This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Verba legis non est recedendum. From the words of a statute there should be no departure.[31] It is this Court's firm view that the phrase in the presidential pardon at issue which declares that former President Estrada "is hereby restored to his civil and political rights" substantially complies with the requirement of express restoration. | |||||
|
2013-07-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| On this score, it bears stressing that the nature of reconstitution proceedings under RA 26 denotes a restoration of the instrument, which is supposed to have been lost or destroyed, in its original form and condition.[40] As such, reconstitution must be granted only upon clear proof that the title sought to be restored had previously existed and was issued to the petitioner.[41] Strict compliance with the requirements of the law aims to thwart dishonest parties from abusing reconstitution proceedings as a means of illegally obtaining properties otherwise already owned by other parties. As the Court had eloquently pronounced in Director of Lands v. CA:[42] | |||||