First Class Cadet Aldrin Jeff Cudia v.

The Superintendent
of the Philippine Military Academy, GR 211362, February
24, 2014
Ponente: Peralta, J.
Facts:
Petitioner, Cadet First Class Cudia, was a member of the
Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the Philippine Military Academy.
He was supposed to graduate with honors as the class
salutatorian,receive the Philippine Navy Saber as the top Navy
Cadet graduate and be commissioned as an ensign of the
Navy.
Petitioner was issued a Delinquency Report (DR) because he
was late for two minutes in his ENG 412 class, other cadets
were also reported late for 5 minutes. The DRs reached the
Department of Tactical Officers and were logged and
transmitted to the Company of Tactical Officers (TCO) for
explanation. Cudia incurred the penalty of 11 demerits and 13
touring hours.
Several days after, Cudia was reported to the Honor
Committee (HC) per violation of the Honor Code. Lying that is
giving statements that perverts the truth in his written appeal
stating that his 4th period class ended at 3:00 that made him
late for the succeeding class.
Cudia submitted his letter of explanation on the honor report.
The HC constituted a team to conduct the preliminary
investigation on the violation, it recommended the case be
formalized.
Cudia pleaded not guilty. The result was 8-1 guilty verdict and
upon the order of the Chairman, the HC reconvened in the
chambers, after, the Presiding Officer announced a 9-0 guilty
verdict.

The HC denied Cudias appeal. The Headquarters Tactics

Group (HTG) conducted a formal review and checking of
findings. Special orders were issued placing Cudia on
indefinite leave of absence and pending approval of separation
from the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Cudia submitted a
letter to the Office of the Commandant of Cadets requesting
his re-instatement. The matter was referred to Cadet Review
and Appeals Board (CRAB) and it upheld the decision.
Cudia wrote a letter to President Aquino but the President
sustained the findings of the CRAB. CHR-CAR issued a
resolution finding probable cause for Human Rights Violations.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the PMA committed grave abuse of
discretion in dismissing Cudia in utter disregard of his
right to due process and in holding that he violated the
Honor Code through lying.
2. 2. Whether or not the court can interfere with military
affairs
Ruling:
1. No. The determination of whether the PMA cadet has
rights to due process, education, and property should
be placed in the context of the Honor Code. All the
administrative remedies
were
exhausted.
A
student
of
a
military
academy
must
be
prepared to subordinate his private interest for the
proper functioning of the institution. The PMA may
impose disciplinary measures and punishments as it
deems fit and consistent with the peculiar needs of the
institution. PMA has regulatory authority to
administratively dismiss erring cadets. PMA has a right
to invoke academic freedom in the enforcement of the
internal rules and regulations.

2. Yes. The court is part of the checks-and-balance

machinery mandated by Article VIII of the Constitution.
The courts mandate (according to Section 1, Article 8)
is expanded that the duty of the courts is not only to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable but also to
determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government even if the latter
does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial, or ministerial
functions. No one is above the law, including the
military, especially in violations of Constitutionally
guaranteed rights.
3. Dispositive: The petition is denied. The dismissal of
Cudia from PMA is affirmed

CLT Realty Dev. Corporation vs High Grade Feeds

Corporation, GR 160684, September 2, 2015
Ponente: Perez, J.
Facts:
The properties in dispute were formerly part of the notorious
Maysilo Estate left by Gonzalo Tuason, which measures
1,660.26 hectares, stretching across Caloocan City,

Valenzuela, and Malabon. One of the mother titles is OCT No.

994, the mother title in dispute. Later on, smaller lots forming
part of the Maysilo Estate were sold to different persons.
Several subsequent subdivisions, consolidations, and one
expropriation of the Estate, spawned numerous legal disputes,
living-up to the name Land of Caveat Emptor." One of these
disputed lots was Lot 26, the property subject of this litigation.
The conflict arose due to an overlapping of the properties of
CLT and Hi-Grade, which prompted CLT to file a case for
Annulment of Transfer Certificates of Title, Recovery of
Possession, and Damages before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Caloocan City, against Hi-Grade.
Version of Hi-Grade
Hi-Grade traces its title to TCTs No. 7364 and No. C-32979,
which were registered in the name Madulid, Sr., which in turn
stemmed from TCT Nos. 36557-63/T-460.
Version of CLT
CLT is the registered owner of TCT No. T-177013, by virtue of
a Deed of Absolute Sale with Real Estate Mortgage dated 10
December 1988, executed by the former registered owner,
Estelita I. Hipolito. CLT argued that Hi-Grades title is null and
void for being fake and spurious
The RTC7 ruled in favor of CLT. According to the RTC, HiGrades title, the older title, cannot prevail over CLTs title
because it suffers from patent defects and infirmities.
Impelled by the adverse ruling of the RTC, Hi-Grade elevated
the case to the Court of Appeals. During the pendency of the
appeal, Hi-Grade filed a Motion to Admit and Take Judicial
Notice of Committee Report on Senate Inquiry into Maysilo
Estate Submitted by the Committees on Justice and Human

