1.AttysHumbertoBascoetalvsPhilAmusementsandGamingCorpG.R.No.

91649
Facts:PetitionersseekfortheannulmentofPAGCORCharter,PD1869being
contrarytomorals,publicpolicyandorderandfortendingtowardsmonopoly,
cronyeconomy,waivingtheManilaCitygovernmentsrighttoimposetaxes
andlicensefees,andviolatingtheequalprotectionclause,localautonomyand
otherstatepoliciesintheConstitution.
Issue:WhetherPD1869violatesthelocalautonomyclause.
Held:PD1869doesnotviolatethelocalautonomyclause.
Thepoweroflocalgovernmentunitstoregulategamblingthroughthegrantof
franchises,licensesorpermitswaswithdrawnbyPD771andisnowvested
exclusivelyonthenationalgovernments.Thepowertodemandorcollectlicense
feesisnolongervestedinthecityofManila.
Localgovernmentunitshavenopowertotaxgovernmentinstrumentalities.Being
aGOCC,PAGCORisthereforeexemptfromlocaltaxes.Thenational
governmentissupremeoverlocalgovernments.Assuch,merecreaturesofthe
Statecannotdefeatnationalpoliciesusingthepowertotaxasatoolfor
regulation.Thepowertotaxcannotbeallowedtodefeataninstrumentalityofthe
veryentitywhichhastheinherentpowertowieldit.ThepowerofLGUsto
imposetaxesandfeesisalwayssubjecttolimitationprovidedbyCongress.
2.JuanitoMarianoJretalvsCommissiononElectionsG.R.No.118577
Facts:Petitionersseekforannulmentofsection2ofRepublicAct7854forbeing
unconstitutionalastheyfailedtodelineatethelandareasofMakatibymetesand
boundswithtechnicaldescriptions,section51forcollidingwithprovisionsofthe
Constitutionassaidsectionallowsforthecorporateexistenceofanewcity,
thereby,permittingtheincumbentmunicipalelectiveofficialstohaveafreshterm
fortheiroffice,andsection52foraddingalegislativedistrict.
RepublicAct7854convertsthemunicipalityofMakatiintoahighlyurbanized
citytobeknownasCityofMakati.
Issue:WhetherRA7854isunconstitutional.
Held:RA7854isconstitutional.

Thesaiddelineationdidnotchangeevenbyaninchthelandareapreviously
coveredbyMakatiasamunicipality.Section2didnotadd,subtract,divideor
multiplythealreadyestablishedlandareaofMakati.
Thecourtcannotentertainthechallengetotheconstitutionalityofsection51as
petitionersonlyreliedoncontingencieswhichmayormaynothappen.Atbest,
petitionersposedahypotheticalissuewhichhasyettoripenintoanactual
controversy.
Thereapportionmentoflegislativedistrictsmaybedonethroughaspeciallaw.
3.MunicipalityofJimenezvsHon.VicenteBaz,Jr.G.R.No.105746
Facts:TheMunicipalityofJimenezandMunicipalityofSinacabanarguedovera
certainlot,which,basedonE.O.258enactedbythenPresElpidioQuirino
creatingtheMunicipalityofSinacabandefinedthelattersterritorialboundary.
Jimenezsclaimoverthedisputedlotisbasedonanagreementwiththe
MunicipalityofSinacabanandapprovedinresolutionno.77bytheProvincial
BoardofMisamisOccidental.Butsaidresolutionwassupersededbyanother,
declaringresolutionno77asvoid.
ThemunicipalityofJimenezfiledforcertiorari,prohibitionandmandamusagainst
Sinacaban,theProvinceofMisamisOccidentalanditsProvincialBoard,the
CommissionofAuditandDepartmentofLocalGovernmentBudgetand
ManagementandtheExecutiveSecretary.
Issue:WhetherSinacabanhaslegalpersonalitytofileaclaimandifithas,
whetheritistheboundaryprovidedforinEO248orinResolution77oftheBoard
ofProvincialBoardofMisamisOccidentalwhichshouldbeusedasthebasisfor
adjudicatingitsterritorialclaim.
Held:Sinacabanisadefactocorporationsinceithadcompletelyorganizeditself
andexercisedcorporatepowersforfortyyearsbeforeitsexistencewasquestioned.
Whereamunicipalitycreatedassuchbyexecutiveorderislaterimpliedly
recognizedanditsactsareaccordedlegalvalidity,itscreationcannolongerbe
questioned.

