1.
Tanada vs Tuvera the court had never acquired jurisdiction over the
FACTS:
Invoking the right of the people to be informed on
matters of public concern as well as the principle
that laws to be valid and enforceable must be
published in the Official Gazette, petitioners filed
for writ of mandamus to compel respondent
public officials to publish and/or cause to publish
various presidential decrees, letters of
instructions, general orders, proclamations,
executive orders, letters of implementations and
administrative orders.
The Solicitor General, representing the
respondents, moved for the dismissal of the case,
contending that petitioners have no legal
personality to bring the instant petition.
A motion for reconsideration of the decision
promulgated on April 24, 1985. Respondent
argued that while publication was necessary as a
rule, it was not so when it was otherwise as
when the decrees themselves declared that they
were to become effective immediately upon their
approval.
2. El Banco Espanol-Filipino vs. Palanca
FACTS:
Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng y Limquingco
mortgaged various parcels of real property in
Manila to El Banco Espanol-Filipino. Afterwards,
Engracio returned to China and there he died on
January 29, 1810 without returning again to the
Philippines. The mortgagor then instituted
foreclosure proceeding but since defendant is a
non-resident, it was necessary to give notice by
publication. The Clerk of Court was also directed
to send copy of the summons to the defendants
last known address, which is in Amoy, China.
It is not shown whether the Clerk complied with
this requirement. Nevertheless, after publication
in a newspaper of the City of Manila, the cause
proceeded and judgment by default was
rendered. The decision was likewise published
and afterwards sale by public auction was held
with the bank as the highest bidder. On August 7,
1908, this sale was confirmed by the court.
However, about seven years after the
confirmation of this sale, a motion was made by
Vicente Palanca, as administrator of the estate of
the original defendant, wherein the applicant
requested the court to set aside the order of
default and the judgment, and to vacate all the
proceedings subsequent thereto. The basis of this
application was that the order of default and the
judgment rendered thereon were void because
defendant or over the subject of the action.
3. Lorenzana vs Cayetano
FACTS;
Due Process Hearing
Lorenzana was renting a parcel of land from the
Manila Railroad Company (later from the Bureau
of Lands). She later purchased the land (San
Lazaro Estate).
She had the property be rented to tenants
occupying stalls. Due to nonpayment of rents,
she filed 12 ejectment cases against her tenant.
On the other hand, Cayetano was an occupant of
a parcel of land adjacent to that of Lorenzanas
land.
Cayetano was renting the same from the Bureau
of Lands. The lower court granted Lorenzanas
ejectment cases. Lorenzana then secured a writ
of execution to forcibly eject her tenants but she
included to eject Cayetanos property. Cayetano
was not a party to the ejectment cases so she
prayed for the lower court that her property be
not touched. The lower court denied Cayetanos
petition.
The CA, upon appeal, favored Cayetano.
Lorenzana averred that Cayetano is now a party
to the ejectment cases as she already brought
herself to the Courts jurisdiction by virtue of her
appeal.
4. Ang Tibay vs CIR
FACTS:
Petitioner, Ang Tibay has filed an opposition for
both the motion for reconsideration of CIR and
the motion for a new trial by the National Labor
Union.
The National Labor Unions case: they alleged
that Toribio Teodoro, who dominated the National
Workers Brotherhood of Ang Tibay, made a false
claim that there was a shortage a of leather soles
in ANg Tibay that made it necessary for him to
lay off workers, however, claim was unsupported
by records of the Bureau of Customs & the
accounts of native dealers of leather.
Such was just a scheme adapted to
systematically discharge all the members of the
NLU, inc., from work Unfair labor practice for
discriminating against the
National Labor Union, Inc., and unjustly favoring
the National Workers' Brotherhood. That the
exhibits hereto attached are so inaccessible to
the respondents that even with the exercise of
due diligence they could not be expected to have
obtained them and offered as evidence in the
Court of Industrial Relations.
That the attached documents and exhibits are of
such far-reaching importance and effect that their
admission would necessarily mean the
modification and reversal of the judgment
rendered herein.
5. Guzman vs. NU (G.R. No. L-68288)
FACTS;
Petitioners Diosdado Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo
and Ariel Ramacula, students of respondent
National University, have come to this Court to
seek relief from what they describe as their
school's "continued and persistent refusal to
allow them to enrol." In their petition "for
extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with
prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction"
dated August 7, 1984, they alleged that they
were denied due process due to the fact that they
were active participants in peaceful mass actions
within the premises of the University.
