examined and decided, deemed settled and closed
Libel:
Evident imputation of malversation (converting money for personal use), of vices or defects for being
fugitives from the law (evading prosecution in America) and of being a wastrel
Attribution made publicly - nationwide circulation.
The victims were identified and identifiable.
The article reeks of malice cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of the complainants.
Malice in law the article was malicious false imputations
Malice in fact there was motive to talk ill against complainants during the electoral campaign as
Fermin is a close friend of Eddie's opponent in the Congressional race

Chinese YMCA v Remington Steel Corp.

Facts:
YMCA leased GF 964, 966, 2F 963
YMCA terminated 2F lease but Remington continued as passageway keeping it padlocked
MeTC: extend lease Fixing of Lease Period
MeTC: okay granted!
RTC: granted longer extention! Passageway din!
YMCA: appeal, pending CA, filed 2 more complaints to EJECT from GF (Unlawful Detainer)
MeTC: Remington, LABAS at BAYAD!
RTC: hoy MeTC reverse! Sp nareverse naman
CA: DISMISSED! Like Melo v. CA Certification of Non-Forum Shopping
SC: misplaced^he unlawfully withheld possession of premises
Issues:
CA made error in dismissal for failure to attach proof of authority of CNFS? YES!!
Held:
S1&2 Rule 42 Rules of court: Petition of Review to CA should be verified and have CNFS
YMCA rectified failure to submit when attached MR has Secs Cert. issued by Corp. Sec.
CAs reliance on Melo is misplaced because there was no rectification made there unlike this.

Pepsi Cola v. Pagdanganan

Facts:
PCPPI and PEPSICO: Number Fever 1992
Give cash to those with 349 in cap (349,abcd123,Pesos)
5/25/92: 349 winning number! But L2560FQ and L3560 WRONG
Lots of people had it but didnt have the right security codes
Issued statement 349 without right code not winning
People still demanded payment but petitioners said no (Pagdanganan: 4 7up, 2 mirinda 1M + 1 7up
with 100k)
 They got a complaint (Sum of Money and Damages) but DISMISSED by RTC
MR denied, CA: reversed ^
Issues:
Already barred by SCs rulings in 4other 349 cases? YES; Estopped from raising SD? NO
Held:
Rodrigo, Mendoza, Patan, De Mesa have same facts, Separate complaints for specific performance
Courts shouldve committed reversible error in failing to heed decisions in 4 other cases
SC: Uphold ruling that sec code is essential

Res Judicata matter adjuged; thing judicially acted upon or decided; settled by judgment (bar by prior
judgment, conclusiveness of judgment)
Elements:
Judgment at bar final
Decision rendered by court w jurisdiction
Disposition judgment on the merits
1st and 2nd action identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action
Antonio v. Sayman
Facts:
Catalino Manguiob & Andrea Pansaon owners of 15903sqm
CM dies, Andi sold Macedonio Monje 7500sqm for P30k
Heirs of CM and Andi died sold property already sold to Monje for Nicanor Manguiob and Carolina
Manguiob
NM & CM: Absolute Deed of Sale for sis in law Avelyn Antonio
Monje got letter from Avelyn about her full ownership
Monje to CFI DavaoOr: complaint for annulment of DOS + Deed of Absolute Sale for Avelyn +
cancellation of TCT No. T9643
CFI: Null and void deeds of sale
Appellants to SC: Ok! But CFI is wrong kasi masyado malaki area nilagay
Avelyn: sum of Money, acctg of Proceeds of the copra, Damages and attys fees reg. excess portion
MOD for Resjudicata
Issues: CA RJ? NO!
Held:

1st case: reg 7500sqm, 2nd: 8403sqm no identity of subject matter = no identity of cause of action
No identity of issues and cause of action to apply RJ
Tests for this:
o Absence of inconsistency test inconsistent with prior judgment?
o Same evidence test evidence support both

R.Philippines v. Yu
Facts:
SCs decision in Valdehueza v. Republic (1966) & final judgment of CA in Yu v. Republic
1st case: petitioners not entitled to recovery possession of lot 939 Cebu, MV only
2nd case: CA annulled subsequent sale of lot to respondents who were not purchasers in good faith
CA: no RJ trial court SC
Issues:
RJ? YES
Respondents entitled to reversion of property? NO
Held:

Petitioner: complaint dismissed, you have no right to assert ownership as it was invalidated in prior
case
Expropriation of Lot 939 absolute and unconditional so NO REVERSION
Conclusiveness in case
Lis Pendens

Lim v. Cruz
Facts:
VC to Lims: Quieting of title, annulment, damages to RTC
VC: I have the land since 1960 under Aldaba, Lims: we OWN the land TCT16375
Henry Lim: Land is covered by TCT
^ bad faith; Lims: Legal yan!
VC: annotation of notice of lis pendens at back of TCT
Annotation cancelled when Lims indemnity bond P2M
CA: set aside order of RTCs cancellation of notice
Issues:
CA wrong by setting aside cancellation of notice? NO!! tama lang yun
Held:

Lims: notice covers entire land covered by TCT and molests right as owner lacks merit
Notice is filed for warning all persons that property in litigation so if pucahsed, danged of adverse
judgment; to save innocent third persons
Sec 14 Rule 13 100 RCP: only property st litigation covered by Lis Pendens
200sqm only should be in lispendens
Courts can cancel notice if
o For molesting adverse party
o Unnecessary to protect interest of party
Justification that Deed of sale cannot be more weight than petitioners certificate of title = NO BASIS!!
Annotating: nothing that requires party seeking for it to show that land belongs to him
No requirement to prove right to property

Atlantic Erectors Inc. v. Herbal Cove Realty Corporation

Facts:
6/20/96: Construction contract to construct 4 units townhouses and 1 single detached unit for
P15,726,745.19 P16,726,745.19 for additional works
180 days 7/7/96 1/7/97
period not followed because of respondent
11/21/97: petitioner filed complaint for Sum of Money with Damanges to RTC Makati + Notice of Lis
Pendens
Issues:
Money claims representing costs proper lien for lis pendens on property title? NO!!
Held:

Simple collection suit for nonpayment shouldnt be lis pendens

Lis pendens only done when
o Action to recover possession
o Action for partition
o Any other court proceedings directly affecting title
LP: to establish right/enforce lien against it
Atlantic: money claims + enforcement mof lien BUT found that no lien over property
o Payment of construction lang naman + damages
o Purely personal action and simple collection case

Law of the Case determinations of questions of law will generally be held to govern a case throughout all
its subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on prior appeal to a court of last
resort

Villa v. Sandiganbayan
Facts:
 Questionable payments by Civil Aeronitics Admin for electrical items and cost of installation 299,175
pesos
Dario (admin assistant), centeno(Cashaide), Robles (janitor), represented firms.
Circuit Criminal court of Cebu: liable for RA 3019 Sec 3
Jimenez, Rodolfo Montayre, Camilo Villa, Josefina Sucalit, Leonor, Bustamante = liable for conspiring
w them
Filing w SB
Bustamante acquitted lack of evidence
1st Div SB: all guilty beyong reasonable doubt; overcharge of 27,100
SB case pending: CA REVERSED decision of CCC lack of evidence
CA decision invoked in MOR for SB decision
SB: denied MR
Issues: Doctrine of Law of the Case bars conviction ? NO
Held:

No identity of parties so doesnt apply (different accused)

SB decision not a stage of proceeding
CA decision of reversing not a determination

Padillo v. CA
Facts:
Padillo filed petition CivC9144 for declaratory relief and damages against Averia and Casilang
P: Im absolute owner of 251sqm from Marina Quicho
Theres unlawful refusal to give to me property!!
Averia: Litis pendentia and res judicata because there was decision na before CC1620
Averia: 1620G ordered MQ to transfer and register property to A, final and executor as no MR or
appeal was instituted
Padillo: MC374-82: register of deeds of lucena to register deed of sale where DV sol share
Averia: CC1690G: during pendency of MC374-82 for rescission of two deeds of sale (RTC dismissed
this because improper venue)
MC37482 rendered, Averia assailed, Trial court has no jurisdiction to order registration
SC: trial court has jurisdiction
NEW TRIAL!!! RTC: Padillo: sole and exclusive owner, ordered Register of Deeds to register deed of
sale for Padillo
CA: Sustained RTC decision! NO to your appeal Averia
CC9114: trial court issued order to defer resolution of Averias MD, case temporarily archived for CA
for 1690G
RTC: CC9114 Averia vacate and surrender possession of lot to Padillo
CA: REVERSE!!! RJ
Issues: CA made error for dismissing RJ? YES