Aboveall,itwasheldthatwhateverdoubttheremightbeastothedejure
characterofthemunicipalitymustbedeemedtohavebeenputtorestbytheLocal
GovernmentCodeof1991.
4.CityofPasigvsCommissiononElectionsG.R.No.125646
Facts:TheComelecwithheldtheholdingofplebisciteonthecreationofBarangay
Karangalanuntilthecourthassettledwithfinalitytheboundarydisputes,butnot
thepetitioncreatingbarangaynapico,rulingthesameismootandacademicfor
theplebiscitewasheldandthecreationofsuchbarangaywasapprovedby
majorityofthevotescasttherein.Thecityofpasigfiledasuitagainstcomelecfor
holdinginabeyancetheplebisciteforcreatingBarangayKarangalan.
Issue:Whetherornottheplebiscitesscheduledforthecreationofthetwo
barangaysshouldbesuspendedinviewofthependingboundarydisputebetween
twolocalgovernemtns.
Held:Yes,preciselybecauseterritorialjurisdictionisanissueraisedinthe
pendingcivilcase,untilandunlesssuchissueisresolvedwithfinality,todefine
theterritorialjurisdictionoftheproposedbarangayswouldonlybeanexercisein
futility.Notonlythat,wewouldbepavingthewayforpotentiallyultraviresacts
ofsuchbarangays.
Inthecaseatbar,whiletheCityofPasigvigorouslyclaimsthattheareascovered
bytheproposedBarangaysKarangalanandNapicoarewithinitsterritory,itcan
notdenythatportionsofthesameareaareincludedintheboundarydisputecase
pendingbeforetheRegionalTrialCourtofAntipolo.Surely,whethertheareasin
controversyshallbedecidedaswithintheterritorialjurisdictionofthe
MunicipalityofCaintaortheCityofPasighasmaterialbearingtothecreationof
theproposedBarangaysKarangalanandNapico.Indeed,arequisiteforthe
creationofabarangayisforitsterritorialjurisdictiontobeproperlyidentifiedby
metesandboundsorbymoreorlesspermanentnaturalboundaries.
5.FlavianoMejiaetalvsPedroU.BalolongG.R.No.L1925
Facts:InNovember1947GeneralElectionforprovincial,municipalandcity
officials,petitionerswereelectedascouncilorsofDagupanCity.Therespondents,
havingbeendefeatedinthesaidelectionwereneverthelessappointedas
councilorsbythePresidentofthePhilippinesonDec30,1947.

Petitionersfiledanactionforquowarrantoagainstrespondentsonthegroundthat
theirappointmentsbythepresidentoftherepublicofthephilswerenullandvoid.
Held:TheappointmentsoftherespondentseffectedonDecember30,1947,are
nullandvoid.Thevalidityoftheappointmentoftherespondentsascouncilorsof
theCityofDagupanbythePresidentofthePhilippinesdependsuponwhetherthe
CityofDagupanwascreatedandcameintoexistenceonJune20,1947,thedate
ActNo.170becameeffective,oronJanuary1,1948,whenthecitygovernment
wasorganizedbyExecutiveOrderNo.96.
TheCityofDagupancreatedbyAct170cameintoexistenceasalegalentityora
publiccorporationupontheapprovalofsaidAct,onJune20,1947.Becausea
statutelikeActNo.170istotakeeffectuponitsapproval,itisoperativefromthe
exactinstanceuponitsapprovalorbecomingalaw.
SincetheelectionofthemembersoftheMunicipalBoardoftheCityofDagupan
createdonJune20,1947,wastotakeandtookplaceatthegeneralelectionheld
onNovember11,1947,andthePresidentofthePhilippineswasempoweredby
section88ofAct170toappointthosemembersonlyiftheorganizationofthecity
governmenthadtakenplacependingorbeforethesaidelection.
6.RicardoAguadovsCityofManilaG.R.No.L3282
RicardoAguadowasanassignorofclaimsheldbyTomasLunaMunozagainst
theCityofManila,thelatterbeinganadministratorofthewatersupplyand
Carriedofunds.OnApril28,1903,Aguadofiledanactiontorecoverfromthe
CityofManilathesumofP5,621.40.TheCourtofFirstInstancedecidedin
plaintiffsfavor.
Issue:WhetherornotthepresentCityofManilaisliableunderthecontractsfor
theobligationscreatedbytheoldCityofManilaasitssuccessor.
Held:TheCityofManilaisnotliable.
TheCityofManilaisinnowaythesuccessoroftheAyuntamientodeManilain
law.Themerefactthatthepresentauthorityintheseislandshasgiventothe
presentcitypowerslikethoseexercisedbytheAyuntamientodeManilainnoway
makestheformerthesuccessorofthelatter.Itisanentirelyneworganization,a
newagentofanewprincipal,andonlyhassuchauthority,suchpowers,andsuch
obligationsandresponsibilitiesasthenewprincipalhasseenfittograntand
impose.

