Sunteți pe pagina 1din 22

1. Lee Hong Kok vs David (GR No.G.R. No.

L-30389, 12/27/1972)

Petitioners in this appeal by certiorari seek to reverse a decision of
respondent Court of Appeals affirming a lower court judgment
dismissing their complaint to have the Torrens Title of respondent
Aniano David declared null and void. David acquired lawful title
pursuant to his miscellaneous sales application in accordance with
which an order of award and for issuance of a sales patent was
made by the Director of Lands.

Can petitioners bring an action to cancel a void certificate of title
issued pursuant to avoid patent?

NO. Only the Government, represented by the Director of Lands, or
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, can bring an
action to cancel a void certificate of title issued pursuant to a void
patent Whether the grant was in conformity with the law or not is a
question which the government may raise, but until it is raised by
the government and set aside, the defendant cannot question it. The
legality of the grant is a question between the grantee and the

2. Director of Lands vs CA and Valeriano (GR No. 58867, 6/22/1984)

Faustino Ignacio filed an application to register a parcel of land
(mangrove) which he alleged he acquired by right of accretion since
it adjoins a parcel of land owned by the Ignacio. His application is
opposed by the Director of Lands, Laureano Valeriano, contending
that said land forms part of the public domain. The Trial Court
dismissed the application holding that said land formed part of the
public domain. Thus the case at bar.

Whether or not the land forms part of the public domain

YES. The law on accretion cited by Ignacio in inapplicable in the
present case because it refers to accretion or deposits on the banks
of rivers while this refers to action in the Manila Bay, which is held
to be part of the sea. Although it is provided for by the Law of
Waters that lands added to shores by accretions caused by actions
of the sea form part of the public domain when they are no longer
necessary for purposes of public utility, only the executive and the
legislative departments have the authority and the power to make
the declaration that any said land is no longer necessary for public
use. Until such declaration is made by said departments, the lot in
question forms part of the public domain, not available for private
appropriation or ownership.

3. Menguito vs Republic (GR No. 134308, 12/14/2000)

A petition for review assailing the CA decision against the
Menguito’s –the petitioners, with promulgated resolution 10-Mos.
later reversing the decision of the RTC of Pasig City. The RTC
decision confirmed the application for the titling of the parcel of land
in accordance with PD 1529. The OSG stated its valid opposition on
the presented documents by the applicants leaving its prayers that
said application be denied and land in question be reverted to the
ownership of the Republic of the Philippines.

WON the CA’s did not err in its decision to reverse the trial court

No. The petition is without merit. The Court observed that the
petitioners have insufficient evidence on that the possession of the
land is in accordance with Section 48 of CA 141 which must be in an
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious occupation of the land in
the concept of the owner. Unless public land is shown to have been
reclassified or alienated to a private person by the State, it remains
part of the inalienable public domain. Indeed, occupation thereof in
the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into
ownership and be registered as a title.
4. Mesina vs Sonza (GR No. L-14722, 5/25/1960)

5. Susi vs Razon (G.R. No. L-24066 December 9, 1925)

Valentin Susi bought a parcel of land from Apolonio Garcia and Basilio
Mendoza. After the purchase, Susi took possession of the land in an
open, continuous, adverse and public manner and without
interruption but it was interrupted when Angela Razon filed an action
to recover possession of the land which was dismissed by the CFI.
Despite the dismissal, Angela filed for the purchase of the disputed
land with the Director of Lands. Valentin Susi filed his opposition and
asserted his right over the land. However, the Director of Land
overruled the opposition and sold the land the Angela Razon on the
ground that the land was still and public land and Valentin Susi does
not have a title over it.

WON Valentin Susi already acquired title to the land.