Rights and on Urban Planning, Housing and Resettlement

(Senate Report) on 1 July 1998.
In turn CA reversed the ruling of the RTC.
Issues
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a
reversible error when it took judicial notice of the
Senate Report
Held:
CLT avers that taking judicial notice of the Senate Report is a
violation of the Rules of Court and CLT's right to due process.
First, the Senate Report is inadmissible and should not be
given any probative value because it was obtained in violation
of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, considering that the Senate
Report is unauthenticated and is thus deemed hearsay
evidence. Contrary to the mandatory procedure under Rule
132 of the Rules of Court, which requires examination of
documentary and testimonial evidence, the Senate Report was
not put to proof and CLT was deprived of the opportunity to
conduct a cross-examination on the Senate Report. And it is
also contended that the right of CLT to due process was
violated because the proceedings in the Senate were
conducted without notice to CLT. Finally, the admission in
evidence of the Senate Report violated the time-honored
principle of separation of powers as it is an encroachment into
the jurisdiction exclusive to the courts.
CLT misses the point. Taking judicial notice of acts of the
Senate is well within the ambit of the law. Section 1 of Rule
129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence provides:
SECTION 1 . Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall
take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the
existence and territorial extent of states, their political history,

forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of

nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
their seals, the political constitution and history of the
Philippines, the official acts of legislative, executive and
judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the
measure of time, and the geographical divisions
Judicial notice is the cognizance of certain facts that judges
may properly take and act on without proof because these
facts are already known to them; it is the duty of the court to
assume something as a matter of fact without need of further
evidentiary support. Otherwise stated, by the taking of judicial
notice, the court dispenses with the traditional form of
presentation of evidence, i.e. the rigorous rules of evidence
and court proceedings such as cross-examination.15
The Senate Report, an official act of the legislative
department, may be taken judicial notice of.
CLT posits that the Court of Appeals violated the time-honored
principle of separation of powers when it took judicial notice of
the Senate Report. Since this Court is not a trier of fact[s], we
are not prepared to adopt the findings made by the DOJ and
the Senate, or even consider whether these are admissible as
evidence, though such questions may be considered by the
Court of Appeals upon the initiative of the parties, The reports
cannot conclusively supersede or overturn judicial decisions,
but if admissible they may be taken into account as evidence
on the same level as the other pieces of evidence submitted
by the parties. The fact that they were rendered by the DOJ
and the Senate should not, in itself, persuade the courts to
accept them without inquiry. The facts and arguments
presented in the reports must still undergo judicial scrutiny and
analysis, and certainly the courts will have the discretion to
accept or reject them.17 (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

Thus, the Senate Report shall not be conclusive upon the

courts, but will be examined and evaluated based on its
probative value. The Court of Appeals explained quite
pointedly why the taking of judicial notice of the Senate Report
does not violate the republican principle. Thus:
That there is such a document as the Senate Report was all
that was conceded by the Court of Appeals. It did not allow the
Senate Report to determine the decision on the case.

Carolino v. Gen. Senga, GR No. 189649, April 20, 2015

Facts:
Col. Jeremias Carolino retired from the Armed Forces of the
Philippines under the provisions of Sections 1(A) and 10 of
Republic Act 340 on December 1, 1976. He then started
receiving his monthly retirement pay of P18,315.00 starting
December, 1976 until March, 2005, when it was withheld by
the respondents. When he wrote to the AFP Chief of Staff, he
was informed that his loss of Filipino citizenship caused the
deletion of his name from the alpha list of the AFP Pensioners
Payroll effective March 5, 2005, and he could avail of his reentitlement of his benefits only if will comply with the
requirements of the provisions of RA 9225, the Dual
Citizenship Law. The termination was due to the opinion
rendered by the Judge Advocate General thru a Disposition
Form, approved by the Chief Of Staff, that under the
provisions of Sections 4, 5, and 6 of RA No. 340, retired
military personnel are disqualified from receiving pension