7.MarcosMendozavsFranciscoDeLeonetalG.R.No.9596
Facts:MarcosMendozafileanactionfordamagesagainsttheindividualmembers
ofthemunicipalcouncilofthemunicipalityofVillasis,Pangasinan,forthe
revocationoftheleaseofanexclusiveferryprivilegedulyawardedtoMendoz
undertheprovisionsofAct.No.1643ofthePhilCommission.Mendozawas
forciblyejectedafteralittlemorethanayearofuse.
Issue:Aretheindividualmembersofmunicipalcouncilpersonallyliable?
Held:Thedefendantsareliablejointlyandseverallyforthedamagessustainedby
theplaintifffromtherescissionofhiscontractofleaseoftheferryprivilegein
question.
UndertheprovisionsofMunicipalCodeandActNo.1634,theplaintiffhada
vestedrighttotheexclusiveoperationoftheferryinquestionfortheperiodofhis
lease.Werethemunicipalityapartytothisaction,itwouldbepatentthata
judgmentfordamagesagainstitfortherescissionofthecontractwouldbeproper.
8.ThePeopleofthePhilIslandsvsMaximoCruzG.R.No.31265
Facts:MaximoCruzwasconvictedofviolatingordinanceNo.4seriesof1928of
themunicipalityofCabanatuanandwassentencedtoafineofP200with
subsidiaryimprisonmentincaseofinsolvency.Hence,thisappeal.
Issue:Whetherordinanceno.4isunconstitutional.
Held:Theordinanceisconstitutional.
Municipalcouncilsareempoweredtoenactzonificationordinanceswithintheir
jurisdictionintheexerciseoftheirpolicepower.Itisamatterdefinitelysettledby
bothPhilippineandAmericancasesthatmunicipalcorporationmay,inthe
exerciseoftheirpolicepower,enactordinancesorregulationsonzonification.
Withinthepowersgrantedtomunicipalcouncilsinsection2238oftheRevised
AdministrativeCode,themunicipalcouncilofCabanatuanwasauthorizedto
enactthezonificationordinancewithwhichwearenowconcerned.
9.SengKee&CovsTomasEarnshawG.R.No.34976

Facts:SengKee&CofiledanappealfromthedecisionoftheCourtofFirst
InstanceofManila,declaringsections120,121,122,1067and1068ofthe
RevisedOrdinancesNo.1600oftheCityofManilaconstitutional,thereby
affectinghistoyomanufacturingbusiness.
Issue:Whethertheassailedprovisionsareunconstitutional.
Held:Theprovisionsareconstitutional.
ThepoweroftheCityofManilatoadoptordinancesofthiskindisderivedfrom
sections1019and1020(g)oftheAdministrativeCode.Andtheconstitutionality
ofthesetwoprovisionscannotbeputinissueastheyflowfromthepolicepower
inherentineverylegislature,andheredelegatedtotheCityofManila.