This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-07-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In establishing the above elements, it bears pointing out that the Court used the term "and" in enumerating the said elements. In Mapa v. Arroyo,[31] this Court defined the term "and" as follows: In the present case, the employment of the word "and" between "facilities, improvements, infrastructures" and "other forms of development," far from supporting petitioner's theory, enervates it instead since it is basic in legal hermeneutics that "and" is not meant to separate words but is a conjunction used to denote a joinder or union. | |||||