YES. The Court held that to acquire a right to a certificate of title over
a land of the public domain, under the provisions of Chapter VI of
Act No. 926, as amended by Chapter VIII of Act No. 2874, an open,
adverse, public and continuous possession from July 26,1894, is
sufficient, provided the possessor makes application therefor under
the provisions of section 47 of Act No. 2874. In the present case, all
the requirements for a grant were complied with since Susi has been
in possession of the land in question since the year 1880 or for
about forty-five years. By a legal fiction, Susi had acquired the land
in question by a grant of the State, it had already ceased to be the
public domain and had become private property, at least by
presumption, of Susi, beyond the control of the Director of Lands.
Consequently, in selling the land in question to Angela, the Director
of Lands disposed of a land over which he had no longer any title or
control, and the sale thus made was void and of no effect, and
Angela did not thereby acquire any right.

1. Alba vs Court of Appeals (GR No. 120066, 9/9/1999)




2. Republic vs Court of Appeals and Naguit (GR No. 1/17/2005)




3. Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987, [April 29, 2009],

605 PHIL 244-326)

4. Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987, [September 3,


5. Palomo vs CA (GR No. 95608, 1/21/1997)

6. Republic vs Bracewell [G.R. No. 107427. January 25, 2000]
7. Republic vs Court of Appeals and Bernabe (GR No. L-40402,
8. Republic v. Bautista, Jr., G.R. No. 166890, [June 28, 2016])

Apolonio Bautista Jr. acquired a lot through succession. He applied
judicial confirmation of imperfect title before MTC with testimonial
evidence that his father was in possession of the said lot since 1969
and acquired it from Jardin and Villanueva through notarized Deed of
Absolute Sale. The MTC granted the application and declared him as
the owner in fee simple of the said land. The Government of the
Philippines appealed before CA, contending that the testimony of
Apolonio Jr. is an hearsay which should not be given probative value.
The application of judicial confirmation of imperfect title must comply
with Sec. 48(b) of CA 141. The CA affirmed the ruling of MTC, it
pointed out that the Government of the Phil. did not timely object to
the evidence presented.

WON the grant of judicial confirmation of imperfect title to Apolonio
Jr proper.

No. It Court held that the requisite period of possession must
conform with Sec 48(b) of Public Land Act as amended by RA 1942
which provides that any person who applies for judicial
confirmation, he or his predecessor in interest must have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and
occupation of alienable and disposable land of public domain under
the bonafide claim of ownership at least 30 years since June 12,
1945 or earlier. Lack of this evidence does not give the court the
right to grant a judicial confirmation of imperfect title in favor of
Bautista Jr.

E. Non-Registrable Properties
1. MIAA vs Court of Appeals (GR No. 155650, 7/20/2006)

MIAA received Final Notices of Real Estate Tax Delinquency from the
City of Parañaque for the taxable years 1992 to 2001 amounting to
624M. The City of Parañaque, through its City Treasurer, also issued
notices of levy and warrants of levy on the Airport Lands and
Buildings. The Mayor of the City of Parañaque threatened to sell at
public auction the Airport Lands and Buildings should MIAA fail to
pay the real estate tax delinquency. MIAA then filed with the Court
of Appeals an original petition for prohibition and injunction, with
prayer for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order to
restrain the City of Parañaque from imposing real estate tax on,
levying against, and auctioning for public sale the Airport Lands and
Buildings based on Section 21 of the MIAA Charter is the proof that
MIAA is exempt from real estate tax in relation to the Local
Government Code.

WON the Land and Buildings of MIAA are part of the public
dominion and thus cannot be the subject of levy and auction sale.