Held:

No identity of cuase of action,

Judgment conclusive in 2nd case to matters actually directly controverted and determine
Law of case opinion delivered on a former appeal
CA overlooked significance of LOTC, diff from RJ
LOTC: no finality of doctrine of res judicata and applied ONLY to one case

Prospectivity of Laws

People of the PH v. Derilo

Facts:
Derilo etal: Murder Perpetua adalim w guns and bolos
Only Isidoro Baldimo apprehended
 Perpetua went to house of cresencio lupido for farmlands wiling to work in her fields then god killed
while waiting.
Isidoro didnt deny but just asked for life imprisonment
Issues:
Evident premeditation of crime? NO
Plea of guilty admits crime AND attendant circumstances? NO
RA 7659 applies? NO
RTC: Death penalty can? NO
Held:

No proof
2) must conduct search inquiry, full comprehension of consequences of plea, require prosecution to
present evidence, ask accused if desire to present evidence in behalf
3) Article 21 RPB no felony punishable for penalty not prescribed by law prior to commission
SC cant impose capital punishment
Constitution: Reclusion perpetua

Co v. CA
Facts:
Albino Co delivered postdated check (11/30 P361,528.00) 9/1/83
Check deposited 1/3/84: dishonored 2 days later for CLOSED account
Violation of Batas Pambansa 22 then got convicted to RTC
Co CA: reversible error for RTC to rely on Que v. People since this was 4 years before that case,
that case being 1987 pa. Bouncing check not punishable offense accdg to minister
Admin circular reversed by another 8/8/84 Ministry Circular #12 1 yr after Co delivered bounding
check
Issues: Can be applied retroactively? NO
Held:

Article 8 Civ code: Laws shall have no retroactive effect unless contrary provided
RPC Article 22: Penal laws have retroactive effect.
Que v people (check to guarantee performance) not have retrospective effect to those who relied on
opinion of minister

Landmark Case
Santos v. CA
Facts:
Leouel 1st Lieu married Julia
L&J lived w parents who interfere
Julia left for USA as nurse kahit ayaw ni hubby, but promised to return pag tapos na contract, BUT
DIDNT
L visited US tried to find her but wwala talaga
L filed to RTC complaint for Voiding of Marriage Art 36 Fam code failure to return
home/communicate for more than 5 years = psychological incapacity
Issues: Psych incapacity? NO
Held:

Psych incapacity characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability

Must be serious to point where incapable to carry out marriage duties
Art 36 of family code should be with existing precepts in law on marriage
Psych condition must be at time marriage was celebrated
Does not envision spouse to have sex with others
Psych disorder traceable in family history w daddy sugarol babaero and mommy battered. INCURABLE
since no insight and refused to acknowledge
Cant nullify!
Ochosa v. Alano
Facts:
Jose and Bona got married at 10/27/73 before honorable judge Cesar Principe in Basilan
No property, debts, or offspring
Found kawawa 1yr old baby then registered as daughter Ramona Ochosa
Jose charged w rebellion for participating in failed coupdetat then incarcerated in Camp Crame
Bona = unfaithful sex sex sex
Jose confronted her and she admitted being with Corporal Gagarin
Bona left w Ramona to Basilan
1994: Ramona left her mom to go to dad
Jose: Nullity of Marriage CC972903 RTC Makati 140 for psych incapacity
Elizabeth Rondain DR: Bona has histrionic personality disorder
OSG opposition to petition that factual settings in case cant nullify marriage
1/11/99: RTC granted petition! For GRAVITY, ANTECEDENCE, and INCURABILITY
OSG to CA: RTC is wrong kasi di niya naprove
CA: ok then reverse na! 10/11/00
Jose: MR , CA DENIED 3/10/05
Issues: Psych incap? NO
Held:

DENIED SORRY! Void kasi pinakasalan niyang meron na eh kahit after lang nalaman
Burden of proof to show dapat
Root cause should be identified medically, in complaint, proven by expert, clearly explained
Proven to be existing at time of celebration of marriage
Incapacity shown to be medically/clinically permanent or incurable\
Grave enough na di na niya kaya gawin obligations niya
Marital obligatioins Art 68-71 of Family Code
Interpretations by National Appellate Matrimonal Tribunal of Catholic Church
Must order atty or solgen to appear as counsel

Leading Case and abandonment of Doctrine

Tong v. Velez-Ting
Facts:
10/21/93: Carmen filed to RTC Cebu for annulment since Benjamin psych incapacity even at time of
marriage but manifested after lang
1/9/98: marriage null and void; Dr Onartes findings
CA: REVERSE!!! Sine no proof that Benjamin was psych incap AT TIME HE WAS MARRIED
Carmen MR: not Molina guidelines since 2/13/97 lang yun, 5 years AFTER my petition
CA denied MR
Issues: CA declaring nullity in accordance to law? NO
Held:
Evidence insufficient to prove
Null and void ab initio
Failed to prove defects were present. She just cited stuff but doesnt prove anything to be incurable
Always in favor of validity of marriage Semper preasumitur pro matrimoni

Carpio Morales v CA
Facts:
Complaint for plunder & violation of RA 3019 Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
1st Panel:
o Grave misconduct
o Serious Dishonesty
o Conduct prejudicial to best interest of service
o RA 3019 Sec 3 (corrupt practices)
 o Malversation of public funds
o Falsification of documents
2nd panel: sep.orders for each
o OMB: prev.suspension order 6 mos GUILT STRONG!
Docs negated publication of bids
Release of funds (receipts and vouchers)
o Grave M, S.Dishonesty, Conduct Prej
Warrant removal (RRACCS)
Positions allow access of records witnesses
o OMB to DILG: Immediately!!!
o Copy sent to mayor
o Binay: Certiorari to CA to nullify PS and have TRO/WPI
Before election Part1&P2
3&5 during term condonation doctrine
lack of evidence
o CA granted TRO
o OMB: huh? May PS na ah
o Binay: Contempt: YOU GUYS DISOBEY THE CA tsktsk
o Res 3/20/15 CA: GR SP 139453 & 139504, OMB go comment
o OMB: CA UNAUTHORIZED to grant TRO (no prima facie evidence; OMB act sec 14 1989)
o Illegal & improper for CAs directive
o Binay: Sec 1 VIII Const: CA CAN!! Because grave abuse. And OMB is impeachable so cant
deprive CA
o CA grants WPI no concrete evidence reg. July 3,4,24, 2013 payments
o OMB: CD irrelevant since investigation purpose only
Issues&Held:
Petition is OMBs remedy? YES
CA has jurisdiction over certiorari? YES any stage yes
CA ^ ^ TRO&WPI + OMBs ps? YES ancillary to exercise of certiorari of CA
CA gravely abused by TRO, WPI + PS = NO

Dura Lex, Sed Lex/Cruel and Unusuai punishment law may be hard to obey but remains law and must be
followed

Corpuz v. People of the Philippines

Facts:
PC Danilo Tangcoy lent money to casino players
Petitioner approached PC and offered to sell his jewelry on commission tapos ok naman sa kanya
18k diamond ring, womans braceley, 1 mens necklace, mens bracelet = 98k total
Agreement: remit proceeds and if unsold return withn 60days
Period expired without remitting proceeds/returning, PC met him then he promised to pay values
kaso WALA pa rin ESTAFA!!!!
Petitioner: plea of not guilty
RTC: petitioner guilty beyonf reasonable doubt
CA: appeal DENIED, yes to RTC
Issues: Specific type of demand needed to consummate crime of estate? NO
Held:

Estafa appropraiation of money received to prejudice owner

Misappropriation when failed to remint proceeds, no sale took place, failed to return same pieces of
jewery
No proof required to show demand
Demand = both oral or written