Margarita Afialda v. Basilio Hisole and Francisco Hisole (Digested Case)

MARGARITA AFIALDA v. BASILIO HISOLE and FRANCISCO HISOLE, 

G.R. No. L-2075, November 29, 1949

 

FACTS: This is an action for damages arising from injury caused by an animal. The complaint alleges that the now deceased, Loreto Afialda, was employed by the defendant spouses as caretaker of their carabaos at a fixed compensation; that while tending the animals he was, on March 21, 1947, gored by one of them and later died as a consequence of his injuries; that the mishap was due neither to his own fault nor to force majeure; and that plaintiff is his elder sister and heir depending upon him for support.Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable under article 1905 of the Civil Code, which reads:

            The possessor of an animal, or the one who uses the same, is liable for any damages it may cause, even if such animal should escape from him or stray away.

            This liability shall cease only in case, the damage should arise from force majeure or from the fault of the person who may have suffered it.

 

ISSUES: Whether or not the owner of the animal is liable when damage is caused to its caretaker.

HELD: The statute names the possessor or user of the animal as the person liable for "any damages it may cause," and this for the obvious reason that the possessor or user has the custody and control of the animal and is therefore the one in a position to prevent it from causing damage.

In the present case, the animal was in custody and under the control of the caretaker, who was paid for his work as such. Obviously, it was the caretaker's business to try to prevent the animal from causing injury or damage to anyone, including himself. And being injured by the animal under those circumstances was one of the risks of the occupation which he had voluntarily assumed and for which he must take the consequences.

MSU LAW BANGSAMORO LIBRARY LAUNCHED

MSU LAW BANGSAMORO LIBRARY LAUNCHED

Nihaya P. Hadji Mohammad – Writer, MSU Law Gazette

Photo belongs to Dean Alizedney M. Ditucalan

The College of Law recently launched the soft opening of its new in-house library dubbed as “Bangsamoro Library” during the 58^th Founding Anniversary of the Mindanao State University on September 1, 2019. Vice President for Academic Affairs Alma Berowa, representing MSU System President Dr. Habib W. Macaayong, and some university officials graced the event. After a short program, OIC-Dean Norhabib bin Suod Barodi and Vice President Berowa administered the ribbon cutting ceremony.

Aside from its modern design, the new library boosted its collections with new law books. Arguably the Bangsamoro Library is the best unit library in the Main Campus. Today, the Bangsamoro Library is the favorite spot of law students given its grand and enticing  ambience for reading and study sessions.

The establishment of the Bangsamoro Library is part of the “Reinventing MSU Law Towards Relevance, Innovation, Service and Excellence” programs of Dean Alizedney M. Ditucalan. The government of the defunct Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao funded the construction of the library during the administration of former Regional Governor Mujiv Hataman. The project was among the results of the MSU-ARMM programs initiated by MSU System President Macaayong.

Photo belongs to Dean Alizedney M. Ditucalan

With the establishment of the Bangsamoro Library, the law faculty is optimistic that this new facility will greatly improve the quality of learning experience of the students of the College of Law. And certainly, this will give great impact to the quality and competitiveness of legal education in the Bangsamoro community.

The opening was also very timely for the donation of retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo. The donation consisted of collections of Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA), Philippine Reports, and other law books. The books were his entire take-home books upon his retirement.  The unexpected, yet generous, idea came out over a dinner attended by Dean Ditucalan after the 2019 Legal Education Summit on July 31 to August 1, 2019.

           

MIO Dir. Hannah Marquez received the books on behalf of MSU System President Dr. Habib W. Macaayong and Dean Alizedney Ditucalan. 

Photo belongs to Dean Alizedney M. Ditucalan

Quezon City v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, GR No. 166408 (Digested)

FACTS: Congress enacted RA 7966 in 1995, subsequent to the effectivity of the Local Government Code in 1992. Under it, respondent herein was granted the franchise to install and operate radio and television broadcasting stations. Likewise, section 8 thereof imposed on respondent the duty of paying 3% franchise tax, “in lieu of all taxes”. In view of said provision, respondent is of the opinion that that it is not liable to pay the local franchise tax imposed by petitioner local government unit in relation to the Local Government Code.

ISSUES:

(1)    Whether the “in lieu of all taxes” provision in RA 7966 exempt respondent from payment of local franchise tax.

(2)    Whether Congress can grant exemptions from local taxes imposed by local government units.

HELD:

(1)    No. Statutes granting tax exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer and liberally in favor of the taxing authority. Here, the law failed to specify the taxing authority from whose jurisdiction the taxing power is withheld. In fine, respondent failed to justify its claim for exemption, by a grant “too plain to be mistaken”. Its claim for exemption from the local franchise tax must fail.

(2)    Yes. The grant of taxing powers to local government units under the Constitution and the Local Government Code does not affect the inherent power of Congress to grant exemptions.

IS DEMOCRACY SINE QUA NON TO HUMAN RIGHTS?