Yes. The Court held that the Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA
are property of public dominion and therefore owned by the State or
the Republic of the Philippines. The Airport Lands and Buildings are
devoted to public use because they are used by the public for
international and domestic travel and transportation. The fact that
the MIAA collects terminal fees and other charges from the public
does not remove the character of the Airport Lands and Buildings as
properties for public use. The operation by the government of a
tollway does not change the character of the road as one for public

2. Roman Catholic Bishop of Kalibo vs Municipality of Buruanga (GR

No. 149145, 3/31/2006)
3. Amunategui vs. Director of Forestry (GR No. L-27873, 11/29/1983)

4. Ankron vs Government of the Philippines (GR No. 14213,


This case involves an application for registration under the Torrens
system of a certain parcel of land. The only opposition of the said
application which was presented by the Director of Lands was that
the land in question was the property of the Government of the
United States under the control and administration of the
Government of the Philippine Islands. The lower court ordered and
decreed that said parcel of land be registered in the name of the
said applicant, J. H. Ankron, subject, however, to the right of the
Government of the Philippine Islands to open a road thereon in the
manner and conditions mentioned in said decision. On appeal,
appellant, contented, among others that, that portions of said land
cannot be registered in accordance with the existing Land
Registration Law for the reason that they are manglares.

WON the land in question cannot registered.

Yes. The Court held that the mere fact that a tract of land has trees
upon it or has mineral within it is not of itself sufficient to declare
that one is forestry land and the other, mineral land. There must be
some proof of the extent and present or future value of the forestry
and of the minerals. The Government under the provisions of Act No.
1148, may, by reservation, decide for itself what portions of public
land shall be considered forestry land, unless private interests have
intervened before such reservation is made. Until private interests
have intervened, the Government, by virtue of the terms of said Act
(No. 1148), may decide for itself what portions of the "public domain"
shall be set aside and reserved as forestry or mineral land.

5. Sta. Rosa Development Corporation vs CA (GR No. 112526,


6. Collado vs Court of Appeals (GR No. 107764, 10/4/2002)

Edna T. Collado filed with the land registration court an application
for registration of a parcel of land. Attached to the application was a
technical description, stating “this survey is inside IN-12 Mariquina
Watershed.” The Solicitor General filed oppositions to the
application. Petitioners allege that they have occupied the subject
land since time immemorial. Their possession has been open, public,
notorious and in the concept of owners. They paid all real estate
taxes and submitted evidence to prove that there have been 9
transfers of rights among them and their predecessors-in-interest.
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners for having presented sufficient
evidence to establish registrable title over the property.

WON the petitioners acquire private rights over the parcel of land
prior to the issuance of EO 33.

No. The Court held that an applicant must overcome the presumption
that the land he is applying for is part of the public domain and that
he has an interest to warrant registration in his name arising from
an imperfect title (may have been derived from old Spanish grants or
titles). In the case at bar, petitioners were unable to acquire a valid
and enforceable right or title because of the failure to complete the
required period of possession (at least 30 years).

7. Director of Forestry vs. Villareal (GR No. L-32266, 2/27/1989)

8. Atok-Big Wedge Mining Corporation vs Court of Appeals, GR No.
88883, 1/18/1991)
9. Palomo vs Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 95608. January 21, 1997]
10. Republic vs Southside Homeowners (GR No. 156951,
11. Republic vs Alagad (G.R. No. L-66807 January 26, 1989)
12. SIAN Enterprise vs. FF Cruz (GR no. 146616, 8/31/2006)

F. Administrative Legalization (Free Patent)

a. New RA 10023
G. Special Patents

Cadastral Registration Proceedings

A. Section 53 of CA 141
B. Section 35-38 of PD 1529
1. Director of Lands vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila (GR No.
2. Abellera vs Farol (GR No. 48480, 7/30/1943)

Prohibited Alienations and Transfer of Private Lands

A. SECTIONS 118-124 of CA 141

1. Gayapanao vs. IAC (GR No. 68109, 7/17/1991)
2. Republic vs Garcia (GR No. L-11597, 5/27/1959)
3. Lee Chuy Realty Corp vs Court of Appeals (GR No. 104114,

