Temere Animus

G.R. No. 182678|  August 3, 2010 Public Estates Authority [1],  v. ALARAS, et. al. [2] FACTS: Ruling squarely on the issue adduced before it, the Supreme Court declared that Lot 5155 was a public land so that De Leon's occupation thereof, no matter how long ago, could not confer ownership or possessory rights. Prescinding therefrom, no writ of injunction may lie to protect De Leon's nebulous right of possession. Accordingly, in its Decision dated 20 November 2000, [3] the Supreme Court disposed of the controversy. The aforesaid Decision became final and executory as no motion for reconsideration was filed.  In due course, PEA moved for the issuance of a writ of execution praying that De Leon and persons claiming rights under him be ordered to vacate and peaceably surrender possession of Lot 5155. Acting on PEA's motion, the court a quo issued the first assailed Order granting the Writ of Execution dated 15 September 2004. [4]   As could ...

SALTING vs VELEZ  G.R. No. 181930|January 10, 2011  FACTS:  Respondents John Velez and Clarissa Velez filed a complaint for ejectment against petitioner Milagros Salting involving a property covered by Transfer TCT No. 38079.  On March 28, 2006, respondents obtained a favorable decision when the MeTC ordered petitioner to vacate the subject parcel of land and to pay attorneys fees and costs of suit. The decision became final and executory, after which respondents filed a motion for execution which was opposed by petitioner.  Thereafter, petitioner instituted an action before the RTC for Annulment of Sale of the Property covered by TCT No. 38079, with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction against respondents, Hon. Ma. Paz Yson, Deputy Sheriff Ernesto G. Raymundo, Jr., Teresita Diokno-Villamena, and Heirs of Daniel B. Villamena (Heirs of Villamena).  Petitioner claimed that: she purchased the subject...

Some relevant and important facts about the TRAIN law: Title of the law: This Act shall be known as the “Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion” [1] Known as: “TRAIN LAW” Date the law was signed: 19 December 2017 Date of Effectivity: January 1, 2018   “This Act shall take effect on January 1, 2018 following its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in at least one (1) newspaper of general circulation. [2] What's new in this law? It introduces Significant and MAJOR Amendments to the NIRC of 1997 [3], are now in place, particularly: Personal Income tax rates Passive incomes Estate tax Donor’s tax VAT by expanding the tax base Removal of VAT exemptions Adjustments on Excise tax of Fuel. Automobiles, coal, Documentary Stamps tax New tax impose on sweetened beverages New tax impose on cosmetic procedure (non-essential services) Salient Features (distinguishing features): Has 87 Sections. It REPEALED Sections 35, [4] 62 [5] and 89 [6] of Tax code ...

In the case of People vs Siton, GR no. 169364, September 18, 2009 the constitutionality of Art. 202 of Revised Penal Code was challenged by in here respondents. They contention are thus: "On the other hand, respondents argue against the limited application of the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines. They insist that Article 202 (2) on its face violates the constitutionally-guaranteed rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws; that the due process vagueness standard, as distinguished from the free speech vagueness doctrine, is adequate to declare Article 202 (2) unconstitutional and void on its face; and that the presumption of constitutionality was adequately overthrown." The petitioner also contends that: etitioner argues that every statute is presumed valid and all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of its constitutionality; that, citing Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines have special application to free-...

G.R. No. 187587| June 5, 2013  697 SCRA 359 Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. vs. Military Shrine Services-Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, Department of National Defense; NMSI , Petitioner, vs. MSS - PVAO, DND,  Respondent; ---and--- G.R. No. 187654| June 5, 2013 WBLOA, INC. , represented by its Board of Directors, Petitioner, vs.    MSS - PVAO, DND , Respondent. Ponente :  SERENO, CJ.:  Doctrines :  (1) Petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction between laws of general applicability and those which are not; that publication means complete publication; and that the publication must be made forthwith in the Official Gazette. (2) The requirement of publication is indispensable to give effect to the law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided.  (3) The Supreme Court cannot rely on a handwritten note that was not part of Proclamation No. 2476 as published. Without publication, the note never had any legal...

G.R. No. L-63915| December 29, 1986 LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI),  petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President, MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, ETC., ET AL.,  respondents. Topics : Statutes, Constitutional Law, Local Governments, Publication Ponente: Cruz, J; Doctrines: (1) The clause "unless it is otherwise provided" in Art 2 of the NCC refers to the effectivity of laws and not to the requirement of publication. (2) The prior publication of laws before they become effective cannot be dispensed with. (3) For purposes of the prior publication requirement for effectivity, the term "laws" refer not only to those of general application, but also to laws of local application, private laws; administrative rules enforcing a statute; city chart...