PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

The 1987 Constitution explicitly espouses the view that the use of property bears a social function and that all economic agents shall contribute to the common good. The Supreme Court has already recognized this in the case of Social Justice Society (SJS), et al. v. Hon. Atienza, Jr. Property has not only an individual function, insofar as it has to provide for the needs of the owner, but also a social function insofar as it has to provide for the needs of the other members of society. The principle is this: Police power proceeds from the principle that every holder of property, however absolute and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that his use of it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, nor injurious to the right of the community. Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, are subject to reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as shall prevent th

Here is quiz on CRIMINAL LAW BASICS . Perfect score is 20 POINTS . To view the results, please click SUBMIT and then VIEW SCORES . In case you find errors in our quiz results, please send us a message at www.facebook.com/projectjuris or info@projectjurisprudence.com. OTHER QUIZZES: [1] 10-item online quiz on TAX principles - Project Jurisprudence . [2] 20-item quiz in sales law (#1) - Project Jurisprudence . [3] 15-item quiz in family law. [4] 10-item quiz in obligations law. [5] 10-item quiz in evidence law . [6] 20-item quiz on Latin legal phrases . [7] 15-item quiz in political law . [8] Quiz on effectivity of law . [9] Remedial law quiz; 15 items . [10] Civil law, 20-item quiz on Article 3 and 4 . Loading…

[ NO RECOMMENDED CITATION ] PJP UNDOCKETED : This content is yet to be peer reviewed and has not yet received any favorable recommendation for citation. It may or may not be queued up for citation recommendation or peer review. Caution is advised. CONTACT US : For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjuris . In the concurring opinion of Justice Arturo Brion in one case (Edgar Y. Teves v. COMELEC. 604 Phil. 717. April 28, 2009), he explained that the term moral turpitude was first introduced in the Philippines in 1901 in Act No. 190, otherwise known as the Code of Civil Actions and Special Proceedings.[1] The Act provided that a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as lawyer by the Supreme Court upon conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.[2] Subsequently, the term "moral turpitude" has been employed in statutes governing disqualifications o

Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general,[a] contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.[b] Not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitude. It is for this reason that the Court has to determine as to what crime involves moral turpitude."[c] In the concurring opinion of Justice Arturo Brion in one case (April 28, 2009. . Edgar Y. Teves v. COMELEC. 604 Phil. 717), he explained that the term "moral turpitude" first took root under the United States (U.S.) immigration laws.[1] Its history can be traced back as far as the 17th century when the States of Virginia and Pennsylvania enacted the earliest immigration resolutions excluding criminals from America, in resp

QUOTED FROM G.R. No. 224834, March 15, 2017 : At the outset, the Court notes that in ruling that the correct filing fees for Harvest All, et al.'s complaint should be based on the P1 Billion value of the SRO - and, thus, essentially holding that such complaint was capable of pecuniary estimation - both the RTC and the CA heavily relied on the Court's pronouncement in Lu v. Lu Ym,  Sr. (658 Phil.156, 2011). In Lu, the Court mentioned that in view of A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC dated July 20, 2004 which introduced Section 21 (k) to Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, it seemed that "an intra-corporate controversy always involves a property in litigation" and that "there can be no case of intra-corporate controversy where the value of the subject matter cannot be estimated." However, after a careful reading of Lu, it appears that Harvest All, et al. correctly pointed out that the foregoing statements were in the nature of an obiter dictum. To recount, in Lu, the Cour

The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a constitutionally protected right.[17] The burden lies with the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt by establishing each and every element of the crime charged in the information as to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein.[18] In cases involving dangerous drugs, the People through the Government's prosecution service bears not only the burden of proving these elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.[1] While it is true that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors,[2] the law nevertheless also requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are safeguarded. In all drugs cases, the

That a condition precedent for filing the claim has not been complied with is a ground to throw a case out of court. Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court provides for the grounds that may be raised in a motion to dismiss a complaint, to wit: Section 1. Grounds. – Within the time for but before filing the answer to the complaint or pleading asserting a claim, a motion to dismiss may be made on any of the following grounds: (a) That the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defending party; (b) That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim; (c) That venue is improperly laid; (d) That the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue; (e) That there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; (f) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; (g) That the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action; (h) That the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's plead

In ejectment cases, execution issues immediately if judgment is rendered in favor of defendant subject to the conditions found in Section 19 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, to wit: Sec. 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. - If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or

The right to travel is part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law.[1] It is part and parcel of the guarantee of freedom of movement that the Constitution affords its citizen. (Genuino v. De Lima. G.R. No. 197930. April 17, 2018. Per Justice Reyes, Jr.) Pertinently, Section 6, Article III of the Constitution provides: Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as maybe provided by law. Liberty under the foregoing clause includes the right to choose one's residence, to leave it whenever he pleases and to travel wherever he wills .[2] Thus, in Zacarias Villavicencio vs. Justo Lucban,[3] the Supreme Court held illegal the action of the Mayor of Manila in expelling women who were known prostitutes and