B. SECTION 7, ARTICLE XII, 1987 Constitution

1. Ong Ching Po vs. Court of Appeals (239 SCRA 341)
2. Frenzel vs Catito (GR No. 143958, July 11, 2003)
3. Muller vs. Muller (GR no. 149615, August 29, 2006)
4. Lee vs. Director of Lands (GR No. 128195, October 3, 2001)
5. Ramirez vs. Vda de Ramirez (111 SCRA 704)
6. Republic vs Court of Appeals (235 SCRA 567)

Remedies to recover private land from disqualified Alien: Action

for Reversion
A. Who can initiate
1. Republic vs Animas (GR No. L-37682, 3/29/1974)

B. When Proper/improper
1. Republic vs Umali (GR No. 80687, 4/10/1989)
2. Piñero vs Director of Lands (GR No. L-36507, 12/14/1974)

C. Reversion vs Action for Nullity of land titles

1. Kionisala vs. Dacut (GR No. 147379, 2/27/2002)
2. Evangelista vs. Santiago (GR No. 157447, 4/29/2005)
3. Roco vs. Gimeda (GR No. L-11651, 12/27/1958)
4. Republic v. Hachero, G.R. No. 200973, [May 30, 2016])
5. Republic v. Espinosa, G.R. No. 186603, [April 5, 2017])




1. Ysmael vs Deputy Executive Secretary (October 18, 1990)

Decisions and orders of administrative agencies have upon their

finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within
the purview of the doctrine of res judicata.

Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the

sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the
regulation of activities under the special technical knowledge and
training of such agencies.

Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are merely

evidence of a privilege granted by the State to qualified entities;
they are not deemed contracts within the purview of the due
process clause.
The Court will not hesitate to step in and wield its authority when
invoked if an appropriate case is brought showing a clear grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the DENR officials and related
bureaus with respect to the implementation of the public policy
concerning the conservation of natural resources.

2. Oposa vs. Factoran (July 30, 1993)

Petitioners’ personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding

generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.

The minors’ assertion of their right to a sound environment

constitutes at the same time the performance of their obligation
to ensure the protection of that right for the generation to come.

The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the

correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.

The right of the petitioners to a balanced and healthful ecology

is as clear as the DENR’s duty to protect and advance the said

A timber license is not a contract, property or a property right

protected by the due process clause of the Constitution.

The granting of license does not create irrevocable rights,

neither is it property or property rights.

Timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause

cannot be invoked. The non-impairment clause must yield to
the police power of the state.

3. Mustang Lumber vs Court of Appeals (June 18, 1996)

Under an administrative seizure, the owner retains the physical

possession of the seized articles.
Possession of lumber without the required legal documents is
penalized in Section 68 of P.D. No. 705 because lumber is
included in the term timber.

Lumber is processed log or timber.

Seizure of a truck loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber not

accompanied with the required invoices and transport
documents is a valid exercise of the power vested upon a forest
officer or employee by Section 80 of P.D. No. 705; A search
could be lawfully conducted on a moving vehicle without a
search warrant.

Where a lumber-dealer’s license or permit has been suspended,

he has absolutely no right to possess, sell, or otherwise dispose
of lumber and the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources or his authorized representative has the authority to
seize the lumber.

4. Paat vs Court of Appeals (January 10, 1997)

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies – Before a

party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a pre-
condition that he should have availed of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him.

(1) when there is a violation of due process,
(2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question,
(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
(4) when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative
agency concerned,
(5) when there is irreparable injury,
(6) when the respondent is a department secretary whose
acts as an alter ego of the President bears the implied
and assumed approval of the latter,
(7) when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies
would be unreasonable,
(8) when it would amount to a nullification of a claim,
(9) when the subject matter is a private land in land case
(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy, and
(11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency
of judicial intervention.

Due process in administrative proceedings does not necessarily

mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or right to
be heard.

The introduction of Executive Order No. 277, amending Section

68 of P.D. 705, the act of cutting, gathering, collecting,
removing, or possessing forest products without authority
constitutes a distinct offense independent now from the crime of
theft under Articles 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code, but
the penalty to be imposed is that provided for under Articles
309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code.

