[CASE DIGEST] Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Roxas (G.R. No. L-7386)

March 12, 1912

FACTS:

Pedro Roxas, the owner of Hacienda de San Pedro Macati , filed a claim for right of way across Parcel L, in order to enable his tenants to travel from the Hacienda to Calle Tejeron. The Archdiocese of Manila owned Parcel L.

Parcel L was bounded on the north by an estero; on the west by hacienda, on the southwest by Calle Tejeron; and on the west by lands of Francisco Managen.

The eastern line, which joined the hacienda, was 265 meters long. The claim of right of way starts across parcel L at a point 198 meters from the southern extremity of this line.

The tract of land (located in parcel L) which connects Calle Tejeron and the Hacienda, has grown from a 1.5 to 2 meters wide to 4 meters wide. Since time immemorial, it has been used by the tenants of the Hacienda for the passage of carts entering and leaving the Hacienda.

A church is constructed near the said tract, thus it is not only for the exclusive use of the tenants of Roxas’ hacienda, it is also used by the churchgoers, and sometimes by the people living in the Sitio of Suavoy, and other people

Following the trial, the Court of Land Registration denied Roxas' claim of right of way across parcel L.

Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE:

Whether there is valid cause for the grant of the claim of right of way. -- NO.

HELD:

[CASE DIGEST] Conde v. Rivera (G.R. No. L-21741)

January 25, 1924

Aurelia Conde, petitioner,
Pablo Rivera, acting provincial fiscal of Tayabas, and Federico Unson, justice of the peace of Lucena, Tayabas, respondents

FACTS:

Aurelia Conde, formerly a municipal midwife in Lucena, Tayabas, was facing five criminal informations for various crimes and misdeamenors. She appeared with her witnesses and counsel at hearings for at least eight times, but all eight cases were postponed. Conde filed at least two writs for mandamus before the Supreme Court to compel the dismissal of the cases against her for violation of her right to a speedy trial. But even the Supreme Court took one year to act on her petitions.

ISSUE:

Whether postponements of the trial against Conde beyond a reasonable period of time may serve as a cause for the dismissal of the charges against her. -- YES.

HELD:

[CASE DIGEST] Cebu Oxygen v. Bercilles (G.R. No. L-40474 )

August 29, 1975

FACTS:

In 1968, the City Council of Cebu, through Resolution No. 2193, declared the terminal portion of M. Borces Street, Mabolo, Cebu City, as an abandoned road. Subsequently, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2755, authorizing the Acting City Mayor to sell the land through a public bidding.

Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co. was awarded the land as the highest bidder. City Council of Cebu executed a deed of absolute sale.

Cebu Oxygen then filed an application for the registration of title, which the CFI of Cebu dismissed. The dismissal was upon the motion of the Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Cebu, who argued that the property sought to be registered was a public road intended for public use and so considered part of the public domain and therefore outside the commerce of man.

ISSUE:

Whether the declaration of a road as abandoned by the City Council of Cebu had the effect of turning the same into a patriomonial property of the City. -- YES.

HELD:

[CASE DIGEST] Lamera v. CA (G.R. No. 93475)

June 5, 1991

FACTS:

On March 14, 1985, an owner-type jeep, then driven by Antonio A. Lamera, allegedly "hit and bumped" a tricycle then driven by Ernesto Reyes resulting in damage to the tricycle and injuries to Ernesto Reyes and Paulino Gonzal.

Lamera was charged with two criminal cases for (a) reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries under Article 365 of the RPC, which was filed before RTC of Pasig; and (b) violation of paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code on Abandonment of one's victim, which was filed before MTC of Pasig.

In 1987, the MTC of Pasig found Lamera guilty of vthe crime of Abandonment of one's victim as defined and penalized under paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the RPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for a period of six (6) months of arresto mayor and to pay the costs. Lamera filed an appeal before the RTC of Pasig.

Pending said appeal, Lamera was arraigned in the criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with multiple physical injuries under Article 365 of the RPC. He pleaded not guilty.

In 1989, the RTC of Pasig, acting on Lamera's appeal, modified the penalty in his prior conviction from imprisonment of six (6) months to just two (2) months.

Lamera filed an appeal before the CA, contending that he couldn't be held guilty for violating Art. 275(b) of RPC because the crime of abandonment is already within the scope of reckless imprudence under Art. 365. Lamera argued that being tried in 2 criminal cases for a single act constituted double jeopardy.  

ISSUE:

Whether the filing of two cases against Lamera for a single act constitutes double jeopardy. -- NO.

HELD: