Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Salvacion v.
Central Bank
Hermoso vs. CA
Peralta vs.
COMELEC
Alba vs.
Evangelista
3.Presumption against implied repeals
In the absence of an express repeal, a
subsequent law cannot be construed as
repealing a prior law unless an irreconcilable
inconsistency and repugnancy exists in the
terms of the new and old laws.
Mecano vs.
Commission on
Audit
does not cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter
of the old code. Those which are not covered in the new code
include the provisions on notaries public, the leave law, military
reservations, claims for sickness benefits and still others.
Lastly, it is a well settled rule in stat con that XXX
The PRESUMPTION is against inconsistency and repugnancy
for the legislature is presumed to know the existing laws on the
subject matter and not to have enacted inconsistent or
conflicting statutes.
4.Presumption against ineffectiveness
In the interpretation of a statute, the Court
should start with the assumption that the
legislature intended to enact an effective
statute.
Whether or not SK
election can be
considered as a
regular local
election
Ursua vs. CA
Issue: Whether or
not the use of a
different name
belonging to
another in isolated
transaction falls
within the
prohibition of CA
No.142
Reyes vs.
Bagatsing
3.Naturalization laws
Naturalization laws should be rigidly
enforced and strictly construed in favor of
the government and against the applicant.
4. Insurance Law
Acting
Commissioner of
Customs vs.
Meralco
Misamis Oriental
Asso. of Coco
Traders vs. sec of
Finance
Resins, Inc. vs.
Auditor Gen and
Central Bank
Commissioner of
Customs vs. Court
of Tax Appeals
MCIAA vs. Marcos
Ong Chia vs.
Republic
Finman Gen
Assurance Corp vs.
CA
New Life
Enterprises vs. CA
Corporal vs.
Employees
Compensation
Commission and
GSIS
Manahan vs.
Employees
Compensation
Commission and
GSIS
Tantuico vs.
Domingo
-Petitioner-born In China
-Arrived in the Phils. at the age of 9, has stayed, been
employed at eventually started his own business,
-Married a Filipina with whom he had 4 children
-At age of 66 (July 1989), he filed a verified petition to be
admitted as Filipino Citizen under C.A. No. 473, Revised
Naturalization Law
-Petitioner testified as to his qualifications and presented 3
witnesses to corroborate his testimony
-The so-impressed prosecutor did not present any witness
against him bec. the petitioner is well-versed with the major
portion of the history of the Phils.
-The TC granted the petition (August 199_);
-The State, through the OSG, appealed contending that the
petitioner:
1. failed to state all the names by which he is or had been
known;
2. failed to state all the places of his former places of
residence in violation of CA No. 473 Sec.7
3. failed to conduct himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during his entire stay in the Phils. in violation of Sec.2
4. has no known lucrative trade or occupation and his previous
incomes have been insufficient or misdeclared, also in
contravention of Sec 2;
5. failed to support his petition with the appropriate
documentary evidence.
-On Nov. 1996, CA reversed the decision of TC.
-It ruled that due to the importance of naturalization cases, the
State is not precluded from raising questions not presented in
the LC and brought up for the first time on appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the documents annexed by the state in
its appellants brief without having been presented and
formally offered as evidence under Rule 132 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence justified the reversal of the TCs decision.