Special civil action for certiorari or prohibition; proper remedy

to question orders of confiscation and forfeiture under P.D. 705,
as amended.

5. Crescencio v. People, G.R. No. 205015, [November 19, 2014])

Section 80 of the Forestry Code authorizes the forestry officer or

employee of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) or any personnel of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) to arrest, even without a warrant, any person who
has committed or is committing in his presence any of the
offenses defined by the Forestry Code and to seize and confiscate
the tools and equipment used in committing the offense or the
forest products gathered or taken by the offender.

Violation of Section 68 of the Forestry Code is punished as

Qualified Theft under Article 310 in relation to Article 309 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

6. Ruzon vs Sandiganbayan GR 186739, April 17, 2013

The Local Government Unit (LGU) also has, under the Local
Government Code (LGC) of 1991, ample authority to promulgate
rules, regulations and ordinances to monitor and regulate
salvaged forest products, provided that the parameters set forth
by law for their enactment have been faithfully complied with.
While the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) is, indeed, the primary government instrumentality
charged with the mandate of promulgating rules and regulations
for the protection of the environment and conservation of natural
resources, it is not the only government instrumentality clothed
with such authority.

The requirement of permits to transport salvaged forest products

is not a manifestation of usurpation of Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)’s authority but
rather an additional measure which was meant to complement
DENR’s duty to regulate and monitor forest resources within the
Local Government Unit (LGU)’s territorial jurisdiction.

Before an area may be considered a communal forest, the

following requirements must be accomplished:
(1) an identification of potential communal forest areas within
the geographic jurisdiction of the concerned
(2) a forest land use plan which shall indicate, among other
things, the site and location of the communal forests;
(3) a request to the DENR Secretary through a resolution
passed by the Sangguniang Bayan concerned; and (4) an
administrative order issued by DENR Secretary declaring the
identified area as a communal forest.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

is not the sole government agency vested with the authority to
issue permits relevant to the transportation of salvaged forest
products, considering that, pursuant to the general welfare
clause, Local Government Unit (LGU) may also exercise such

7. Aquino vs Municipality of Malay Aklan (GR NO. 211356, Sept 29,

Judicial Function” and “Quasi-Judicial Function,”
Distinguished.—To contrast, a party is said to be exercising a
judicial function where he has the power to determine what the
law is and what legal rights of the parties are, and then
undertakes to determine these questions and adjudicate upon
the rights of the parties, whereas quasi-judicial function is “a
term which applies to the actions, discretion, etc., of public
administrative officers or bodies x x x required to investigate facts
or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and draw
conclusions from them as a basis for their official action and to
exercise discretion of a judicial nature.”

Forestlands, although under the management of the Department

of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), are not exempt
from the territorial application of municipal laws, for local
government units legitimately exercise their powers of
government over their defined territorial jurisdiction.

8. Republic vs CA and Carantes GR No. L-56984, September 30,


Forest lands or forest reserves are not capable of private

appropriation and possession thereof, however long, cannot
convert them into private property.

9. Yngson vs Secretary of Agriculture GR No. L-36847, July 20, 1983)

Until public lands are released as alienable or disposable neither

the Bureau of Lands nor the Bureau of Fisheries may lease or
otherwise dispose of said lands.

Bureau of Fisheries has no jurisdiction to dispose of swamplands

or mangrove lands while same classified as forest or timberland.

Applications to lease mangrove or swampland for fishpond

purposes are premature if filed before their release to the Bureau
of Fisheries.
10. Director of Forestry vs VIllareal GR No. L-46048 November 29,

Mangrove swamps are classified as forest lands but said

classification is descriptive only of its legal nature and status and
does not have to be descriptive of what the land actually looks

The previous description of mangrove swamps as agricultural

lands covers only those lands over which ownership had already
vested before the Administrative Code of 1917 became effective.

