ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL v. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL

ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL v. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL

ENBANC

G.R. No. L-14639            March 25, 1919

PONENTE: J. MALCOLM

FACTS:

• Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton Hohmann, the city's Chief of Police, took custody of about 170 women at the night of October 25, 1918 beyond the women’s consent and knowledge.
•  Said women are inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of Sampaloc, Manila.
•  Thereafter the women were shipped to Mindanao specifically in Davao where they were signed as laborers.
• The purpose of sending this women to davao is to exterminate vice, ordered the segregated district for women of ill repute, which had been permitted for a number of years.
• That when the women, its relative and lawyers filed for habeas corpus, the City of Manila Mayor and police moved to dismiss the case saying that those women were already out of their jurisdiction and that , it should be filed in the city of Davao instead.

ISSUE RELEVANT TO SECTION 1 ARTICLE II of the Constitution

1. WHETHER OR NOT MAYOR LUKBAN WHO IS AN OFFICER OF THE STATE, TO ERADICATE VICES IN ITS CITY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEPORT SAID WOMEN OF ILL-REPUTE?

OTHER ISSUE

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY OF MANILA DOES NOT HAVE A JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO DAVAO CITY TO PRODUCE THE BODY OF THE WOMEN SINCE IT IS OUT OF THEIR JURISDICTION AND THUS, DISOBEYING THE WRIT ISSUED BY THE COURT TO PRODUCE THE BODY OF THE WOMEN?

HELD:

·         The petition was granted. Respondent Lukban is found in contempt of court for not following the order of the court to produce the body of the women and shall pay into the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court within five days the sum of one hundred pesos (P100)

RATIO:

1.     On the first issue, the court’s decision is based on the principle of Republicanism wherein “Ours is a government of laws and not of men”

Law defines power. Centuries ago Magna Charta decreed that”No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseized of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. No official, no matter how high, is above the law. The courts are the forum which functionate to safeguard individual liberty and to punish official transgressors

2.     On the second issue, the court believed that the true principle should be that, if the respondent (Mayor Lukban) is within the jurisdiction of the court and has it in his power to obey the order of the court and thus to undo the wrong that he has inflicted, he should be compelled to do so. The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. Any further rights of the parties are left untouched by decision on the writ, whose principal purpose is to set the individual at liberty.

3.     In other words, If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao, the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return them from Davao to Manila. The respondents, within the reach of process, may not be permitted to restrain a fellow citizen of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act with impunity in the courts, while the person who has lost her birthright of liberty has no effective recourse. The great writ of liberty may not thus be easily evaded.

NOTE:

HABEAS CORPUS as defined by the Black Law Dictionary

Literally means- “That you have the body”

-       It is a writ employed to bring a person before a court, most frequently to ensure that the party’s imprisonment or detention is not illegal.

-       In addition to being used to test the legality of the arrest or commitment, the writ maybe used to obtain review of (1) the regularity of the extradition process (2) the right to or amount of bail or (3) the jurisdiction of a court that has imposed a criminal sentence.

-       In other words, it is a writ which compel someone to produce the body of the person under the name of the law.

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO

NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO GUIVELONDO

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 154411.  June 19, 2003]

PONENTE: J. YNARES-SANTIAGO

FACTS:

• On February 23, 1999, petitioner National Housing Authority filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 11, an Amended Complaint for eminent domain against Associacion Benevola de Cebu, Engracia Urot and the Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo for the purpose of the public use of Socialized housing.
• On November 12, 1999, the Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo filed a Manifestation stating that they were waiving their objections to NHA’s power to expropriate their properties. Thus an order of execution has been granted and the court already appointed commissioners to determine the amount for just compensation
• On April 17, 2000, the Commissioners submitted their report wherein they recommended that the just compensation of the subject properties be fixed at P11,200.00 per square meter wherein a partial judgment has been rendered.
•  After the report on the just compensation has completed, both parties filed an MR on the amount for the just compensation stating that it has no adequate basis and support. Both MR was denied by the court.
• While the judgment has been rendered in the RTC and an entry of judgment and the motion for execution has been issued, NHA filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The CA denied the petition on the ground that the Partial Judgment and Omnibus Order became final and executory when petitioner failed to appeal the same.
• Wherefore, the Petitioner NHA filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1)      WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE CAN BE COMPELLED AND COERCED BY THE COURTS TO EXERCISE OR CONTINUE WITH THE EXERCISE OF ITS INHERENT POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN;

2)      WHETHER OR NOT WRITS OF EXECUTION AND GARNISHMENT MAY BE ISSUED AGAINST THE STATE IN AN EXPROPRIATION WHEREIN THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN WILL NOT SERVE PUBLIC USE OR PURPOSE

3)    WHETHER OR NOT JUDGMENT HAS BECOME FINAL AND EXECUTORY AND IF ESTOPPEL OR LACHES APPLIES TO GOVERNMENT;

HELD:

The petition was denied and the judgment rendered by the lower court was affirmed. 

RATIO:

·         On the first issue, the court held that, yes the state can be compelled and coerced by the court to continue exercise its inherent power of eminent domain, since the NHA does not exercise its right to appeal in the expropriation proceedings before the court has rendered the case final and executory. In the early case of City of Manila v. Ruymann and Metropolitan Water District v. De Los Angeles, an expropriation proceeding was explained. 

