This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-09-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree. In Duellome v. Gotico[48] and Caleon v. Agus Development Corporation,[49] we held that the lease of a building includes the lease of the lot and consequently, the rentals of the building include the rentals of the lot. As correctly pointed out by HDSJ in its Comment:[50] | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The constitutionality of laws is presumed. To justify nullification of a law, there must be a clear and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, not a doubtful or arguable implication; a law shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption is always in favor of constitutionality. To doubt is to sustain.[19] Even this Court does not decide a question of constitutional dimension, unless that question is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case and is necessary to a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented.[20] | |||||
|
2004-05-21 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Finally, we have to debunk the challenge on the constitutionality of E.O. 81 on the ground that it violates the non-impairment clause of the Constitution as it allegedly allows the DBP to impose penalties and interest which were not originally agreed upon. It is well- settled that all presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality, such that one who attacks a statute, alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a reasonable doubt.[21] In fact, this Court does not decide questions of a constitutional nature unless that question is properly raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota presented.[22] | |||||