IS DEMOCRACY SINE QUA NON TO HUMAN RIGHTS?

Researcher: Alexander Diamla Dumpa

Since then, there has been a question on whether or not, the full range of human rights can only be respected and observed in a democratic government. Some argue that such rights are often violated in other forms of government. While some contend otherwise. Nevertheless, status quo shows that this question remains unanswered.

 

Photo not owned by the blogger herein.

Perhaps almost everyone will agree that human rights are rights that protect our personhood as human beings, and that human rights are characterized by autonomy and liberty. Since it is understood that autonomy is self-legislation and choosing one’s own conception of a worthwhile life, and that liberty is being free to pursue that conception, does it mean, therefore, that one has a right to a fair say in decisions that crucially affect him? And as a citizen or subject of a state, do not most decisions of government affect him? If so, does this mean that a government that does not allow its citizens or subjects to exercise such a right to a fair say in government decision does not respect the latter’s autonomy and liberty? Evidently, only a democratic government ensures such right of fair say, which therefore means respecting one’s autonomy and liberty. If so, is it safe to say then that democracy is indeed sine qua non in the observance of human rights?

In answering the question, the degree of coverage of autonomy and liberty must be considered as well as certain circumstances. History shows that most non-democratic governments are more likely to violate human rights especially in oligarchy and plutocracy. But is this absolute in non-democratic governments? One might argue that, “what about a modern aristocracy of talents, composed of the best judges, philosophers, economists, and public servants that a society has?” Although we are now thinking of a citizenry educated and cohesive enough to be able to form a democracy, still, people may be deprived of what they need and what they want because people do not decide for themselves. But if we say on the other hand, that democracy is better then, in terms of human rights observance, does this mean that it is absolute? No. because even a democratic government, which has proven benevolence and competence, does not automatically and necessarily assure people’s liberty.

Therefore, the answer to the question on whether or not democracy is sine qua non to human rights is: maybe yes and no, depending upon circumstances. But the question on what type of government protects human rights more effectively can be answered with certainty. If we compare which type of government respects human rights more, a government that is run by, of, and for the people is more likely to protect the same, and that is a democratic government. The United Nations thinks so too. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) provides that:

“Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives…The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

In conclusion, based on research and existing data, the link between democracy and human rights appears to be interdependent, intricate, mutually supportive and symbiotic. In fact, when we define what democracy is, we unconsciously or consciously often use features of human rights to describe the same. A functional democracy that accommodates diversity, promotes equality and protects individual freedoms is increasingly becoming more ideal against the concentration of power in the hands of a few and the abuse of human rights that inevitably results from it. History tells us that when power is given to one person or group of people, abuses, chaos, and tyranny are expected to occur. Evidently, the greatest protection of human rights, therefore, emanates from a sustainable democratic framework grounded in the rule of law.

(This article has been published in the MSU Law Gazette, Vol. 3, No. 1, A.Y. 2017-2018).

Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Berciles (Digested Case)

Re: Closure and opening of roads thru an ordinance (Sec. 21)

FACTS: This is a petition for review of an order dismissing petitioner's application for registration of title over a parcel of land. The parcel of land sought to be registered was only a portion of M. Borces Street, Mabolo, Cebu City. The City Council of Cebu, through a resolution, declared the terminal portion of said street abandoned road. Subsequently, the City Council of Cebu passed another resolution, authorizing the Acting City Mayor to sell the land through a public bidding. Pursuant thereto, the lot was awarded to the herein petitioner. The City of Cebu, through the Acting City Mayor, executed a deed of absolute sale to the herein petitioner. The petitioner filed an application with the Court of First instance of Cebu to have its title to the land registered. However, the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cebu filed a motion to dismiss the application on the ground that the property sought to be registered being a public road intended for public use is considered part of the public domain and therefore outside the commerce of man. Consequently, it cannot be subject to registration by any private individual.

ISSUES:

(1) WON the City Charter of Cebu City (RA 3857) give the City of Cebu the valid right to declare a road as abandoned.

(2) WON the declaration of the road, as abandoned, make it the patrimonial property of the City of Cebu which may be the object of a common contract.

(3) WON the property in question is registrable by the petitioner.

HELD:

(1) Yes. The pertinent portions of the Revised Charter of Cebu City provides that the city council has the authority "to close any city road, street or alley, boulevard, avenue, park or square. Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed." From the foregoing, it is undoubtedly clear that the City of Cebu is empowered to close a city road or street.

(2) Yes. Article 422 of the Civil Code expressly provides that "Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State." Since that portion of the city street subject of petitioner's application for registration of title was withdrawn from public use, it follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property which can be the object of an ordinary contract.

(3) Yes.  Since the withdrawal of the property in question from public use and its subsequent sale to the petitioner is valid. Hence, the petitioner has a registerable title over the lot in question.

