Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Facts:
Felix Ting Ho, Jr., Merla Ting Ho Braden, Juana Ting Ho and Lydia Ting Ho
Belenzo against their brother, respondent Vicente Teng Gui. The controversy
FC 91
revolves around a parcel of land, and the improvements which should form part of
CASE: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: This petition for review on certiorari assails the
the estate of their deceased father, Felix Ting Ho, and should be partitioned
February 26, 2001 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 59321
equally among each of the siblings. Petitioners alleged that their father Felix Ting
Ho died intestate on June 26, 1970, and left upon his death an estate. According
to petitioners, the said lot and properties were titled and tax declared under trust
in the name of respondent Vicente Teng Gui for the benefit of the deceased Felix
Ting Ho who, being a Chinese citizen, was then disqualified to own public lands
affirming with modification the August 12, 1996 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 86 in Civil Case No. Q-94-21862, which terminated
the regime of absolute community of property between petitioner and respondent,
as well as the Resolution dated August 13, 2001 denying the motion for
reconsideration.
in thePhilippines; and that upon the death of Felix Ting Ho, the respondent took
possession of the same for his own exclusive use and benefit to their exclusion
FACTS: Petitioner Elena Buenaventura Muller and respondent Helmut Muller
and prejudice.
were married in Hamburg, Germany on September 22, 1989. The couple resided
in Germany at a house owned by respondents parents but decided to move and
Issue:
Whether or not the sale was void
Ruling:
No, the sale was not void. Article 1471 of the Civil Code has provided that if the
price is simulated, the sale is void, but the act may be shown to have been in
reality a donatin, or some other act or contract. The sale in this case, was
however valid because the sale was in fact a donation. The law requires positive
proof of the simulation of the price of the sale. But since the finding was based on
a mere assumption, the price has not been proven to be a simulation.
MULLER v. MULLER
Supreme Court : First Division
The Decision dated February 26, 2001 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
and respondent. It also decreed the separation of properties between them and
ordered the equal partition of personal properties located within the country,
Helmut Muller the amount of P528,000 for the acquisition of the land and the
excluding those acquired by gratuitous title during the marriage. With regard to
amount of P2,300,000 for the construction of the house in Antipolo City, and the
the Antipolo property, the court held that it was acquired using paraphernal
funds of the respondent. However, it ruled that respondent cannot recover his
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The August 12, 1996 Decision of the Regional Trial
funds because the property was purchased in violation of Section 7, Article XII of
Court of Quezon City, Branch 86 in Civil Case No. Q-94-21862 terminating the
the Constitution.
by gratuitous title by either spouse during the marriage shall be excluded from
the community property. The real property, therefore, inherited by petitioner in
Germany is excluded from the absolute community of property of the herein
spouses. Necessarily, the proceeds of the sale of said real property as well as the
personal properties purchased thereby, belong exclusively to the petitioner.
However, the part of that inheritance used by the petitioner for acquiring the
house and lot in this country cannot be recovered by the petitioner, its acquisition
being a violation of Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution which provides that
"save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or
conveyed except to individuals, corporations or associations qualified to acquire or
hold lands of the public domain." The law will leave the parties in the situation
where they are in without prejudice to a voluntary partition by the parties of the
agricultural land, shall not be alienated," and with respect to public agricultural
decision modifying the trial courts Decision. It held that respondent merely
prayed for reimbursement for the purchase of the Antipolo property, and not
easily be defeated by the Filipino citizens themselves who may alienate their
ownership over the property in trust for the respondent. As regards the house,
agricultural lands in favor of aliens. It is partly to prevent this result that section
the Court of Appeals ruled that there is nothing in the Constitution which
who comes into equity must come with clean hands. Thus, in the instant case,
This constitutional provision closes the only remaining avenue through which
agricultural resources may leak into aliens hands. It would certainly be futile to
prohibit the alienation of public agricultural lands to aliens if, after all, they may
be freely so alienated upon their becoming private agricultural lands in the hands
of Filipino citizens.
themselves but entire subdivisions, and whole towns and cities," and that "they
may validly buy and hold in their names lands of any area for building homes,
FACTS:
Generals Brief, p. 6.) That this is obnoxious to the conservative spirit of the
Constitution is beyond question.
(PTC) dated July 30, 2010.PTC is a mere ad hoc body formed under the Office of
the President with the primary task to investigate reports of graft and corruption
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that an implied trust was created
and resulted by operation of law in view of petitioners marriage to respondent.
Save for the exception provided in cases of hereditary succession, respondents
disqualification from owning lands in the Philippines is absolute. Not even an
ownership in trust is allowed. Besides, where the purchase is made in violation of
an existing statute and in evasion of its express provision, no trust can result in
favor of the party who is guilty of the fraud. To hold otherwise would allow
circumvention of the constitutional prohibition.
