Algrace E Bellingan
Case Topic/Keywords
 RA 972 Bar Flunkers Act f 1953
CUNANAN, ET.AL.  From 75 to 70 % without a grade
(Separation of Powers) lower than 50
 Nullity of marriage: Psychological
incapacity, then lack of marriage
license
MALLION vs ALCANTARA  Res Judicata and Forum Shopping
(Family Law)
 Bigamy for contracting a second
marriage and allegedly a third
BOBIS vs BOBIS marriage
(Family Law)  Prejudicial question: Judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of
the first marriage
 Recovery of ill-gotten wealth
against Eduardo Cojuangco
 Coconut levy funds are special
public funds
COJUANGCO vs REPUBLIC
(Contract Law)
 Spouses Aguilar, assignee of
“Solana” on installment from the
Tower Builders and Lim Siu Leng,
assignee of “Alegria” on
SUNSET VIEW vs CAMPOS installment from View
(Commercial Law) Condominium Project by Alfonso
Uy
 Ownership of a unit is a condition
sine qua non to being a
shareholder
 Illegal dismissal and recovery of
unpaid salaries of Yu, the Assistant
GM of Jade Mountain Products
YU vs NLRC
Company Limited
(Labor Law)
 Dissolution of old partnership
which was replace by Willy Co and
Emmanuel Zapanta
JD 1 - Silliman University
SC Ruling
 RA 972 is constitutional
 Bill was a simple curative act or
corrective statute
 Petitioner is now deemed to have
waived any defects having expressly
and impliedly conceded on the
validity of their marriage
celebration
 Action for nullity om the ground of
lack of marriage license is barred
 Any decision for nullity would not
erase the fact of bigamy
 Not a prejudicial question
 PCA Conjuangco Agreement is a
valid contract, but shall be treated
as an ordinary transaction since
there is no publication
 The transfer by PCA to Conjuangco
of 14.4k shares of stock, which is
conclusively owned by the Republic
of the Philippines, is
unconstitutional, hence null and
void
 A purchaser of a unit who is not yet
the owner for not having fully paid
the purchase price, is not yet a
shareholder
 Subject matter is under the
jurisdiction of regular courts, hence,
the Judge is ordered to try the case
on merits
 Non-retention of Yu did not
constitute unlawful termination
since the cause was redundancy
 Yu is entitled to interest on the
amount of unpaid wages, his
separation pay, atty’s fees, and
moral damages
Algrace E Bellingan
ROJAS vs MAGLANA
(Other Fields: Partnership)
AMADORA vs CA
(Quasi-Delicts & Damages)
GIBBS vs REPUBLIC
(Private International Law)
MAHILUM vs ILANO
(Property Law)
GANCAYCO vs QC
(Property Law)
 Under the Articles of Co-
parternership (Eastcoast
Development Enterprises),
Maglana shall manage the business
affairs, marketing, handing of cash,
and signatory of documents, while
Rojas shall be the logging
superintendent and shall manage
the operations
 Profits and losses shall be divided
equally
 Daffon was convicted of homicide
thru reckless imprudence for killing
Alfredo Amadora, a minor(17 yrs
old)
 If there is no authority, there can
be no authority
 Issuance of new certificate of title
in favor of Allison Gibbs who has a
conjugal partnership with the
decease wife/owner Eva Gibbs
 Inheritance tax has not been paid
 Mahilum entrusted the original
owner’s duplicate copy of TC to
Perez, a real estate broker
 Spouses Ilano claimed they were
buyers in good faith and the
property covered by the title was
