Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VICENTE IBAY v. IAC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 210551 2015-06-30	JOSE J. FERRER v. CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA PERALTA, J.
Respondents emphasize that the SHT is pursuant to the social justice principle found in Sections 1 and 2, Article XIII[57] of the 1987 Constitution and Sections 2 (a)[58] and 43[59] of R.A. No. 7279, or the “Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (UDHA).
	GR NOS. 170615-16 2009-07-09	REPUBLIC v. RUFINO V. MIJARES QUISUMBING, J.
In their Joint Counter-Affidavit,[6] respondents argued that the SPFMPCI members were not in the list of occupants/potential farmer-beneficiaries of PHILCOMSAT landholdings on file with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) and Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO). Thus, they were illegal entrants whose houses and improvements constituted a nuisance that may be abated. More importantly, the houses and improvements were constructed without the required building permits under Section 301[7] of Presidential Decree No. 1096 or the National Building Code.[8] Thus, its summary demolition was justified under Section 27,[9] Article VII of Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.[10]
	GR NO. 167320 2007-01-30	HEIRS OF SALVADOR HERMOSILLA v. SPS. JAIME REMOQUILLO AND LUZ REMOQUILLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
[T]he transfer "became one in violation of law (the rules of the PHHC being promulgated in pursuance of law have the force of law) and therefore void ab initio." Hence, appellant acquired no right over the lot from a contract void ab initio, no rights are created. Estoppel, as postulated by petitioner, will not apply for it cannot be predicated on an illegal act. It is generally considered that as between the parties to a contract, validity cannot be given to it by estoppel if it is prohibited by law or is against public policy.[18] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Petitioners go on to postulate that if the Kasunduan is void, it follows that the 1962 Deed of Assignment executed by Apolinario in favor of Jaime is likewise void to thus deprive the latter of any legal basis for his occupation and acquisition of Lot 19.
	GR No. 154614 2004-11-25	CITY OF ILOILO v. JUDGE EMILIO LEGASPI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On the averment of private respondents that the Amended Complaint failed to allege compliance with the mandatory requirements[34] for the exercise of the power of eminent domain for purposes of socialized housing as interpreted in the Filstream cases, it appears that the Amended Complaint did contain allegations showing compliance therewith.[35] However, whether there is, indeed, compliance with these requirements, the Court deems it not proper to resolve the issue at this time. Hearing must be held to establish compliance.