Invoking the principle that a court is not only a court of law but also a
court of equity, is likewise misplaced. It has been held that equity as a rule will
follow the law and will not permit that to be done indirectly which, because of
public policy, cannot be done directly. He who seeks equity must do equity, and he
event, the Constitution, Revised Administrative Code of 1987, PD No. 141616 (as
enjoin the PTC from performing its functions. They argued that:
amended), R.A. No. 9970 and settled jurisprudence, authorize the President to
(a) E.O. No. 1 violates separation of powers as it arrogates the power of the
Congress to create a public office and appropriate funds for its operation. (b) The
2] E.O. No. 1 does not usurp the power of Congress to appropriate funds because
provision of Book III, Chapter 10, Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987
cannot legitimize E.O. No. 1 because the delegated authority of the President to
Congress.
3] The Truth Commission does not duplicate or supersede the functions of the
and efficiency does not include the power to create an entirely new public office
Ombudsman and the DOJ, because it is a fact-finding body and not a quasi-
which was hitherto inexistent like the Truth Commission.(c) E.O. No. 1 illegally
judicial body and its functions do not duplicate, supplant or erode the latters
amended the Constitution and statutes when it vested the Truth Commission
jurisdiction.
4] The Truth Commission does not violate the equal protection clause because it
the Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution and the DOJ created
ISSUES:
(d) E.O. No. 1 violates the equal protection clause as it selectively targets for
1. WON the petitioners have legal standing to file the petitions and question E. O.
No. 1;
powers of Congress to create and to appropriate funds for public offices, agencies
and commissions;
argued that:
3. WON E. O. No. 1 supplants the powers of the Ombudsman and the DOJ;
1] E.O. No. 1 does not arrogate the powers of Congress because the Presidents
executive power and power of control necessarily include the inherent power to
RULING:
conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully executed and that, in any
The power of judicial review is subject to limitations, to wit: (1) there must be an
actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the person
benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails
challenging the act must have the standing to question the validity of the subject
of the suit.
Difficulty of determining locus standi arises in public suits. Here, the plaintiff
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a
who asserts a public right in assailing an allegedly illegal official action, does so
the earliest opportunity; and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis
seek judicial protection. He has to make out a sufficient interest in the vindication
The person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and
body to which they belong as members. To the extent the powers of Congress are
substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain direct
impaired, so is the power of each member thereof, since his office confers a right
injury as a result. The Court, however, finds reason in Biraogos assertion that
Legislators have a legal standing to see to it that the prerogative, powers and
jurisdiction by the Court. There are constitutional issues in the petition which
privileges vested by the Constitution in their office remain inviolate. Thus, they
deserve the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, novelty and
are allowed to question the validity of any official action which, to their mind,
weight as precedents
The Executive is given much leeway in ensuring that our laws are faithfully
executed. The powers of the President are not limited to those specific powers
under the Constitution. One of the recognized powers of the President granted
E. O. No. 1.
committees. This flows from the obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if
laws have been faithfully executed. The purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating
provides that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry into matters which the President is entitled
to know so that he can be properly advised and guided in the performance of his
duties relative to the execution and enforcement of the laws of the land.
manner. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person
funds the Congress has provided for the Office of the President will be the very
source of the funds for the commission. The amount that would be allocated to
however, to be valid must pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four
the PTC shall be subject to existing auditing rules and regulations so there is no
to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It
3. PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode their respective
The classification will be regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are
those of the two offices. The function of determining probable cause for the filing
of the appropriate complaints before the courts remains to be with the DOJ and
Executive Order No. 1 should be struck down as violative of the equal protection
clause. The clear mandate of truth commission is to investigate and find out the
can advise and guide the President in the performance of his duties relative to the
truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous
administration only. The intent to single out the previous administration is plain,
Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past
Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be
before the Commission" and ordering Simon, et. al. to appear before the CHR. On
the basis of the sworn statements submitted by Fermo, et. al. on 31 July 1990, as
well as CHR's own ocular inspection, and convinced that on 28 July 1990 Simon,
et. al. carried out the demolition of Fermo, et. al.'s stalls, sari-sari stores and
carinderia, the CHR, in its resolution of 1 August 1990, ordered the disbursement
of financial assistance of not more than P200,000.00 in favor of Fermo, et. al. to
purchase light housing materials and food under the Commission's supervision
and again directed Simon, et. al. to "desist from further demolition, with the
warning that violation of said order would lead to a citation for contempt and
all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights
determined and all public authority administered. Laws that do not conform to
postponement, arguing that the motion to dismiss set for 21 September 1990 had
courts. In an Order, dated 25 September 1990, the CHR cited Simon, et. al. in
jurisdiction. During the 12 September 1990 hearing, Simon, et. al. moved for
yet to be resolved, and likewise manifested that they would bring the case to the
contempt for carrying out the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and
carinderia despite the "order to desist", and it imposed a fine of P500.00 on each
of them. On 1 March 1991, the CHR issued an Order, denying Simon, et.al.'s
motion to dismiss and supplemental motion to dismiss. In an Order, dated 25
April 1991, Simon, et. al.'s motion for reconsideration was denied. Simon, et. al.
filed the petition for prohibition, with prayer for a restraining order and
preliminary injunction, questioning the extent of the authority and power of the
CHR, and praying that the CHR be prohibited from further hearing and
investigating CHR Case 90 1580, entitled "Fermo, et al. vs. Quimpo, et al."
