The Propriety of Applying Rabe v. Flores (A.M. No. P-97-1247, May 14, 1997) in Convicting CJ Corona

And so the inevitable came to pass.

The Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, sitting as an impeachment court, voted 20-3 to convict Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (CJ Corona) yesterday, May 29, 2012. The senator-judges only voted once – on Article II of the Articles of Impeachment. Articles III and VII were no longer voted upon since the conviction under Article II already sufficed.

Among the justifications given by some senator-judges who voted for conviction was the per curiam ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Narita Rabe v. Delsa M. Flores, A.M. No. P-97-1247, a unanimous decision promulgated by the Narvasa Court on May 14, 1997.

Manotok v. Barque, Part II : The December 18, 2008 En Banc Resolution

Part I of this four-part series is a summary of the December 12, 2005 decision of the Supreme Court 1^st Division denying the Manotoks’ consolidated petitions and sustaining the order for the cancellation of the their title without a direct proceeding before the RTC and for the reconstitution of the Barques’ title.

In this entry, we look into the December 18, 2008 en banc resolution that reversed the decision of the 1^st Division and remanded the petitions to the CA for further proceedings.

Manotok v. Barque, the Lot No. 823, Piedad Estate Ownership Controversy Part I : The December 12, 2005 Decision

Last March 6, 2012, the Supreme Court en banc promulgated its resolution in Manotok vs. Barque, G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605, the case involving Lot No. 823 of the Piedad Estate (a former friar land) located in Quezon City.

Voting 9-6, the High Tribunal DENIED WITH FINALITY the motions for reconsideration filed by all parties in this case. It REITERATED its August 24, 2012 decision declaring that the subject lot legally belongs to the national government of the Republic of the Philippines, and denying the respective claims of the opposing parties (the Manotoks as petitioners, the Barques as respondents, and the Manahans as intervenors) over Lot No. 823.