benefits once incapable to render military service as a result of

his having sworn allegiance to a foreign country. It was also
mentioned that termination of retirement benefits of pensioner
of the AFP could be done pursuant to the provisions of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1638 which provides that the
name of a retiree who loses his Filipino citizenship shall be
removed from the retired list and his retirement benefits
terminated upon such loss. It being in consonance with the
policy consideration that all retirement laws inconsistent with
the provisions of PD No. 1638 are repealed and modified
accordingly.
Thus, on August 24, 2006, Col. Carolino filed a petition for
mandamus with the RTC of Quezon City to compel the
respondents to reinstate his name in the list of the AFP retired
officers; resume payment of his retirement benefits under RA
340 and reimburse all of his retirement pay and benefits which
accrued from March, 2005 up to the time his name is
reinstated.
The RTC ruled in his favour, holding that he retired in 1976
thus RA 340 is the law applicable in determining his
entitlement to retirement benefits, not PD 1638, which was
issued only in 1979, applying Article 4 of the Civil Code which
provides laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the
contrary is provided. PD No. 1638 does not provide for such
retroactive application. It was never the intention of PD 1638
to deprive retired soldiers of their monthly pension during their
old age, since the right had been vested to them through time.
RA 340 itself did not provide that loss of Filipino citizenship
would terminate ones retirement benefits.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals by the respondents, the CA
granted the appeal and reversed the RTC ruling. It held that
while Col. Carolino retired in 1976 under the provisions of RA
340, PD 1638 signed in 1979 effectively repealed RA 340.
Section 27 of PD 1638 was correctly applied to Carolino, since

he had already renounced his allegiance to the Philippines,

he cannot now be compelled by the State to render active
service and to render compulsory military service when the
need arises.. For mandamus to exist, there must be a clear
legal right to the thing demanded, which Col. Carolino failed to
show.
Adoracion, Col. Carolinos widow substituted him after his
death during the pendency of the appeal to the CA. She
elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. She argues that
RA 340 is the applicable law to Col. Carolinos entitlement to
retirement benefits. She adds that the concept of retirement
benefits is such that one is entitled to them for services
already rendered and not for those to be made at a future
time. Retirement benefits due petitioners husband under RA
No. 340, is an acquired right which cannot be taken away by a
subsequent law. PD No. 1638 does not expressly provide for
its retroactive application. Respondents, being officers of the
AFP tasked to implement the provisions of RA No. 340 have
neglected their function thereunder by delisting petitioners
husband as a retiree, thus, mandamus is proper. The OSG
on the other hand argues that PD 1638 applies to all AFP
personnel whether active or retired, thus it should be applied
retroactively; whether a military personnel retires under the
provisions of RA No. 340 or under PD No. 1638, he is still in
the service of the military and/or the State only that he is
retired, thus, they should not be treated differently upon the
loss of Filipino citizenship. He argues when there is an
irreconcilable conflict between the two laws of different
vintages, i.e., RA No. 340 and PD No. 1638, the latter
enactment prevails.
Issues:

Does the AFP Chief of Staff have the ministerial duty to

pay the retirement pay of Carolino, compellable by a
writ of mandamus?

Was the termination of the retirement benefits of

Carolino due to his subsequent loss of Filipino
citizenship justified?

Held:
Yes. A writ of mandamus can be issued only when petitioners
legal right to the performance of a particular act which is
sought to be compelled is clear and complete. A clear legal
right is a right which is indubitably granted by law or is
inferable as a matter of law. A doctrine well "embedded in our
#jurisprudence is that mandamus will issue only when the
petitioner has a clear legal right to the performance of the act
sought to be compelled and the respondent has an imperative
duty to perform the same. $he remedy of mandamus lies to
compel the performance of a ministerial duty. A purely
ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or tribunal performs
in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience
to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the
exercise of its own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety
of the act done. &f the law imposes a duty upon a public
officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty
shall be performed; such duty is discretionary and not
ministerial. The petition for mandamus filed by petitioners
husband with the SC was for the payment of his terminated
retirement benefits, which has become vested, and being! a
ministerial duty on the part of the respondents to pay such
claim, mandamus is the proper remedy to compel such
payment
NO. For retirement benefits to vest in an employee, he must
have met the stated conditions of eligibility with respect to the
nature of employment, age, and length of service. Carolino
had complied with the conditions of eligibility to retirement
benefits. (here the employee retires and meets the eligibility
requirements, he acquires a vested right to the benefits that is
protected by the due process clause. It is only upon retirement

that military personnel acquire a vested right to retirement

benefits. 'retirees enjoy a protected property interest whenever
they acquire a right to immediate payment under preexisting
law.
Carolino acquired vested right to the payment of his retirement
benefits which must be respected and cannot be affected by
the subsequent enactment of PD No. 1638 which provides that
loss of Filipino citizenship terminates retirement benefits.
Sections 33 and 35 of PD No. 1638 recognize such vested
right.
YINLU BICOL MINING CORPORATION VS TRANS-ASIA
OIL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
GR NO. 207942 - JANUARY 12, 2015
PONENTE: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE BERSAMIN
Facts:

Philippine Iron Mines Inc (PIMI) owned several mining

claims

in

Barrio

Larap,

Municipality

of

Jose

Panganiban, Camarines Norte.

