Manotok v. Barque, Part III : The August 24, 2010 En Banc Decision

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.

Part II, on the other hand, is a summary of 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.

In this entry, we will look at the summary of the Court’s August 24, 2010 en banc decision that (1) DENIED that the Manotoks’ petitions, the Manahans’ petition-in-intervention, and the Barques’ petition for reconstitution; (2) declared NULL AND VOID TCT No. RT-22481 (372302) in the name of Severino Manotok IV, et al., TCT No. 210177 in the name of Homer L. Barque, and Deed of Conveyance No. V-200022 issued to Felicitas B. Manahan; (3) ordered The Register of Deeds of Caloocan City and/or Quezon City to CANCEL the said titles; and (4) DECLARED that the subject Lot 823 of the Piedad Estate, Quezon City, legally belongs to the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, without prejudice to the institution of REVERSION proceedings by the State through the Office of the Solicitor General. We will also look at the dissenting opinions of the minority.

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.

Proclamation of Martial Law and Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus : A Political Question in the Hands of Congress Before Becoming a Justiciable Question in the Hands of the Supreme Court?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Limitation of the Tijam v. Sibonghanoy Doctrine (Jurisdiction Through Estoppel by Laches) : Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide Case Erroneously Filed With the RTC, Figueroa vs. People, G.R. No. 147406, July 14, 2008

D E C I S I O N

(3^rd Division)

NACHURA, J.:

I.      THE FACTS

On July 8, 1994, an information for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide was filed against the petitioner before the RTC of Bulacan. Trial on the merits ensued and on August 19, 1998, the trial court convicted the petitioner as charged.

In his appeal before the CA, the petitioner questioned, among others, for the first time, the trial court's jurisdiction. The appellate court, however, in the challenged decision, considered the petitioner to have actively participated in the trial and to have belatedly attacked the jurisdiction of the RTC; thus, he was already estopped by laches from asserting the trial court's lack of jurisdiction. Finding no other ground to reverse the trial court's decision, the CA affirmed the petitioner's conviction but modified the penalty imposed and the damages awarded.

Validity of the Mandatory Drug Testing Requirement Under RA 9165, The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

In Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870 (and other consolidated petitions), November 3, 2008, the petitioners sought the nullification of the drug testing requirement under Sec. 36, paragraphs (c), (d), (f) and (g) of R.A. No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

More particularly, the consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionality of the mandatory drug testing on (1) students of secondary and tertiary schools; (2) officers and employees of public and private offices; and (3) persons charged before the prosecutor’s office of a crime with an imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than 6 years and 1 day, and (4) candidates for public office.

The Abadilla 5 Case : Lumanog vs. People (and other consolidated cases), G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010

D E C I S I O N

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

I.      THE FACTS

Appellants were the accused perpetrators of the ambush-slay of former Chief of the Metropolitan Command Intelligence and Security Group of the Philippine Constabulary (now the Philippine National Police), Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla.

The principal witness for the prosecution was Freddie Alejo, a security guard employed assigned at 211 Katipunan Avenue, Blue Ridge, Quezon City, where the ambush-slay happened. As a purported eyewitness, he testified on what he saw during the fateful day, including the faces of the accused. 

Probable Cause in Anti-Film Piracy Campaign : Presentation of the Master Tape of the Alleged Copyrighted Film During the Application for Search Warrant

In 20th Century Fox Film vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 76649-51, August 19, 1988, petitioner 20^th Century Fox sought the assistance of the NBI in conducting searches and seizures in connection with the NBI’s anti-film piracy campaign. Petitioner alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro Manila are engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films.

The NBI conducted surveillance and investigation of the outlets pinpointed by the petitioner and subsequently filed three (3) applications for search warrants against the video outlets owned by the private respondents.  The lower court issued the desired search warrants. The NBI, accompanied by the petitioner's agents, raided the video outlets and seized the items described in the three warrants.

Vital Matters to Remember in the Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest

In the issuance of a warrant of arrest against a person criminally charged in court, the following vital matters need to be kept in mind, to wit:

"First . . . the determination of [the existence of] probable cause by the prosecutor is for a purpose different from that which is to be made by the judge. Whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should be held for trial is what the prosecutor passes upon. The judge, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused, i.e. whether there is a necessity for placing him under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. . .