Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Kasilag versus Rodriguez Case Digest/ Brief 69 Phil 217

Cui vs Arellano University

PROCEDURAL FACTS: This is an appeal taken by the defendant-petitioner

TITLE: Emetrio Cui v Arellano University

from the decision of the Court of Appeals which modified that rendered by the

CITATION: GR NO. L15127, May 30, 1961 | 112 Phil 135

court of First Instance of Bataan. The said court held: that the contract is
entirely null and void and without effect; that the plaintiffs-respondents, then

FACTS:

appellants, are the owners of the disputed land, with its improvements, in
common ownership with their brother Gavino Rodriguez, hence, they are

Emetrio Cui took his preparatory law course at Arellano University. He then

entitled to the possession thereof; that the defendant-petitioner should yield

enrolled in its College of Law from first year (SY1948-1949) until first

possession of the land in their favor, with all the improvements thereon and

semester of his 4th year. During these years, he was awarded scholarship

free from any lien

grants of the said university amounting to a total of P1,033.87. He then


transferred and took his last semester as a law student at Abad Santos

SUBSTANTIVE FACTS: The parties entered into a contract of loan to which

University. To secure permission to take the bar, he needed his transcript of

has an accompanying accessory contract of mortgage. The executed

records from Arellano University. The defendant refused to issue the TOR

accessory contract involved the improvements on a piece land, the land

until he had paid back the P1,033.87 scholarship grant which Emetrio

having been acquired by means of homestead. P for his part accepted the

refunded as he could not take the bar without Arellanos issuance of his TOR.

contract of mortgage.
On August 16, 1949, the Director of Private Schools issued Memorandum No.
Believing that there are no violations to the prohibitions in the alienation of

38 addressing all heads of private schools, colleges and universities. Part of

lands P, acting in good faith took possession of the land. To wit, the P has no

the memorandum states that the amount in tuition and other fees

knowledge that the enjoyment of the fruits of the land is an element of the

corresponding to these scholarships should not be subsequently charged to

credit transaction of Antichresis.

the recipient students when they decide to quit school or to transfer to another
institution. Scholarships should not be offered merely to attract and keep

ISSUE: Whether or not P is deemed to be a possessor in good faith of the

students in a school.

land, based upon Article 3 of the New Civil Code as states Ignorance of the
law excuses no one from compliance therewith, the Ps lack of knowledge of

ISSUE: Whether or not Emetrio Cui can refund the P1,033.97 payment for the

the contract of antichresis.

scholarship grant provided by Arellano University.

HELD: The accessory contract of mortgage of the improvements of on the

HELD:

land is valid. The verbal contract of antichresis agreed upon is deemed null
and void.

The memorandum of the Director of Private Schools is not a law where the
provision set therein was advisory and not mandatory in nature. Moreover,

REASONING: Sec 433 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides Every

the stipulation in question, asking previous students to pay back the

person who is unaware of any flaw in his title or in the manner of its

scholarship grant if they transfer before graduation, is contrary to public policy,

acquisition by which it is invalidated shall be deemed a possessor of good

sound policy and good morals or tends clearly to undermine the security of

faith. And in this case, the petitioner acted in good faith. Good faith maybe a

individual rights and hence, null and void.

basis of excusable ignorance of the law, the petitioner acted in good faith in
his enjoyment of the fruits of the land to which was done through his apparent

The court sentenced the defendant to pay Cui the sum of P1,033.87 with

acquisition thereof.

interest thereon at the legal rate from Sept.1, 1954, date of the institution of
this case as well as the costs and dismissing defendants counterclaim.

People of the Philippines vs Judge Donato & Rodolfo Salas

Salas aka NPAs Ka Bilog was arrested and was charged for rebellion. He
was charged together with the spouses Concepcion. Salas, together with his
co-accused later filed a petition for the WoHC. A conference was held
thereafter to hear each partys side. It was later agreed upon by both parties
that Salas will withdraw his petition for the WoHC and that he will remain in
custody for the continued investigation of the case and that he will face trial.
The SC then, basing on the stipulations of the parties, held to dismiss the
habeas corpus case filed by Salas. But later on, Salas filed to be admitted for
bail and Judge Donato approved his application for bail. Judge Donato did not
bother hearing the side of the prosecution. The prosecution argued that Salas
is estopped from filing bail because he has waived his right to bail when he

Cruz vs DENR, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000

withdrew his petition or habeas corpus as a sign of agreement that he will be


held in custody.
ISSUE: Whether or not Salas can still validly file for bail.
HELD: The SC ruled that Salas did waive his right to bail when he withdrew
his petition for the issuance of the WoHC. The contention of the defense that
Salas merely agreed to be in custody and that the same does not constitute a
waiver of his right to bail is not tenable. His waiver to such right is justified by
his act of withdrawing his petition for WoHC.

Isagani Cruz v. Dept. of Energy and Natural Resources,


G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000
FACTS: Cruz, a noted constitutionalist, assailed the validity of
the RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act on the
ground that the law amount to an unlawful deprivation of the
States ownership over lands of the public domain as well as
minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the
regalian doctrine embodied in Section 2, Article XII of the
Constitution. The IPRA law basically enumerates the rights of
the indigenous peoples over ancestral domains which may
include natural resources. Cruz et al content that, by providing
for an all-encompassing definition of ancestral domains and
ancestral lands which might even include private lands found
within said areas, Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of said law violate the
rights of private landowners.
ISSUE: Whether or not the IPRA law is unconstitutional.
HELD: The SC deliberated upon the matter. After deliberation
they voted and reached a 7-7 vote. They deliberated again and
the same result transpired. Since there was no majority vote,
Cruzs petition was dismissed and the IPRA law was sustained.
Hence, ancestral domains may include natural resources
somehow against the regalian doctrine.

