POLITICAL LAW

PETRON LPG DEALERS ASSOCIATION and TOTAL GAZ LPG DEALERS

ASSOCIATION v. NENA C. ANG, ALISON C. SY, NELSON C. ANG, RENATO
C. ANG, and/or OCCUPANTS OF NATIONAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION,
G.R. No. 199371, February 3, 2016, SECOND DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts discovered during surveillance operations conducted by the authorities on the basis
of information and evidence provided by the complainants constitutes personal knowledge
which could form the basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF MAXIMO PUYAT,

G.R. No. 175055, June 27, 2012, FIRST DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO, J.:

When the government takes property pursuant to PD 27, butdoes notpay the landowner his just
compensation until after RA 6657 has taken effect in 1988, it becomes more equitable to determine
the just compensation using RA 6657.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENRIQUE LIVIOCO,

G.R. No. 170685, September 22, 2010, FIRST DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO, J.:

When the evidence received by the trial court are irrelevant to the issue of just compensation and
in total disregard of the requirements provided under Section 17 of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law, the Court is left with no evidence on record that could aid in the proper resolution of
the case. While remand is frowned upon for obviating the speedy dispensation of justice, it becomes
necessary to ensure compliance with the law and to give everyone the landowner, the farmers, and
the State their due.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, represented by HON. NASSER C.

PANGANDAMAN v. SUSIE IRENE GALLE,
G.R. No. 171836, August 11, 2014, SECOND DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The determination of just compensation is basically a judicial function. Also, it is settled that
in the computation of just compensation for land taken for agrarian reform, both Section 17
of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1988/CARL) and the formula prescribed in the applicable Administrative Order of the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) should be considered.

CITY OF ILOILO represented by HON. JERRY P. TREÑAS, City Mayorvs.HON.

LOLITA CONTRERAS-BESANA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch
32, and ELPIDIO JAVELLANA,
G.R. No. 168967, February 12, 2010, SECOND DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO, J.:

It is arbitrary and capricious for the government to initiate expropriation proceedings, seize a
person’s property, allow the order of expropriation to become final, but then fail to justly
compensate the owner for over 25 years. This is government at its most high-handed and
irresponsible, and should be condemned in the strongest possible terms. For its failure to
properly compensate the landowner, the City of Iloilo is liable for damages.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JONALYN ABENES y PASCUA

G.R. No. 210878, July 7, 2016, R E S O L U T I O N, SECOND DIVISION, DEL
CASTILLO, J.:

It is settled that an accused may still be found guilty, despite the failure to faithfully observe
the requirements provided under Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, for as long
as the chain of custody remains unbroken.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NIEVES CONSTANCIO y BACUNGAY,

ERNESTO BERRY y BACUNGAY,
G.R. No. 206226, April 4, 2016, SECOND DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO, J.:

The general rule is that an extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant and is
inadmissible in evidence against his co-accused since it is considered hearsay against them.
However, as an exception to this rule, the Court held that an extrajudicial confession is
admissible against a co- accused when it is used as circumstantial evidence to show the
probability of participation of said co- accused in the crime.
EDGARDO NAVIA, RUBEN DIO and ANDREW BUISING v. VIRGINIA
PARDICO, for and in behalf and in representation of BENHUR PARDICO, G.R. No.
184467, June 19, 2012, EN BANC, DEL CASTILLO, J.:

The petitioner in an amparo case has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the
indispensable element of government participation. This hallmark of State participation
differentiates an enforced disappearance case from an ordinary case of a missing person.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

DANILO A. DU vs.VENANCIO R. JAYOMA, then Municipal Mayor of Mabini,

Bohol, VICENTE GULLE, JR., JOVENIANO MIANO, WILFREDO MENDEZ,
AGAPITO VALLESPIN, RENE BUCIO, JESUS TUTOR, CRESCENCIO
BERNALES, EDGARDO YBANEZ, and REY
PAGALAN, then members of the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Mabini, Bohol,
G.R. No. 175042, April 23, 2012, FIRST DIVISION, DEL CASTILLO, J.:

In the absence of a legal right in favor of the plaintiff, there can be no cause of action. Injury
alone does not give petitioner the right to recover damages; he must also have a right of action
for the legal wrong inflicted by the respondents. In order that the law will give redress for an
act causing damage, there must be damnum et injuria – that act must be not only hurtful, but
wrongful.