GENERAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL

CASE TERRACE VS. THOMPSON

A Japanese who resides in the US leased a tract of land for agricultural purposes. Atty. Gen.
FACTS
filed a suit against Nakatsuka citing Anti-Alien Law prohibiting aliens to own land.

ISSUE WON the Petitioners may lease their land to Nakatsuka

RULING No. rights and privileges of aliens differ from those who are citizens of the country.

CASE NUNEZ VS. AVERIA

Nunez questioned the result of the election. However the proclaimed mayo was killed in an
FACTS ambush. Vice mayor contends that the case filed by Nunez is moot and academic since the
one complained was already dead.

ISSUE WON election protest be dismissed.

No. Because public office is not property. But one unlawfully ousted from it may institute an
RULING
action to recover the same, flowing from the de jure officer’s right to office.

CASE BINCE VS. COMELEC

FACTS

ISSUE WON COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion

RULING

CASE REPUBLIC VS. ROSEMOOR

Maceda cancelled the license of defendant as it contravenes the law because it exceeds
FACTS
maximum area that may be granted which renders the license to be void ab initio
GENERAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL

ISSUE WON revocation of such license is valid.

Yes. Licenses granted are merely vested rights and privileges that may be revoked anytime.
RULING
It is not a property and is not protected by due process of law.

CASE PEDRO VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL

Permit was given to Petitioner to construct a cockpit. However, Ordinance 34 in Caloocan

FACTS city was enacted providing that cockpits must have not less than 1500 meter distance from
another cockpit. Petitioners cockpit “sociedad bighani” was within the 1500 radius.

ISSUE WON a license falls under property rights.

No. it is not a property. Licenses are a privilege. And may be revoked anytime without due
RULING
process.

CASE LIBANAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS Petitioner was suspended for violation of RA 3019.

ISSUE WON suspension order deprives petitioner of property without due process of law.

RULING No. Public office is public trust. It is not a property.

CASE DUNCAN VS. GLAXO

Petitioner wanted to marry another employee of the rival company despite the stipulation
FACTS in the employment contract that employees marrying competitor companies’ employees is
prohibited.

ISSUE WON policy is valid.

Yes. It is valid exercise of management prerogative. And has the right to guard its trade
RULING
secrets.
GENERAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL

CASE FRANCISCO CHAVEZ VS. AMARI COASTAL BAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PEA entered into a contract with Amari, a private corporation, to develop freedom islands
FACTS including reclamation of submerged areas. Petitioner contends the sale of public domain to
AMARI is a violation of the constitution.

ISSUE WON the Joint venture agreement violates the constitution.

RULING Yes. It seeks to transfer ownership of freedom islands to a private corporation.

CASE AYOG VS. JUDGE CUSI

A tract of land was awarded to Binan Development Co. in 1953, an ejectment suit was filed
FACTS against its occupants on the grounds that No private corp or assoc may hold alienable lands
of public domain except by lease not to exceed one thousand hectars.

ISSUE WON the law in the 1973 constitution retroacts to the awarding of land in 1953.

No. it has no retroactive effect. Binan Dev’t Co. already acquired legally vested rights to own
RULING
the land.

CASE CHEESEMAN VS. IAC

American citizen married to a Filipina protested to the sale of his land that is named to his
FACTS
wife.

ISSUE WON he has the right to potest.

No. Aliens do not have the right to own property in the Philippines, since the land was
RULING
named after her Filipina wife, the wife could dispose the land at will.

CASE ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ

RA 1180 Act regulation retail business was passed and prohibits aliens from engaging in
FACTS
retail business.

ISSUE WON it denies aliens equal protection of laws.

GENERAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL

No. Equal protection clause does not demand absolute equality amongst resident. Only
RULING
requires equal treatment. There are differences in the rights of citizens to aliens.

CASE DUMLAO VS. COMELEC

Dumlao wanted to run for office after he had retired for the same position. He contends
FACTS that BP 52 is discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause as it provides that
retirees who are 65 years old may no longer run for position.

ISSUE WON it violated the equal protection clause

RULING No. there is a reason to disqualify him. The need for new blood assumes relevance.

CASE FORBES VS. CHOCO TIACO

Choco Tiaco was deported to China by Gov. General, action was in accordance with state
FACTS
interest. Tiaco questions such deportation.

ISSUE WON it violated equal protection clause.

No. Citizens and Aliens enjoys different rights. Deportation is a political question. Civil rights
RULING
are the same between aliens and citizens however political rights are different.

CASE MIRASOL VS. DPWH

FACTS

ISSUE WON

RULING
GENERAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL

CASE PASEI VS. DRILON

DO 1 temporarily suspends deployment of OFWs. Drilon contends that suspension is for the
FACTS protection of those working in high risk countries. Petitioner contends that it violates equal
protection clause.

ISSUE WON it violates equal protection clause.

RULING No. there is valid classification.

CASE MARITIME MANNING AGENCIES INC. VS. POEA

Resolution was issued to adjust rates of compensation benefits. Petitioners contends that it
FACTS
violates equal protection of laws.

