This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| And if the enforcement would be limited to a demolition of the structures, it is not due to any defect in the writ itself, but to the circumstances of the case and the situation of the parties at the time of execution. As the trial court correctly observed, the above enumerations speak of three (3) alternative duties, namely: (1) require the owners of illegally constructed structures to obtain the necessary permit, subject to fines and penalties; (2) make necessary changes in the construction of the same when said construction violates any law or ordinance, or (3) order the demolition or removal of said house, building, or structure within the period prescribed by law or ordinance. The obligations as enumerated are separated by the word "or," which the rules in statutory construction dictate should be treated as a disjunctive article indicating an alternative.[57] The use of "or" often connects a series of words or propositions indicating a choice of either, which means that the various members of the enumeration are to be taken separately, with the term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from each of the other things enumerated.[58] Thus, petitioners are clearly obliged to perform a duty that is one of the three alternatives that the law enumerates, where a choice of one excludes the others. | |||||
|
2011-11-22 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Markedly, the use of the word "or" under the last paragraph of Sec. 31 of RA 6657 connotes that the law gives the corporate landowner an "option" to avail of the stock distribution option or to have the SDP approved within two (2) years from the approval of RA 6657. This interpretation is consistent with the well-established principle in statutory construction that "[t]he word or is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from the other things enumerated; it should, as a rule, be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies, as a disjunctive word."[20] In PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Giraffe-X Creative Imaging, Inc.,[21] this Court held: Evidently, the letter did not make a demand for the payment of the P8,248,657.47 AND the return of the equipment; only either one of the two was required. The demand letter was prepared and signed by Atty. Florecita R. Gonzales, presumably petitioner's counsel. As such, the use of "or" instead of "and" in the letter could hardly be treated as a simple typographical error, bearing in mind the nature of the demand, the amount involved, and the fact that it was made by a lawyer. Certainly Atty. Gonzales would have known that a world of difference exists between "and" and "or" in the manner that the word was employed in the letter. | |||||