sold to them
 Ordinance 2904 requiring the
construction of arcades
 MMDA demolished the party wall,
referred to the “wing walls” of
Emilio Gancayco soon after the
lapse of the 15 days
JD 1 - Silliman University
 Rojas is not entitled to any profits
since he failed to comply his
obligation
 EDE continued to exist until
liquidated and sharing be on share
and share alike in accordance with
the computation of the
commissioners
 Alfredo Amadora was in the school
for a legitimate purpose and was
shot by Daffon
 None of the respondents is liable for
the injury inflicted since the
principal, the dean of boys are not
the teacher in charge and
respondents have exercise due
diligence through enforcement of
school regulations
 Reversed trial court decision that
the Allison Gibbs is the absolute
owner from the moment of the
death of his wife because her wife
had more than an inchoate interest
which is extinguished upon her
death
 Personal property is subject to the
laws of the nation of the owner, but
real property is subject to the laws
of the country in which it is situated
 The existence of bad faith is evident
in the forged documents and the
fact that the sale was not
registered, moreover, deed of
absolute sale is undated and
unnotarized
 Torrens system was intended to
guarantee the integrity and
conclusiveness of the certificate of
registration
 The power to enforce the provisions
of the Building Code was lodged in
the DPWH and there was no valid
delegation of powers to the MMDA
 MMDA does not have the power to
enact ordinances, the power to
declare a thing a nuisance since its
Algrace E Bellingan
 Complaint for Abatement of
Nuisance with Damages against
Sps. Rana
RANA vs WONG  Spouses Rana elevated and
(Property Law) cemented a portion of the subject
road that runs between Rana and
Wong-Ong properties
 Teresa Aquino allowed her sister
Josefina to occupy their property in
Guadalupe while she was residing
in the US
AQUINO vs AGUILAR
 Aquino sent a letter informing
(Property Law)
respondents to vacate the
property within 10 days since an
immediate family member will use
the premises
 Respondents filed an action to
recover the ownership and
possession of the subject property
 Rabadon has an LRA certification
and a daybook entry, while Delfin
DELFIN vs RABADON
inherited the property by virtue of
(Property Law)
an extra-judicial settlement and
has been paying the taxes
JD 1 - Silliman University
functions is administrative in nature
 Parties all acted in bad faith, hence,
the awards of damages in favor of
each party are offset against each
other
 Rana is ordered to build a retaining
wall once Spouses Uy returns the 2
square meter encroached portion
 Remanded to the court of origin for
the determination of the necessary
expenses of preservation of the land
 Respondents are not builders of
good faith, hence, they are ordered
to vacate immediately and pay the
rental of 7k
 A decree of registration bars all
claims and rights which arose or
may have existed prior to the
decree of registration
 The probative value of petitioner’s
evidence which consist of tax
declarations and tax receipts, pales
in comparison to that of
respondents evidence consisting of
a decree of ownership, LRA
certification and daybook entry
Algrace E Bellingan JD 1 - Silliman University