Cabrera v. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 314 (Digested Case)

Re: Closure and opening of roads thru an ordinance (Sec. 21)

FACTS: The Provincial Board of Catanduanes adopted Resolution to close the old road leading to the new Capitol Building of their province and to give to the owners of the properties traversed by the new road equal area as per survey by the Highway District Engineer's office from the old road adjacent to the respective remaining portion of their properties. Pursuant to a deed of exchange authorized by the Provincial Governor of Catanduanes, the exchange of properties took place. Herein petitioner, filed a petition for "Restoration of Public Road and/or Abatement of Nuisance, Annulment of Resolutions and Documents with Damages." He alleged that the land fronting his house was a public road owned by the Province of Catanduanes in its governmental capacity and therefore beyond the commerce of man. He contended that Resolution No. 158 and the deeds of exchange were invalid, as so too was the closure of the northern portion of the said road. The CA held that pursuant to Republic Act No. 5185, municipal authorities can close, subject to the approval or direction of the Provincial Board, thoroughfares under Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code. Although in this case the road was not closed by the municipality of Catanduanes but by the provincial board of Catanduanes, the closure, nevertheless, is valid since it was ordered by the approving authority itself. However, while it could do so, the provincial government of Catanduanes could close the road only if the persons prejudiced thereby were indemnified, Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code being very explicit on this. Before us now, the petitioner insists that Sec. 2246 is not applicable because the resolution is not an order for the closure of the road in question but an authority to barter or exchange it with private properties. He maintains that the public road was owned by the province in its governmental capacity and, without a prior order of closure, could not be the subject of a barter. Control over public roads, he insists, is with Congress and not with the provincial board

ISSUES: 

(1) WON the resolution is valid. 

(2) WON the municipal, and not the provincial board has the authority to issue such resolution.

(3) WON the petitioner has sustained injuries and therefore should be indemnified.

HELD:

(1) Yes. The authority of the provincial board to close that road and use or convey it for other purposes is derived from the provisions of RA 5185 in relation to Section 2246 of the Revised Administrative Code. Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the municipality might be lawfully used or conveyed. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State.

(2) No. There is no reason for not applying the doctrine announced in Favis to the provincial board in connection with the closure of provincial roads. The provincial board has, after all, the duty of maintaining such roads for the comfort and convenience of the inhabitants of the province. Moreover, this authority is inferable from the grant by the national legislature of the funds to the Province of Catanduanes for the construction of provincial roads.

(3) No. The general rule is that one whose property does not abut on the closed section of a street has no right to compensation for the closing or vacation of the street, if he still has reasonable access to the general system of streets. The circumstances in some cases may be such as to give a right to damages to a property owner, even though his property does not abut on the closed section. But to warrant recovery in any such case the property owner must show that the situation is such that he has sustained special damages differing in kind, and not merely in degree, from those sustained by the public generally. Here, the petitioners failed to adduce evidence that he indeed sustained injuries. (Damnum absque injuria)

Dacanay v. Asistio, 208 SCRA 404 (Digested Case)

Re: Closure and opening of roads thru an ordinance (Sec. 21)

FACTS: Metropolitan Manila Commission, enacted an ordinance designating certain city and municipal streets, roads and open spaces as sites for flea markets. Pursuant, thereto, the Caloocan City mayor opened up seven (7) flea markets in that city. Upon application of vendors,  the respondents city mayor and city engineer, issued them licenses to conduct vending activities on said street. In 1987, Antonio Martinez, as OIC city mayor of Caloocan City, caused the demolition of the market stalls on affected areas. To stop Martinez from clearing the sreets, stallowners filed an action for prohibition. However, shortly after the decision came out in favor of the OIC mayor, the city administration in Caloocan City changed hands. City Mayor Macario Asistio, Jr., as successor of Mayor Martinez, did not pursue the latter's policy of clearing and cleaning up the city streets. Dacanay filed the present petition for mandamus, praying that the public respondents be ordered to enforce the final decision which upheld the city mayor's authority to order the demolition of market stalls on affected streets and to enforce P.D. No. 772 and other pertinent laws.

ISSUES: WON public dominions may be leased or be subjects to contracts.

HELD: No. There is no doubt that the disputed areas from which the private respondents' market stalls are sought to be evicted are public streets, as found by the trial court in Civil Case No. C-12921. A public street is property for public use hence outside the commerce of man (Arts. 420, 424, Civil Code). Being outside the commerce of man, it may not be the subject of lease or other contract (Villanueva et al. vs. Castañeda and Macalino, 15 SCRA 142, citing the Municipality of Cavite vs. Rojas, 30 SCRA 602; Espiritu vs. Municipal Council of Pozorrubio, 102 Phil. 869; and Muyot vs. De la Fuente, 48 O.G. 4860). As the stallholders pay fees to the City Government for the right to occupy portions of the public street, the City Government, contrary to law, has been leasing portions of the streets to them. Such leases or licenses are null and void for being contrary to law. The right of the public to use the city streets may not be bargained away through contract. The interests of a few should not prevail over the good of the greater number in the community whose health, peace, safety, good order and general welfare, the respondent city officials are under legal obligation to protect.