·         Expropriation proceedings consists of two stages: first, condemnation of the property after it is determined that its acquisition will be for a public purpose or public use and, second, the determination of just compensation to be paid for the taking of private property to be made by the court with the assistance of not more than three commissioners.

·         The first is concerned with the determination of the authority of the plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit.  It ends with an order, if not of dismissal of the action, “of condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be condemned, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the filing of the complaint.”  An order of dismissal, if this be ordained, would be a final one, of course, since it finally disposes of the action and leaves nothing more to be done by the Court on the merits.  So, too, would an order of condemnation be a final one, for thereafter, as the Rules expressly state, in the proceedings before the Trial Court, “no objection to the exercise of the right of condemnation (or the propriety thereof) shall be filed or heard.”

·         The second phase of the eminent domain action is concerned with the determination by the Court of “the just compensation for the property sought to be taken.” This is done by the Court with the assistance of not more than three (3) commissioners.  The order fixing the just compensation on the basis of the evidence before, and findings of, the commissioners would be final, too.  It would finally dispose of the second stage of the suit, and leave nothing more to be done by the Court regarding the issue.  Obviously, one or another of the parties may believe the order to be erroneous in its appreciation of the evidence or findings of fact or otherwise.  Obviously, too, such a dissatisfied party may seek a reversal of the order by taking an appeal there from.

·         On the second issue, the court held that a socialized housing is always for the public used and that the public purpose of the socialized housing project is not in any way diminished by the amount of just compensation that the court has fixed.

·         On the third issue, the court ruled that in this case the doctrine of state immunity cannot be applied to the NHA, although it is “public in character”, it is only public in character since it is government-owned, having a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government, the funds of such government-owned and controlled corporations and non-corporate agency, although considered public in character, are not exempt from garnishment.

Notes:

Important Discussion in the case: 

When does the Doctrine of State Immunity not applied in the government agencies?

1. The universal rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued by private parties either by general or special law

2. If the funds belong to a public corporation or a government-owned or controlled corporation which is clothed with a personality of its own, separate and distinct from that of the government, then its funds are not exempt from garnishment.  This is so because when the government enters into commercial business, it abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be treated like any other corporation.

GARNISMENT AS DEFINED BY BLACK LAW DICTIONARY:

Garnishment

-       A judicial proceeding in which a creditor (or  a potential creditor) asks the court to order a third party who is indebted to or is bailee for the debtor to turn over to the creditor any of the debtor’s property (such as wages or bank accounts) held by that third party.

-       A person can initiate a garnishment action as means of either prejudgment seizure or post judgment collection.

-       In short, it only means whether the Heirs of Guivelendo can file a case to NHA to compel the latter to give to them the amount of the just compensation as rendered by the court.

SHIGENORI KURODA, vs .Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949

PONENTE: MORAN, C.J

FACTS:

• Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Imperial Army in the Philippines during a period covering 1943 and 1944 is now charged with having unlawfully disregarded and failed "to discharge his duties as such commander to control the operations of members of his command, permitting them to commit high crimes in violation of laws the laws and customs of war under E.O 68.
•  EO 68 was issued in conformity to the generally accepted principles of international law established in Hague Convention.
• Kuroda Agues that EO 68 is unconstitutional as the Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention.
• He contends that the Commission which is represented by Atty. Melville Hussey and Robert Port of USA, prosecuting him, established pursuant to EO 68 and being Americans is therefore without jurisdiction.

ISSUE related to Art 2 Section 2 of Constitution

WHETHER OR NOT KURODA BE PROSECUTED UNDER EO 68 WHICH IS ADHERENT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION EVEN THOUGH THE PHILIPPINES IS NOT A SIGNATORY OF IT?

OTHER ISSUE

WHETHER OR NOT KURODA CAN BE PROSECUTED BY THE MILITARY COMMISSION OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

HELD:

The court held that Kuroda can be prosecuted by the Military Commission

RATIO:

1. On the first issue, it was held that yes, Kuroda can be prosecuted under E.O 68 even though Philippines is not a signatory of such E.O. Art. II Section 2 of our constitution provides that the Philippines adopt the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation. Furthermore, when the crimes were committed, the Philippines was under the sovereignty of US and thus equally bound together with the US to the treaty as the US is a signatory of the convention.

2. The Military Commission having been convened by virtue of a valid law with jurisdiction over the crimes charged which fall under the provisions of Executive Order No. 68, and having said Kuroda in its custody, this Court will not interfere with the due process of such Military commission.

NOTES:

HAGUE CONVENTION

-       One of a number of international conventions that address different legal issues and attempt to standardize procedures between nations.  (BLACK LAW DICTIONARY)

Crazy over lawschool- Atty-LAWkareth-not-yet

Dear All,

It's really hard to be in law school especially with the bulk of work that you need to do, reading cases, eating it  till you were able to digest it. Sometimes the hardest part was to start the process of studying especially when you already faced with 100 plus plus pages sometimes you'll just say "ay NakakaLAWka".

Since I am a working student, its really an effort on my part to finish cases assigned so  more often than not I rely on case digests. However, this are just mere references in case of emergency, cause in our case our professors require students you to now the nitty-gritty of the case. So in order to return the gratitude I am putting up this blog to be of help with law students like me, who are in need of this materials!

Well, forgive me, sometimes I will rant on this blog regarding lawschool so bear with me!

Hope you enjoy it!

Sincerely,

Atty-LAWkareth-not-yet