CUNANAN, ET.AL. (Separation of Powers)

Facts:

"Bar Flunkers' Act of 1953.” In order that a candidate (for admission to the Bar) may be deemed to have passed his
examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below
50 per cent in any subject, although for the past few exams the passing grades were changed depending on the
strictness of the correcting of the bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70% 1949-74%, 1950-1953 – 75%).
The Congress passed a law to reduce the passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per cent effective since 1946.
The reason for relaxing the standard 75 per cent passing grade is the tremendous handicap which students during the
years immediately after the Japanese occupation has to overcome such as the insufficiency of reading materials and the
inadequacy of the preparation of students who took up law soon after the liberation.

Issue:

Whether the law is unconstitutional.

Ruling:

1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the said law are
unconstitutional and therefore void and w/o force and effect.

2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations subsequent to the approval of the law (1953- 1955) is valid and shall
continue in force. (those petitions by the candidates who failed the bar from 1946 to 1952 are denied, and all the
candidates who in the examination of 1953 obtained a GEN Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a grade of below 50% in any
subject are considered as having passed whether they have filed petitions for admissions or not.)

Notes:

There are the unsuccessful candidates totaling 604 directly affected by this resolution. Adding 490 candidates who have
not presented any petition, they reach a total of 1,094.

Public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency

The admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their
supervision have been disputably a judicial function. The function requires:

(1) previously established rules and principles,

(2) concrete facts, whether past or present, affecting determinate individuals. and

(3) decision as to whether these facts are governed by the rules and principles; in effect, a judicial function of the highest
degree.

The ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by
Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for
the license.

The right to practice law is a privilege, and a license for that purpose makes the holder an officer of the court, and
confers upon him the right to appear for litigants, to argue causes, and to collect fees therefor, and creates certain
exemptions, such as from jury services and arrest on civil process while attending court.
Algrace E Bellingan JD 1 - Silliman University

MALLION vs ALCANTARA (Family Law)

Facts:

petitioner Oscar P. Mallion filed a petition seeking a declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent Editha Alcantara
citing respondent’s alleged psychological incapacity. After the decision attained finality, petitioner filed on another
petition for declaration of nullity of marriage this time alleging that his marriage with respondent was null and void due
to the fact that it was celebrated without a valid marriage license. Respondent filed an answer with a motion to dismiss,
praying for the dismissal of the petition on the ground of res judicata and forum shopping.

Issue:

Is the action of the husband tenable?

Ruling:

NO. Section 47(b) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court pertains as bar by prior judgment or estoppels by verdict, which is the
effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of the second action upon the same claim, demand or cause of action.
In Section 47(c)of the same rule, it pertains to res judicata in its concept as conclusiveness of judgment which ordains
that issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same
parties involving a different cause of action.

Having expressly and impliedly conceded the validity of their marriage celebration, petitioner is now deemed to have
waived any defects therein. For this reason, the Court finds that the present action for declaration of nullity of marriage
on the ground of lack of marriage license is barred by the decision.

Notes:

Res judicata is defined as "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by
judgment. It also refers to the rule that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on points and matters determined in the former
suit."

This doctrine is a rule which pervades every well-regulated system of jurisprudence and is founded upon the following
precepts of common law, namely:

(1) public policy and necessity, which makes it to the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation, and
(2) the hardship on the individual that he should be vexed twice for the same cause.

Res judicata in this sense requires the concurrence of the following requisites:

(1) the former judgment is final;

(2) it is rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;

(3) it is a judgment or an order on the merits; and

(4) there is -- between the first and the second actions -- identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.

A plaintiff is mandated to place in issue in his pleading, all the issues existing when the suit began. A lawsuit cannot be
tried piecemeal. The plaintiff is bound to set forth in his first action every ground for relief which he claims to exist and
upon which he relied, and cannot be permitted to rely upon them by piecemeal in successive action to recover for the
same wrong or injury.
Algrace E Bellingan JD 1 - Silliman University

BOBIS vs BOBIS (Family Law)

Facts:

Respondent contracted a first marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier and without said marriage having been annulled,
nullified or terminated, the same respondent contracted a second marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis. Then
allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia Sally Hernandez. Sometime thereafter, respondent initiated a civil action
for the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his first marriage on the ground that it was celebrated without a
marriage license. Respondent then filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy invoking
the pending civil case for nullity of the first marriage as a prejudicial question to the criminal case.

Issue:

Whether the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage constitutes a prejudicial
question to a criminal case for bigamy.

Ruling:

NO. The respondent cannot invoke his ignorance of the requirement for the judicial declaration of nullity of marriage
before contracting a new marriage. Respondent's clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first
marriage and thereafter to invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy.

Any decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the fact that respondent entered into a second marriage
during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a decision in the civil case is not essential to the determination of the
criminal charge. It is, therefore, not a prejudicial question.

Notes:

A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
therein. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Its two essential elements are:

(a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and

(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

A prejudicial question does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the accused but simply tests the sufficiency
of the allegations in the information in order to sustain the further prosecution of the criminal case.

The burden of proof to show the dissolution of the first marriage before the second marriage was contracted rests upon
the defense.