12) G.R. No.

107797 August 26,1996

SALVATIERRA v CA
FACTS:
Enrique Salvatierra died intestate. His estate contained 3 parcels of land respectively Lot 25,
26, and 27. An Extrajudicial partition of sales sale was executed in 1968 and divided among
the surviving heirs. A summary of the partion is as follows.
A)Venancio Salvatierra Lot .27 1,041 sqm, and portion of Lot. 26
B)Macario Salvatierra now owned by Anselmo Salvatierra (by deed of sale) 405 sqm
portion of Lot. 26
C)HEIRS of Tomas Salvatierra- 1,116 sqm Lot. 25
Venancio Salvatierra sold their entire allotted property as stated above to Lino Longalong.
After taking Longalongs to possession of property A, a survey discovered in 1982 that the
149 sqm portion of Lot 26 was in Anselmo Salvatierras property B which was now titled as
749 sqm of Lot 26. The Longalongs brought this up with the RTC for reconveyance of the 149
sqm portion of LOT 26 but RTC dismissed it because (1) Longalongs failed to establish
ownership (2) the required 4 years period from discovery of fraud had already elapsed .
Upon appeal the CA discovered that only 405 sqm of the 749 sqm belongs to Aselmo and
that the new title which encompassed the entire 749 sqm was fraudulent. The CA also held
that the prescription periods in the case at bar is 10 years according to Art. 1144
not 4 years. Hence this certiorari.

ISSUE
WON the terms of the extrajudicial partitioning are clear or ambigous?

RULING
YES. It is clear that only 405 sqm of LOT#26 belongs to Macario Salvatierra and by deed of
sale Anselmo Salvatierra. Contracts are private laws of the contracting parties, in this case
the sale of Macarios share to Anselmo, and should be fulfilled according the literal sense of
the stipulation.

13) G.R. No. L-25316 February 28, 1979

KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY
CREDIT UNION, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. MANILA RAILROAD
COMPANY, respondent appellee
FACTS:
This is a petition for mandamus ordering the reversal of the decision from the lower court to honor rights
granted by Section 62 of the Republic Act No. 2023. The petitioner-appellant objected the interpretation of
the lower court on RA 2023, sec 62. They wanted to compel respondent appellee to act as a collecting
agent for debts incurred by employees and that the payment employees debts will be prioritized by the
employer by deducting it (debts) from their salary. The lower court decided that there was no express
declaration that favors the priority of payment to obligations of employees in favor of their credit union.
They contest the application of the said provision, hence this petition.

ISSUE:
WON there is ambiguity or misinterpretation by the lower court on Section 62 of the Republic Act No.
2023?

RULING:
No. The provision speaks for itself and there is no ambiguity. For the lower court to view it otherwise
would have been to alter the law. That is for the legislative.

14) G.R. No. 27760 May 29, 1974

ABELLANA pertitioner v MARAVE respondent
FACTS:
Petitioner was originally charged with a crime of physical injuries due to reckless imprudence for driving
his truck, hitting a motorized pedicab and injuring passengers. Petitioner was found guilty. Damages were
in favor of the offended parties (passengers injured). Offended parties filed an appeal to another branch
of CFI-Misamis Occ presided by respondent judge. It (appeal) requested a separate and independent civil
action for damages allegedly suffered by them from the petitioner (abellana). Petitioner sought for
dismissal of action arguing that it was not allowable when a criminal case was already on appeal and the
offended parties failed to expressly waive the civil action or reserve their right to institute it separately as
required in Rule 111,Sec 1 in the rules of court. Respondent judge was not persuaded hence this
certiorari.

ISSUE:
W petitioners literal construction of Rule 111, sec. 1 is favored?

RULING:
No. Although the offended parties did not make a reservation to institute a civil case while an appeal was
still pending in a criminal case, it does not automatically mean that an independent civil action is barred
because the rule in this case is that upon appeal by the defendant from judgment of conviction by the
municipal court, the appealed decision is vacate and it shall be newly tried in the CFI as if it originated
there. The petitioners restrictive interpretation of the rule will not only weaken the purpose of the rule but
also give rise to a serious constitutional question. The law as an instrument for social control will be
restrained if it is restricted to legal norms and procedural rule.

15) G.R. No. 123169 Nov. 4, 1996

DANILO PARAS v COMELEC
FACT:
Danilo Paras was a Brgy. Captain elected on 1994. A petition for his recall was filed by 29.30% of the
registered voters of the the barangay, well above the required 25% requirement. But, recall was deferred
by COMELEC to due to opposition by petitioner. Recall was set on another date but petitioner attempted
to stall filing for TRO in the RTC. RTC lifted TRO after hearing and asked petitioner why they should not
be cited in contempt of misinterpreting barangay recall election was w/o COMELEC approval. COMELEC
rescheduled for a third time in Jan 5, 1996 hence this petition for certiorari. Petitioners cites of Sec74b of
LGC that no recall would take place w/in 1 year from the of office or 1 year immediately receding a regular
local election. In this case petitioner considered the upcoming SK election on 2 nd week of may 1996 as a
regular local election.

ISSUE:
Is the petitioners interpretation of the Sec74 of the LGC correct?

Ruling:
No. 1) The court stresses that it is a rule in statutory construction that every part of the statute must be
interpreted w/ reference to the context every part of the statute must be considered together with the
other parts. In this case petitioner isolated sec 74 paragraph b without considering the implications of
paragraph a where the provision taken as a whole merely designates the period when such elective
official may be subject to recall, that is the second year of his term.

2) Furthermore, It must be kept subservient to the general INTENT of the whole enactment. Interpreting
the SK election as regular local election would render the recall election mechanism of the LGC
inutile/useless. The Intent of the Legislature must be considered and petitioners absurd literal
interpretation cannot be countenanced/tolerated.