The respondents on the other hand claimed that
the petitioners failure to enroll for the first
semester of the school year 1984-1985 is due to
their own fault and not because of their alleged
exercise of their constitutional and human rights.
That as regards to Guzman, his academic
showing was poor due to his activities in leading
boycotts of classes. That Guzman is facing
criminal charges for malicious mischief before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in connection
with the destruction of properties of respondent
University. The petitioners have failures in their
records, and are not of good scholastic standing.
6. Building Care Corp vs. Myrna
Macaraeg
FACTS;
Petitioners are in the business of providing
security services to their clients. They hired
respondent as a security guard beginning August
25, 199, assigning her Genato Building in
Caloocan City. However, on March 9, 2008 ,
respondent was relieved of her post. She Was
reassigned to Bayview Park Hotel from March 9-
13 ,2008 , but after said period, she was allegedly
no longer given any assignment. Thus, on
September 9, 2008 respondent filed a complaint
against petitioners for illegal dismissal,
underpayment of salaries, non-payment of
separation pay and refund of cash bond.
respondent claimed that petitioners failed to give
her an assignment for more than nine months,
amounting to constructive dismissal. 0n the other
hand, petitioners alleged in their position paper
that respondent was relieved from her post as
requested by the client because of her habitual
tardiness,persistent borrowing of money from
employees and tenants of the client, and sleeping
on the job.
Respondent then FIled an administrative
complaint for illegal dismissal with the
PNPSecurity Agencies and Guard Supervision
Division on June 18, 2OO8, but she did not attend
the conference hearings for said case. Petitioners
brought to the conference hearings a new
assignment order detailing respondent at the
Ateneo de Manila University but, due to her
absence, petitioners failed to personally serve
respondent said assignment order. LA dismissed
the case for lack of merit. Respondent filed a
notice of appeal but it was dismissed for having
been filed out of time. LA however reversed the
NLRC decision and declared respondent to have
been illegally dismissed.
7. Arroyo vs. Rosal Homeowners
Association Inc.
FACTS;
Respondent Rosal Homeowners Association,
Incorporated (RHAI) is a non-stock, non-profit
organization. Its membership is composed mainly
of occupants of a parcel of land with an area of
19,897 square meters, situated in Brgy. Rosal,
Taculing, Bacolod City, and formerly owned by
Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB).
Petitioners Jasmin Alipato, Primitivo Belandres,
Nestor Leduna, Anita de los Reyes, and Gina
Caballero (petitioners) were among the actual
occupants of the subject land. They occupied the
land by mere tolerance long before the said land
was acquired by PCIB in 1989. To evade eviction
from PCIB and in order to avail of the benefits of
acquiring land under the Community Mortgage
Program (CMP) of the National Home Mortgage
Finance Corporation (NHMFC), the said occupants
formally organized themselves into an
association, the RHAI. With the aid and
representation of the Bacolod Housing Authority
(BHA), RHAI was able to obtain a loan from the
NHMFC and acquired the subject land from PCIB.
As a consequence, the Registry of Deeds of
Bacolod City issued a Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T- 202933, all the occupants of the
land became automatic members of RHAI. To fully
avail of the benefits of the CMP, the NHMFC
required the RHAI members to sign the Lease
Purchase Agreement. Petitioners, however,
refused to sign the LPA as a precondition under
the CMP. They likewise failed to attend the regular
meetings and pay their membership dues as
required by the RHAI By-Laws. As a result, RHAI
through its Board of Directors, approved a
resolution to enforce the eviction of petitioners
and recover possession of the portions of land
which they were occupying. Petitioners, however,
ignored the demand. This prompted RHAI to file
an action for recovery of possession.
Petitioners denied RHAIs claim that they were
illegal occupants of the subject land. They argued
that they could not be ejected from the said
property because they were entitled to own the
land that they had occupied for several years
prior to RHAIs acquisition of title therein.
After trial on the merits, the RTC ruled in favor of
RHAI.
Petitioners appealed to the CA, claiming that they
were denied due process by the RTC when it
rendered judgment in favor of RHAI.