After financial losses, in 1975 PIMI sold these claims to
Manila Banking Corporation (MBC) and Philippine

Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCHB, later BDO).

Government opened area for exploration after the

submission of a feasibility study.

Trans-Asia filed an application in 1997, for the approval
of Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSH) over

the area in the Regional Office of DENR, which was

PIMI had a vested right to the mining patents and the

amended in 1999 and granted on July 28, 2007.

August 31, 2007 Yinlu Bicol Mining Operation (Yinlu)

appellee as the beneficial owner has superior rights

informed DENR that it acquired the mining patents of

The OP denied it twice as well, first because it only

and that the areas covered by those patents were

rehashed previously resolved arguments and second

within the areas of Trans-Asias MPSA.

The matter was referred to the DENR secretary, Jose

because only one motion for reconsideration can be

allowed except for especially meritorious cases.

Trans-Asia appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA)

because the patents from PIMI were validly transferred

which granted their petition on the grounds that while

to and were now owned by Yinlu. He ordered the

Yinlu held mining patents over the disputed mining

amendment of Trans-Asias MPSH by excluding

areas, they were required to register the patents under

therefrom the mineral lands covered by Yinlus mining

Presidential Decree No. 463 in order for these patents

patents.
Trans-Asia moved for reconsideration but it was denied

to be recognized. Since they did not do so, the patents

by the DENR secretary on the grounds that it only

over the claims of the appellant.

Trans-Asia filed for motion for reconsideration twice.

PIMI from MBC/BDO by way of deed of absolute sale

L. Atienza, Jr. He issued an order in favor of Yinlu

rehashed matters already decided.

Trans-Asia appealed to the Office of the President

denied by the CA on June 27, 2013.

(OP). OP rendered its decision affirming the order an

resolution of the DENR secretary on the grounds that

have lapsed and have no effect.

Yinlu sought reconsideration of the decision, which was

Issues:

the

CA was filed beyond the reglementary period.

2. W/N Yinlus mining patents constituted vested rights

reconsideration.
OP decision became final and immutable on July 29,

2010, last day of the reglementary period.

CA gravely erred in taking cognizance of Trans-Asias

that could not be disregarded.

Held:

resolution

denying

the

motion

for

appeal despite its tardiness.

1.
YES
The appeal to the CA must be taken within 15 days
from notice of the award, judgement, final order or

OP

1st

1. W/N Trans-Asias petition for certiorari filed before the

2.
YES
Decision of OP was unassailable in point of law and

resolution, or from date of its last publication (Sec 4,

history.
o Spanish Mining Law of 1867 observed Regalian

Rule 43, Rules of Court)

Yinlu contended that the CA should have dismissed

doctrine effect was that minerals belonged to

Trans-Asias appeal since it was made beyond the

the State wherever it could be found.

During the American Occupation, fundamental

required period for appealing and that Trans-Asias

law in mining was incorporated in the Philippine

nd

filing of the 2 motion for reconsideration was improper

since it did not cite any exceptional circumstance.

Because the OP declared the 2nd motion

Bill of 1902. Sec 21 declared that all valuable

for

deposits in public lands are free for the citizens

reconsideration clearly unmeritorious on March 31,

of the United States and the State to use and

2011, it did not stop the running of the appeal period

purchase.
However, once a mining claim was made, it

that started on July 14, 2010 when Trans-Asia received

became private property and the claimant

became the owner of both surface and minerals

and new provisions and rules laid down by this

found underneath.
Yinlus mining patents were issued pursuant to the

Decree which may prejudice or impair vested or

Philippine Bill of 1902 and subsisted prior to the

effectivity of the 1935 Constitution. This gave Yinlu and
its predecessors vested rights in the disputed mineral
lands that could not and should not be impaired even in
light of their past failure to comply with registration

acquired rights in accordance with other mining

laws

previously

in

force

shall

have

no

retroactive effect. Provided, That the provisions

of this Decree which are procedural in nature
shall prevail.
Reverse and set aside decision by the Court of Appeals.

requirements and annual work obligation.

Presidential Decree No. 463 (Mineral Resources

Reinstate decision and resolution by the Office of the

Development Decree) provides that its provisions

President. Direct the respondents to pay the costs of suit.

would not apply if it will impair vested rights under other

mining laws:
o Section 99. Non-impairment of Vested or
Acquired Substantive Rights. Changes made