Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SULTAN YAHYA 'JERRY' M. TOMAWIS v. RASAD G. BALINDONG

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 201614 2016-01-12	SHERYL M. MENDEZ v. SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT MENDOZA, J.
At the outset, the Court notes that this petition has been correctly instituted with this Court. It has been recognized that decades after the 1989 enactment of the law[37] creating the Shari'a Appellate Court and after the Court authorized its creation in 1999,[38] it has yet to be organized. Pending the organization of the Shari'a Appellate Court, appeals or petitions from final orders or decisions of the ShDC shall be filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) and referred to a Special Division to be organized in any of the CA stations preferably to be composed of Muslim CA Justices. For cases where only errors or questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court pursuant to Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution and Section 2 of Rule 41 of the Rules.[39] As the present petition involves only questions of law, it has been properly filed before this Court.
	GR No. 188832 2014-04-23	VIVENCIO B. VILLAGRACIA v. FIFTH SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT LEONEN, J.
Roldan chose to file his action with the Shari'a District Court, instead of filing the action with the regular courts, to obtain "a more speedy disposition of the case."[48] This would have been a valid argument had all the parties involved in this case been Muslims. Under Article 143 of the Muslim Code, the jurisdiction of Shari'a District Courts over real actions not arising from customary contracts is concurrent with that of existing civil courts. However, this concurrent jurisdiction over real actions "is applicable solely when both parties are Muslims"[49] as this court ruled in Tomawis v. Hon. Balindong.[50] When one of the parties is not a Muslim, the action must be filed before the regular courts.
	GR No. 188832 2014-04-23	VIVENCIO B. VILLAGRACIA v. FIFTH SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT LEONEN, J.
This court held in Tomawis v. Hon. Balindong[106] that "until such time that the Shari'a Appellate Court shall have been organized,"[107] decisions of the Shari'a District Court shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals and "shall be referred to a Special Division to be organized in any of the [Court of Appeals] stations preferably composed of Muslim [Court of Appeals] Justices."[108] However, considering that Tomawis was not yet promulgated when Vivencio filed his petition for certiorari on August 6, 2009, we take cognizance of Vivencio's petition for certiorari in the exercise of our original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari.[109]
	GR No. 179155 2014-04-02	NICOMEDES J. LOZADA v. EULALIA BRACEWELL PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Subsequently, Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 129,[39] otherwise known as "The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980," was enacted and took effect on August 14, 1981,[40] authorizing the creation of RTCs in different judicial regions, including the RTC of Las Piñas City as part of the National Capital Judicial Region.[41] As pointed out by the court a quo in its Decision dated July 31, 2003, the RTC of Las Piñas City was established "in or about 1994."[42] Understandably, in February 1998, Bracewell sought the review of Decree No. N-217036 before the Las Piñas City-RTC, considering that the lot subject of this case is situated in Las Piñas City.
	GR No. 185663 2012-06-20	REMEDIOS ANTONINO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY REYES, J.
In fact, the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion or err in dismissing Antonino's complaint. The RTC was correct in classifying Antonino's cause of action as personal and in holding that it was instituted in the wrong venue. Personal action is one that is founded on privity of contracts between the parties; and in which the plaintiff usually seeks the recovery of personal property, the enforcement of a contract, or recovery of damages. Real action, on the other hand, is one anchored on the privity of real estate, where the plaintiff seeks the recovery of ownership or possession of real property or interest in it.[34] Antonino's following allegations in her amended complaint show that one of her causes of action is one for the enforcement or consummation of a contract, hence, a personal action: XII
	GR No. 189206 2011-06-08	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. 15TH DIVISION OF CA PEREZ, J.
These two laws both support the confidentiality of bank deposits. There is no conflict between them. Republic Act No. 1405 was enacted for the purpose of giving encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country. [23] It covers all bank deposits in the Philippines and no distinction was made between domestic and foreign deposits. Thus, Republic Act No. 1405 is considered a law of general application. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 6426 was intended to encourage deposits from foreign lenders and investors. [24] It is a special law designed especially for foreign currency deposits in the Philippines. A general law does not nullify a specific or special law. Generalia specialibus non derogant. [25] Therefore, it is beyond cavil that Republic Act No. 6426 applies in this case.