CA rendered its decision affirming the RTC
decision. It ruled that petitioners were not denied
of their right to procedural due process as they
were given opportunity to present evidence, but
failed to do so. According to the CA, "where
opportunity to be heard either through oral
argument or pleadings is accorded, there can be
no denial of procedural due process."
8. Go vs Colegio de San Juan de Letran
FACTS;
In October 2001, one of the schools officials
received information that certain fraternities were
recruiting new members among Letrans high
school students. He also received a list of the
students allegedly involved. School authorities
started an investigation, including the conduct of
medical examinations on the students whose
names were on the list. The school physician,
reported that six (6) students bore injuries,
probable signs of blunt trauma of more than two
weeks, on the posterior portions of their thighs.
The Assistant Prefect for Discipline, conferred
with the students and asked for their
explanations in writing.
Four (4) students, admitted that they were
neophytes of the Tau Gamma Fraternity and were
present in a hazing rite held in Tondo, Manila.
They also identified the senior members of the
fraternity present at their hazing. These included
Kim, then a fourth year high school student.
In the meantime, the schools security officer,
prepared an incident report that the Tau Gamma
Fraternity had violated its covenant with the
school by recruiting members from its high school
department. He had spoken to one of the
fraternity neophytes and obtained a list of
eighteen (18) members of the fraternity currently
enrolled at the high school department. Kims
name was also in the list.
The long and short of it was that the parents
refused to accept the fact that their son is a
member of the fraternity, and the school
eventually suspended them from attending
classes.
On January, 2002, the petitioners filed a
complaint for damages before the RTC of
Caloocan City claiming that the respondents had
unlawfully dismissed Kim. Mr. and Mrs. Go also
sought compensation for the business
opportunity losses they suffered while personally
attending to Kims disciplinary case.
Ruling for the petitioners, the RTC ruled that Kim
was dismissed without due process, his
membership in the fraternity was not duly
proven, and the the school had no authority to
dismiss KIM from school.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the RTC and
reversed the decision, thereby prompting the
petitioners to elevate the matter to the Supreme
Court.

9. Perez vs Madrona
Facts;
Respondent-spouses Fortunito Madrona and
Yolanda B. Pante are registered owners of a
residential property located in Greenheights
subdivision, Phase II, Marikina City and coVered
By TCT 169365 of the Registry of Deeds of
Marikina.
In 1999, respondents built their house thereon
and enclosed it with a concrete fence and steel
gate. IN 1999, respondents received the following
letter dated May 25, 1999 from petitioner Jaime
S. Perez, Chief of the Marikina Demolition Office
stating that the structure that they built
encroached on the sidewalk and that is in
violation of PD 1096 of the National Building Code
and RA 917 on Illegally occupied/constructed
improvements within the road right-of-way. the
respondent-spouses are given 4 days to remove
the said structure.
As response, respondent Madrona sent petitioner
a letter stating that the May 25, 1999 letter 617
contained an accusation libelous in nature as it is
condemning him and his property without due
process 2. has no basis and authority since there
is no court order authorizing him to demolish
their structure8 3. cited legal bases which do not
expressly give petitioner authority to demolish
and 4. contained a false accusation since their
fence did not in fact extend to the sidewalk. More
than a year later or on February 28, 2001,
petitioner sent another letter with the same
contents as the May 25, 1999 letter but this time
giving respondents ten days from receipt thereof
to remove the structure allegedly protruding to
the sidewalk. This prompted respondents to file a
complaint for injunction before the Marikina City
RTC on March 12, 2001.
Respondents likewise sought the issuance of a
temporary restraining order and a writ of
preliminary injunction to enjoin petitioner and all
persons acting under him from doing any act of
demolition on their property and that after trial,
the injunction be made permanent. On March 16,
2001, the RTc issued a TRO against petitioner. On
July 24, 2004, the RTC rendered a decision in
favor of respondents. The RTC decision
permanently enjoined defendant Perez from
performing any act which would tend to destroy
or demolish the perimeter fence and steel gate of
the respondents property.
The RTC held that respondents, being lawful
owners of the subject property, are entitled to the
peaceful and open possession of every inch of
their property and petitioners threat to demolish
the concrete fence around their property is
tantamount to a violation of their rights as
property owners who are entitled to protection
under the constitution and laws.