Mangrove swamps form part of the public forests and are not
alienable under the Constitution.

Primary right of a private individual who possessed and

cultivated the land in good faith much prior to such classification
must be recognized and should not be prejudiced by after-events
which could not have been anticipated.

11. International Hardwood vs UP Gr No. 521518 Aug 13, 1991

Transfer of ownership; Effect on existing timber license

agreements. The right of a timber licensee must not be affected,
impaired or diminished; it must be respected.

12. People vs Que GR No. 120365, December 17, 1996

The phrase "existing forest laws and regulations" should be

construed to refer to laws and regulations existing at the time of
possession of timber or other forest products.


1. Miners Association of the Philippines vs Factoran (240 SCRA 100)
The power of administrative officials to promulgate rules and
regulations in the implementation of a statute is necessarily
limited only to carrying into effect what is provided in the
legislative enactment.
Article XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution does not apply
retroactively to “license, concession or lease” granted by the
government under the 1973 Constitution or before the
effectivity of the 1987 Constitution.

Pursuant to the reservation clause of Executive Order No. 211,

mining leases or agreements granted after the effectivity of the
1987 Constitution can be amended, modified or altered by a
statute passed by Congress to achieve the purposes of Article
XII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

Regardless of the reservation clause in E.O. 211. mining leases

or agreements granted by the State are subject to alterations
through a reasonable exercise of the police power of the State.

The State, in the exercise of its police power, may not be

precluded by the constitutional restriction on non-impairment
of contract from altering, modifying and amending the mining
leases or agreements granted under Presidential Decree No.
463, as amended, pursuant to Executive Order No. 211.

2. La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Association vs Ramos (12/1/2004)

Philippine Mining Act of 1995 (R.A. No. 7942); Financial and

Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAA); FTAAs not limited to
foreign-owned corporations only.

Section 40 of R.A. No. 7942 expressly applies to the assignment

of the FTAA, not to the sale and transfer of shares of stock in a
foreign corporation to a Filipino corporation; When the
transferee of the FTAA happens to be a Filipino corporation, the
need for the safeguard of securing the prior approval of the
President and notification to Congress is not critical, and the
lack of the same may not be deemed fatal as to render the
transfer invalid.

Exploration Permits; While the Constitution mandates the State

to exercise full control and supervision over the exploitation of
mineral resources, nowhere does it require the government to
hold all exploration permits and similar authorizations.

An exploration permit merely grants to a qualified person the

right to conduct exploration for all minerals in specified areas—
it does not amount to an authorization to extract and carry off
the mineral resources that may be discovered.

The exploration permit serves a practical and legitimate purpose

in that it protects the interests and preserves the rights of the
exploration permit grantee (the would-be contractor)—foreign or
local—during the period of time that it is spending heavily on
exploration works, without yet being able to earn revenues to
recoup any of its investments and expenditures.

The discretion given to the contractor to select the contract area

does not constitute abdication of control—it is a mere
acknowledgment of the fact that the contractor will have
determined, after appropriate exploration works, which portions
of the contract area do not contain minerals in commercial
quantities sufficient to justify developing the same and ought
therefore to be relinquished.

3. Loney vs People (February 10, 2006)

4. Didipio Earthsavers Multipurpose Association vs. Gozun (GR No.
157882, 3/30/2006)
5. (Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp. v. Balite Portal Mining
Cooperative, G.R. No. 135190, [April 3, 2002], 429 PHIL 668-685)
energy Development Corporation, GR NO. 207942, January 12,
7. Atok Big-Wedge Mining Co. vs IAC (GR No. 63528, September 9,
8. Apex Mining Corporation vs Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining
Corporation (GR NO 152613, June 13, 2006)
9. PNOC Energy Development vs Veneracion (GR NO. 129820,
November 30, 2006)
10. Benguet Corporation vs Leviste (GR NO. 65021, November 21,
11. Industrial Enterprises Inc vs Court of Appeals, GR NO. 88550,
April 18, 1990)


1. Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
112526, [October 12, 2001], 419 PHIL 457-480)
2. (National Water Resources Board v. A. L. Ang Network, Inc., G.R.
No. 186450, [April 8, 2010], 632 PHIL 22-32)
3. (Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents
of Manila Bay, G.R. Nos. 171947-48, [December 18, 2008], 595 PHIL


1. MMDA vs Jancom ([G.R. No. 147465. January 30, 2002]
2. Mead vs Argel (G.R. No. L-41958, [July 20, 1982], 115 SCRA 256)
3. PAB vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 93891March 11, 1991195
SCRA 112)
4. Technology Developers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94759,
[January 21, 1991], 271 PHIL 148-154)
5. Rodriguez, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74816,
[March 17, 1987], 232 PHIL 562-575)
6. Henares, Jr. v. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory
Board, G.R. No. 158290, [October 23, 2006], 535 PHIL 835-849)



1. People vs Que GR No. 120365, December 17, 1996

 A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC; Rules of Court

 Criminal Procedure in Environmental Cases vis-à-vis Criminal
Procedure under the Rules of Court
 RULE 9
1. Cudia vs. Court of Appeals 284 SCRA 173 (1998)
2. Pp. vs. Rosalindo Cutamora, Et. Al G.R. Nos. 133448-53.
October 6, 2000
3. People vs. Robert P. Balao, Et Al G.R. No. 176819, Jan 26,

 RULE 10
1. Casupanan vs. Laroya, August 26, 2002

 RULE 11
1. Pp. vs. Sucro March 18, 1991, 195 SCRA 388
2. People vs. Evaristo 216 S 431
3. Pp. vs. Joselito del Rosario April 14, 1999
4. People vs Del Rosario GR 182601
5. People vs Gerente G.R. No. 95847-48.
6. People vs Tonog G.R. No. 94533
7. People vs. Manlulu April 22, 1994

 RULE 12

 RULE 13

 RULE 14

1. Paderanga v. Court of Appeals 247 SCRA 741 (1995)
2. Enrile vs Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 213847 August 18, 2015
3. Borinaga v. Tamin 26 SCRA 206 (1993);
4. Cardines v. Rozete, 242 SCRA 557 (1995).
 RULE 15
1. Pp. vs. Martin Villarama June 23, 1992

 RULE 16
1. Abubakar vs. Abubakar Oct 22, 1999

 RULE 17
1. Abay, Sr. vs. Garcia 162 SCRA 665; Marcelino Rivera, Jr. vs.
Pp August 30, 1990
2. Pp vs. Marcelino A. Bugarin (June 13, 1997)
3. Pp. vs. Elegio Nadera (Feb. 2, 2000)
4. Eligio Madrid vs. CA (May 31, 2000)
5. Myla Paredes Et. Al. vs. Judge Jacinto Manalo May 10, 1995
6. Abraham Ramirez vs. Antonia Corpuz- Macandong Sept. 26,
7. Pp. vs. Omar Mapalao May 14, 1991
8. People vs. Joven De Grano G.R. No. 167710, June 5, 2009

 RULE 19

 RULE 7

 RULE 8
1. Pilar Cañeda Braga v. Hon. Joseph Emilio A. Abaya (GR No.
223076, september 13, 2016
2. Hon. Ramon Jesus P. Paje, v. Hon. Teodoro a. Casiño (G.r. No.
207257, February 03, 2015)
3. Lnl Archipelago Minerals, Inc. vs. Agham party list (G.r. No.
4. Segovia v. Climate Change Commission, G.R. No. 211010, [March
7, 2017])
5. Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, [September 16, 2014])
(Resident Marine Mammals of the Protected Seascape Tañon Strait v. Reyes,
G.R. Nos. 180771 & 181527, [April 21, 2015])