A plain reading of the fourth portion or last paragraph of Section 31 conveys that the developer is required to donate the roads, alleys, sidewalks, and playgrounds to the local government unit. There is no mention of other open spaces, such as schools, places of worship, hospitals, health centers, barangay centers, and other similar facilities and amenities. Under the rules of statutory construction, the express mention of one person, thing, or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. This is expressed in the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.Applying this principle, the donation of other open spaces is not required. Even if the Court considered the lot where the water system is located as an open space, it is not included in the enumeration of open spaces to be donated. The last paragraph of Section 31 does not contain the phrase "other similar facilities and amenities" mentioned in the definition of open spaces. Therefore, Section 31 does not require the donation of all open spaces.

It must be recapitulated that based on the rules and jurisprudence, the aggrieved or injured innocent spouse of either marriage has the sole right to file the petition for the declaration of nullity of the bigamous marriage. Proceeding therefrom, it is implicit that such petition cannot be filed by the erring spouse. Otherwise, it will give rise to a ridiculous situation wherein the party who contracted the illicit subsequent marriage is permitted to invoke the bigamous nature thereof in support of the petition to nullify the same. This results in a legal absurdity, as the offending spouse is essentially empowered to dissolve the marriage at will. In the latter case, instead of being treated as a transgression warranting redress, bigamy will be treated by the erring spouse as a matter of convenience.

Here, accused-appellant/s are charged with "caus[ing] undue injury to the Municipality of Barlig, Mountain Province by causing the" implementation of the Open Gym and Pathway projects.Clearly, accused-appellant/s are being charged solely for the act of causing undue injury, to the exclusion of granting unwarranted benefits. As discussed above, causing undue injury and granting unwarranted benefits are distinct and separate acts which necessitate different defenses and forms of proof. Thus, both acts must be alleged in the information in order to convict the accused-appellant/sunder both acts; and the accused-appellant/s cannot be convicted on the basis of either act if not alleged in the information.

As a general rule, a buy-bust operation, considered as a form of entrapment, is a valid means of arresting violators of Republic Act No. 9165. It is an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.

Contrary to the arguments of accused-appellant, her arrest was pursuant to a valid entrapment operation and was not done through instigation.

In this 2024 Decision of the Supreme Court, it declared void the transfers of ownership, rights, or possession over lands acquired pursuant to Presidential Decree 27 (PD 27).  It also emphasized that any waiver and transfer of rights and interests under PD 27 is void for violating the agrarian reform law, whose main purpose is to ensure that the farmer-beneficiary shall continuously possesses, cultivates, and enjoys the land they till. In fine, any agreement signed by the farmer-beneficiary to surrender rights or interest over lands awarded under PD 27 is void.

#agrarianlaw #philippines #iloilo #lawyer #lawfirm #DAR

There have been many cases discussing the distinction between actions for unlawful detainer and those for forcible entry. However, the common thread has always been the Court's consistent adoption of the following precept—the border between forcible entry and unlawful detainer is defined by the nature of the defendant's entry into or initial possession of the property. If the entry is illegal, then the action which may be filed against the intruder is forcible entry. If, however, the entry is legal but the possession thereafter becomes illegal, the case is unlawful detainer.

This is the 2024 Supreme Court decision laying down the  four-fold test to determine whether to apply absolute privilege to statements made in the course of quasi-judicial proceedings, or in steps necessarily preliminary thereto.

#quasijudicial #libel #cyberlibel #philippines #lawyer #lawfirm #iloilocity #iloilo

Any public officer or employee who knowingly approves or assists in securing a decision allowing reconstitution in favor of any person not entitled thereto shall be subject to criminal prosecution and, upon conviction, shall be liable for imprisonment of not less than five years but not exceeding ten years or payment of a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos but not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos or both at the discretion of the court and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

Art/Graphics used is generated using Gemini AI 2.0 Flash and does not refer to any person.

This is a 2024 decision by the Philippine Supreme Court acquitting Joel Pancho Bigcas  of violation of Section 3(c) of Republic Act No. 3019.  It ruled that  it is clear that Bigcas did not act with dishonest or fraudulent purpose. There are no facts or circumstances on record from which this specific criminal intent may be inferred. On the contrary, he voluntarily provided a record of the expenses incurred in relation to Lorlene's application for earth moving permit.   This is one of the cases where the Supreme Court declared that  it would be the height of injustice to condemn and punish a person of graft and corruption in the absence of any proof of his dishonest intentions.