This document lists 11 cases related to Philippine law. It includes citations for each case, providing the case name, court decision information and relevant dates. The cases cover a range of legal topics including administrative law, eminent domain, taxation, local government authority and others. Key issues addressed across the cases include distinctions between police power and eminent domain, retail trade nationalization regulations, and challenges to actions taken by local governments and officials.
This document lists 11 cases related to Philippine law. It includes citations for each case, providing the case name, court decision information and relevant dates. The cases cover a range of legal topics including administrative law, eminent domain, taxation, local government authority and others. Key issues addressed across the cases include distinctions between police power and eminent domain, retail trade nationalization regulations, and challenges to actions taken by local governments and officials.
This document lists 11 cases related to Philippine law. It includes citations for each case, providing the case name, court decision information and relevant dates. The cases cover a range of legal topics including administrative law, eminent domain, taxation, local government authority and others. Key issues addressed across the cases include distinctions between police power and eminent domain, retail trade nationalization regulations, and challenges to actions taken by local governments and officials.
2 Aljon Abrogar ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL VS. MAYOR OF MANILA, July 31, 1967 3 Alvin Alcantara CITY OF MANILA VS. JUDGE LAGUIO, 455 SCRA 308 ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ, 101 Phil. 1155 (Read also the case of 4 Cryka Bonus Rep. Gerardo Espina vs. Exec. Secretary Zamora, September 21, 2010 in relation to the Retail Trade Nationalization Law) Gancayco vs. City Govt. of Quezon City and MMDA, GR No. 5 Gladys Calma 177933, October 11, 2011 DIDIPIO VS. GOZUN, 485 SCRA 586 (Distinctions between police 6 John Carlo Layda power and power of eminent domain and taxation) 7 Jessa Rayka Soriano PRC vs. De Guzman, et al., June 21, 2004; CITY GOVERNMENT OF QUEZON CITY VS. ERICTA, 122 SCRA 8 Jonathan Ugalino 759 9 Joy Gamboa DELA CRUZ VS. PARAS, 123 SCRA 569 10 Eliza Mae Fernandez VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS, February 13, 1983 1. Footnote 4 of Carolene Products 2. G.R. No. 225442. August 08, 2017 SAMAHAN NG MGA PROGRESIBONG KABATAAN (SPARK), [*] JOANNE ROSE SACE LIM, JOHN ARVIN NAVARRO BUENAAGUA, RONEL BACCUTAN, MARK LEO DELOS REYES, AND CLARISSA JOYCE VILLEGAS, MINOR, FOR 11 Pebbles Duque HERSELF AND AS REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER, JULIAN VILLEGAS, JR., PETITIONERS, V. QUEZON CITY, AS REPRESENTED BY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA, CITY OF MANILA, AS REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JOSEPH ESTRADA, AND NAVOTAS CITY, AS REPRESENTED BY MAYOR JOHN REY TIANGCO, RESPONDENTS.
A judgment that lapses into finality becomes immutable and unalterable. It can neither be modified nor disturbed by courts in any manner even if the purpose of the modification is to correct perceived errors of fact or law. Parties cannot circumvent this principle by assailing the execution of the judgment. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.