ISSUE WON it violates such right.

RULING No. There is a substantial distinction.

CASE VILLEGAS VS. HO AND JUDGE ARCA

Petitioner passed ordinance prohibiting aliens to be employed in the government without

FACTS
securing license fee of Php 50 from the mayor.

ISSUE WON ordinance is void for violating due process and equal protection rule.

Yes. It is void because it does not contain or suggest standard or criterion to guide the
RULING
mayor in the exercise of the power which has been granted to him by the ordinance.

CASE KWONGS SING VS. CITY OF MANILA

FACTS CO 532 was enacted requiring receipt should be in English.

ISSUE WON enactment of CO is valid.

GENERAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL

Yes. Purpose is fairly evident for protection of the customers. And does not violate the
RULING
equal protection law.

CASE LAYNO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

Petitioner was accused of grave abuse authority and evident bad faith in his duties, hence
FACTS
the suspension.

ISSUE WON mandatory suspension is constitutional.

No. preventive suspension may be justified. Suspension violates the presumption of

RULING
innocence.

CASE JAVIER VS. COMELEC

Petitioner was ambushed and killed allegedly by Pcificador’s men. Pacificador and 7 others
FACTS faced trial. Petitioner contends that there were anomalies in the election. Complaint was
dismissed and COMELEC proclaimed Pacificador as winner.

ISSUE WON Petitioner was denied of due process.

RULING Yes.petitioner was denied of due process when court denied the filed complaint.

CASE MARCOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS

ISSUE WON

RULING

CASE PEOPLE VS. MEDENILLA

GENERAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL

Defendant is charged with violation of the dangerous drugs act. Court found the accused
FACTS
guilty as charged.

ISSUE WON right to due process of the accused was violated.

Yes. In the accused appeal brief a single instance where the judge had a clear bias was
RULING
cited.

CASE PEOPLE VS. LARRANAGA

Petitioner prayed for reduction of penalty on the ground that he was a minor when he
FACTS
committed the crime.

ISSUE WON penalty should be reduced.

RULING Yes.RPC provides for this.

CASE BAUTISTA VS. CA

Petitioners filed an urgent postponement of hearing on the ground that lawyer was in US.
FACTS
Trial court denied and considered the right to present evidence be waived.

ISSUE WON petitioners was denied of due process.

No. it was not a violation of due process since the party was given opportunity to
RULING
participate in proceedings.

CASE SP OF BAGUIO VS. JADEWELL

FACTS City of Baguio executed MOA with respondents, SP resolve to rescind contract .

ISSUE WON Jadewell was denied of due process.

No. contract was in exercise of the city’s governmental function. Rescission was clearly
RULING
exercise of its legislative.
GENERAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL

CASE NHA VS. EVANGELISTA

Since respondent was not a party to the case, he has no right over the property, judgement
FACTS
was not binding on him and court has not yet acquired jurisdiction over him.

ISSUE WON respondent was denied of due process.

RULING Yes. No person shall be deprives of property without due process.

CASE ILAC VS. YOUNG

FACTS Petitioner contends MOA is unenforceable since it is a fraud.

ISSUE WON CA erred when it declared that unpaid accounts of borrowers was fully paid.

RULING Yes. Appellate court has not reached conclusion.

CASE TANADA VS. TUVERA

FACTS Petitioners compel respondent to publish laws before it be effective.

ISSUE WON Publication is a part of due process.

RULING Yes. Publication is indispensable.

CASE SHU VS. DEE

Petitioner filed complaint for falsification of real estate mortgage, after investigation
FACTS respondents was charged. Respondents contends that they were denied of due process as
they were requested sample specimen of signatures.
GENERAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL

ISSUE WON respondents was denied of due process.

RULING No. NBI’s findings were merely recommendatory. No violation of right to due process.

CASE TROPICAL HOMES, INC. VS. NAT’L HOUSING AUTHORITY

FACTS Petitioner cancelled a contract with one of its clients for non payment

ISSUE WON PD 1344 violates due process.

RULING No. PD does not violate due process.

CASE SERAPIO VS. SANDIGAN BAYAN

Ombudsman found Petitioner to be involved in illegal jueteng as protector, SB issued

FACTS
warrant of arrest for plunder and detained him in Camp Crame.

ISSUE WON Petitioner was denied of due process.

No. Petitioner was given time to refute complaint, and petitioner voluntarily surrendered
RULING
himself.

CASE ANG TIBAY VS. CIR

FACTS Laborers were laid off, however rival labor group was not laid off.

ISSUE WON NLU was denied of due process.

RULING Yes. NLRC must still follow due process.

CASE NAMIL VS. COMELEC

FACTS The Municipal board proclaimed petitioners to have won election, on second day of
GENERAL RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL
proclamation petitioners was not on the list instead the defendants name was there which
was followed by a reso by COMELEC. Petitioners already taken oath before the the reso was
issued.

ISSUE WON petitioners was denied of due process.

Yes. COMELEC has power to enforce on all elections laws but must be subject to parties
RULING
right to due process.