Issue: Whether the CHR has the power to issue the order to desist against the
demolition of Fermo, et. al.s stalls, and to cite Mayor Simon, et. al. for contempt
for proceeding to demolish said stalls despite the CHR order.
Held: Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution, is a provision empowering
the Commission on Human Rights to "investigate, on its own or on complaint by
any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights."
Recalling the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, it is readily
apparent that the delegates envisioned a Commission on Human Rights that
would focus its attention to the more severe cases of human rights violations;
such areas as the "(1) protection of rights of political detainees, (2) treatment of
prisoners and the prevention of tortures, (3) fair and public trials, (4) cases of
disappearances, (5) salvagings and hamletting, and (6) other crimes committed
against the religious." While the enumeration has not likely been meant to have
any preclusive effect, more than just expressing a statement of priority, it is,
nonetheless, significant for the tone it has set. In any event, the delegates did not
apparently take comfort in peremptorily making a conclusive delineation of the
CHR's scope of investigatorial jurisdiction. They have thus seen it fit to resolve,
instead, that "Congress may provide for other cases of violations of human rights
that should fall within the authority of the Commission, taking into account its
pending principal action, for the preservation or protection of the rights and
are the stalls, sari-sari stores and carinderia, as well as temporary shanties,
erected by Fermo, at. al. on a land which is planned to be developed into a
"People's Park." More than that, the land adjoins the North EDSA of Quezon City
which, the Court can take judicial notice of, is a busy national highway. The
consequent danger to life and limb is thus to be likewise simply ignored. It is
indeed paradoxical that a right which is claimed to have been violated is one that
cannot, in the first place, even be invoked, if its is not, in fact, extant. Be that as it
may, looking at the standards vis-a-vis the circumstances obtaining herein, the
Court not prepared to conclude that the order for the demolition of the stalls,
sari-sari stores and carinderia of Fermo, et. al. can fall within the compartment of
"human rights violations involving civil and political rights" intended by the
Constitution. On its contempt powers, the CHR is constitutionally authorized to
"adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court." Accordingly, the CHR
acted within its authority in providing in its revised rules, its power "to cite or
hold any person in direct or indirect contempt, and to impose the appropriate
penalties in accordance with the procedure and sanctions provided for in the
Rules of Court." That power to cite for contempt, however, should be understood
to apply only to violations of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of
procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial powers. To exemplify, the power
to cite for contempt could be exercised against persons who refuse to cooperate
with the said body, or who unduly withhold relevant information, or who decline
to honor summons, and the like, in pursuing its investigative work. The "order to
desist" (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) herein, however, is not
investigatorial in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does
not possess. As held in Export Processing Zone Authority vs. Commission on
Human Rights, "The constitutional provision directing the CHR to 'provide for
preventive measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose human
rights have been violated or need protection' may not be construed to confer
jurisdiction on the Commission to issue a restraining order or writ of injunction
for, it that were the intention, the Constitution would have expressly said so.
'Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law'. It is never derived by
implication. Evidently, the 'preventive measures and legal aid services' mentioned
in the Constitution refer to extrajudicial and judicial remedies (including a writ of
preliminary injunction) which the CHR may seek from the proper courts on behalf
of the victims of human rights violations. Not being a court of justice, the CHR
itself has no jurisdiction to issue the writ, for a writ of preliminary injunction may
only be issued `by the judge of any court in which the action is pending [within
prohibiting the CHR from continuing the case. Nevertheless, CHR continued trial
and issued a subpoena to Secretary Cario.
ISSUE: Whether or not CHR has the power to try and decide and determine
certain specific cases such as the alleged human rights violation involving civil
and political rights.
HELD: No. The CHR is not competent to try such case. It has no judicial power. It
On September 17, 1990, some 800 public school teachers in Manila did not
attend work and decided to stage rallies in order to air grievances. As a result
thereof, eight teachers were suspended from work for 90 days. The issue was then
investigated, and on December 17, 1990, DECS Secretary Isidro Cario ordered
the dismissal from the service of one teacher and the suspension of three others.
The case was appealed to the Commission on Human Rights. In the meantime,
the Solicitor General filed an action for certiorari regarding the case and
can only investigate all forms of human rights violation involving civil and political
rights but it cannot and should not try and decide on the merits and matters
involved therein. The CHR is hence then barred from proceeding with the trial.