This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner[3] and private respondent Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud, Jr.[4] were both candidates for the mayoralty position of the Municipality of Uyugan, Province of Batanes in the May 13, 2013 elections. Private respondent filed a Petition[5] to deny due course to or cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy alleging that the latter made a false representation when he declared in his COC that he was eligible to run for Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes despite being a Canadian citizen and a nonresident thereof. | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In the instant consolidated petitions, Edgar and Rodolfo insist that the venue of the subject petition for letters of administration was improperly laid because at the time of his death, Felicisimo was a resident of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. They contend that pursuant to our rulings in Nuval v. Guray[37] and Romualdez v. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City,[38] "residence" is synonymous with "domicile" which denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent, one intends to return. They claim that a person can only have one domicile at any given time. Since Felicisimo never changed his domicile, the petition for letters of administration should have been filed in Sta. Cruz, Laguna. | |||||
|
2003-07-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| budget on the General Appropriations Act of the year of its enactment into law shall provide for the necessary amount to carry out its provisions. Taxpayers, such as herein petitioner, have the right to restrain officials from wasting public funds through the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute.[2] The Court has held that they may assail the validity of a law appropriating public funds[3] because expenditure of public funds by an officer of the State for the purpose of executing an unconstitutional act constitutes a misapplication of such funds.[4] The challenged provision of law involves a public right that affects a great number of citizens. The Court has adopted the policy of taking jurisdiction over cases whenever the petitioner has seriously and convincingly presented an issue of transcendental significance to the | |||||