Juristz

Asiga Mining Corporation Vs. Manila Mining Corporation and Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation G.R. No. 199081. January 24, 2018 1.      On March 31, 1997, Asiga applied with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) to convert its mining claims into a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) as required by the Mining Act of 1995 and its implementing rules and regulations. It was during this application process when Asiga discovered that its mining claims overlapped with that of respondent Manila Mining Corporation (respondent MMC), by about 1,661 hectares, and of respondent Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation (respondent BMEC) by 214 hectares. After satisfying the initial mandatory requirements, respondents MMC and BMEC published and posted their respective Notices of Application for MPSA in a newspaper of general circulation for two (2) consecutive weeks, and posted the same in the bulletin boards of concerned government agencies. More than 3...

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018 On 5 May 2009. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals. SCAA Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. SCAA Buco then looked at the male passengers lined outside and noticed that a man in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner) kept peeping through the window towards the direction of the b...

Ben Line Agencies Philippines, Inc. Vs. Charles M.C. Madson and Alfredo P. Amorado G.R. No. 195887. January 10, 2018 Ben Line initially failed to submit clear and legible copies of the resolutions of the OCP when it filed its petition for review before the DOJ. In its motion, Ben Line had already attached clear and legible copies of the resolutions appealed from. Under Section 6 of the 2000 NPS rules, failure to comply with the requirements of Section 5 constitutes sufficient ground to dismiss the petition. Is it proper to dismiss the case outright on the ground of procedural lapses only? No. In Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora (Air Philippines), the Court elucidated that mere failure to attach legible copies does not ipso facto warrant the dismissal of a complaint or a petition. A petition dismissed earlier, due to lack of an essential pleading or part of the case record, may still be given due course or reinstated upon showing that petitioner had later submitt...

United Coconut Planters Bank Vs. Spouses Walter Uy and Lily Uy G.R. No. 204039. January 10, 2018 1.     In appeal, what is the power of the the appellate court? It must be remembered that when a case is appealed, the appellate court has the power to review the case in its entirety. In Heirs of Alcaraz v. Republic of the Phils., the Court explained that an appellate court is empowered to make its own judgment as it deems to be a just determination of the case, to wit: In any event, when petitioners interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appealed case was thereby thrown wide open for review by that court, which is thus necessarily empowered to come out with a judgment as it thinks would be a just determination of the controversy. Given this power, the appellate court has the authority to either affirm, reverse or modify the appealed decision of the trial court. To withhold from the appellate court its power to render an entirely new decision would ...

Floro Mercene Vs. Government Service Insurance System G.R. No. 192971. January 10, 2018 1.     Mercene insists that GSIS had judicially admitted that its right to foreclose the mortgage had prescribed. He assails that GSIS failed to specifically deny the allegations in his complaint, Rule on the contention. The contention is bereft of merit. Conclusions of fact and law stated in the complaint are not deemed admitted by the failure to make a specific denial. The allegation of prescription in Mercene's complaint is a mere conclusion of law. 2.     What is conclusion of law? Conclusion of law is a legal inference on a question of law made as a result of a factual showing where no further evidence is required. 3.     What are the elements of cause of action? In order for cause of action to arise, the following elements must be present: (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under what...

Maria Concepcion N. Singson a.k.a. Concepcion N. Singson Vs. Benjamin L. Singson G.R. No. 210766. January 8, 2018 1.     What is the policy of the Constitution on Marriage? The policy of the Constitution is to protect and strengthen the family as the basic social institution, and marriage as the foundation of the family. Because of this, the Constitution decrees marriage as legally inviolable and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. 2.     Define Marriage under the Family Code. Article 1 of the Family Code describes marriage as "a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life" and as "the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution." 3.     How should the court rule on the validity of marriage? It is axiomatic that the validity of marriage and the unity of the family a...