YAMADA VS. MANILA RAILROAD 33 Phil 11


Torts and Damages Liability of Employers
In January 1913, Yamada et al hired a taxi owned and operated
by Bachrach Garage so that they may travel to Cavite Viejo.
The trip was safe going to said place but when they were going
back from said place the taxi was hit by a train owned by Manila
Railroad. Yamada et al sued the driver, Bachrach, and Manila
Railroad. They claimed that the driver was negligent as he did
not slow down while he was approaching the railroad tracks.
The driver said there was no way for him to see the train
coming because of the tall growing bushes and trees. Bachrach
said that it is not liable as an employer because prior
to hiring the driver, the driver has been of good record for 5
years and had had no traffic infractions prior to the collision; and
that the negligence of the driver is also imputable to Yamada et
al they being the ones in control of the vehicle; that Yamada et
al should have controlled the driver and instructed him to slow
down. Manila Railroad said that it is not liable as well because
its engineers provided proper warning signals on their approach
and that there were no tall trees or bushes at the time of the
accident.
Yamadas counsel presented the president of Bachrach who
alleged that all their drivers habitually drove their taxis over
railroad crossings without slowing down or investigating
whether a train is coming such practice being allowed and
tolerated by Bachrach.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bachrach Garage Manila railroad
should be liable.
HELD: It was established that the driver was negligent. A
prudent driver should have slowed down approaching a railroad
crossing regardless if he could see a train or not regardless of
the presence of tall bushes.

Manila Railroad and its employees are not negligent as showed


by the evidence which were uncontroverted hence no liability
can be had against them.
Bachrach Garage however is liable for damages as an
employer. Although they did establish that they have done their
diligence in properly selecting their driver and in providing said
driver with a good car, they have failed to provide proper
supervision and control over their employee. Bachrach Garage
did not perform its full duty when it furnished a safe and proper
car and a driver with a long and satisfactory record. It failed to
comply with one of the essential requirements of the law of
negligence in this jurisdiction, that of supervision and
instruction, including the promulgation of proper rules and
regulations and the formulation and publication of proper
instructions for their guidance in cases where such rules and
regulations and instructions are necessary.
Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro
Bachrachs contention that Yamada et al were also negligent

39 Phil. 660 Political Law Delegation of Powers Liberty and due

because they failed to properly instruct the driver is untenable.

process

Those on a cab do not become responsible for the negligence


of the driver if they exercise no control over him further than to
indicate the route they wish to travel or the places to which they
wish to go. Note that in order to impute negligence to a
passenger, at least one of these two things must exist:

Rubi and various other Manguianes (Mangyans) in the province of Mindoro


were ordered by the provincial governor of Mindoro to remove their residence
from their native habitat and to established themselves on a reservation in
Tigbao, still in the province of Mindoro, and to remain there, or be punished by
imprisonment if they escaped. Manguianes had been ordered to live in a
reservation made to that end and for purposes of cultivation under certain

1.

That the driver is actually the passengers agent in all

of very low culture.

respect
2.

plans. The Manguianes are a Non-Christian tribe who were considered to be

The passengers have cooperated in producing the


injury complained of.

One of the Manguianes, a certain Dabalos, escaped from the reservation but
was later caught and was placed in prison at Calapan, solely because he
escaped from the reservation. An application for habeas corpus was made on
behalf by Rubi and other Manguianes of the province, alleging that by virtue of
the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro creating the reservation, they
had been illegally deprived of their liberty. In this case, the validity of Section
2145 of the Administrative Code, which provides:
With the prior approval of the Department Head, the provincial governor of
any province in which non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, when
such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct
such inhabitants to take up their habitation on sites on unoccupied public
lands to be selected by him and approved by the provincial board.
was challenged.
ISSUE: Whether or not Section 2145 of the Administrative Code constitutes
undue delegation. Whether or not the Manguianes are being deprived of their
liberty.

HELD:

of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization. In this case, the


Manguianes were being reconcentrated in the reservation to promote peace

I. No. By a vote of five to four, the Supreme Court sustained the

and to arrest their seminomadic lifestyle. This will ultimately settle them down

constitutionality of this section of the Administrative Code. Under the doctrine

where they can adapt to the changing times.

of necessity, who else was in a better position to determine whether or not to


execute the law but the provincial governor. It is optional for the provincial

The Supreme Court held that the resolution of the provincial board of Mindoro

governor to execute the law as circumstances may arise. It is necessary to

was neither discriminatory nor class legislation, and stated among other

give discretion to the provincial governor. The Legislature may make decisions

things: . . . one cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered

of executive departments of subordinate official thereof, to whom it has

with when the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are

committed the execution of certain acts, final on questions of fact.

restrained for their own good and the general good of the Philippines. Nor can
one say that due process of law has not been followed. To go back to our

II. No. Among other things, the term non-Christian should not be given a

definition of due process of law and equal protection of the laws, there exists

literal meaning or a religious signification, but that it was intended to relate to

a law; the law seems to be reasonable; it is enforced according to the regular

degrees of civilization. The term non-Christian it was said, refers not to

methods of procedure prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.

religious belief, but in a way to geographical area, and more directly to natives