This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-04-13 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Alcazar v. Arante,[8] we held that in construing words and phrases used in a statute, the general rule is that, in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, they should be given their plain, ordinary and common usage meaning. The words should be read and considered in their natural, ordinary, commonly-accepted and most obvious signification, according to good and approved usage and without resorting to forced or subtle construction. Words are presumed to have been employed by the lawmaker in their ordinary and common use and acceptation.[9] Thus, petitioners should not give a special or technical interpretation to a word which is otherwise construed in its ordinary sense by the law and broaden the signification of the term "deposit" to include that of real properties. | |||||
|
2014-12-03 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's argument is correct in theory since deliberation by all members of the collegial body is evidently what the rule contemplates, with the votes of only two (2) members being sufficient for a decision to prevail. Unfortunately, however, petitioner has not shown any proof that deliberations were not conducted by all commissioners before the questioned Judgment was made. The rule is well-settled that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[61] Thus, once more, his self-serving assertion cannot be given credence. This is especially so in light of the presumption of regularity, which herein ought to prevail due to the absence of any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Bustillo v. People[62] states: The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer's act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.[63] | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As early as the case of Strait Times, Inc. v. CA,[18] the Court has held that when the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is, in fact, in the possession of another person, then the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction. Reconstitution can be validly made only in case of loss of the original certificate.[19] This rule was reiterated in the cases of Villamayor v. Arante,[20] Rexlon Realty Group, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[21] Eastworld Motor Industries Corporation v. Skunac Corporation,[22] Rodriguez v. Lim,[23] Villanueva v. Viloria,[24] and Camitan v. Fidelity Investment Corporation.[25] Thus, with evidence that the original copy of the TCT was not lost during the conflagration that hit the Quezon City Hall and that the owner's duplicate copy of the title was actually in the possession of another, the RTC decision was null and void for lack of jurisdiction. | |||||