Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

RA 6395 cannot restrict the constitutional power of the courts to determine just

compensation.the payment of just compensation for private property taken for


publci useis guaranteed by no less than our constitutionand i incuded in the bill of
rights.as such,no legislative enactments or executive issuances can prevent the
courts from determining whether the right pf the property owners to just
compensation has been violated.
It should be born in mind that just compensation should be computed based on the
FMV of the subject property at the timeof its taking or the filing of the compaint,
whichever came first.since the filing of eminent domaincase came ahead of taking
just compensatin should be based on fmv at the time of the filing
An employer may terminate an employment for "serious misconduct" or for "fraud or willful breach by the employee of the
trust reposed in him by his employer or representative".
Loss of confidence as a ground for dismissal does not entail proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee's misconduct.
It is enough that there be some basis for such loss of confidence or that the employer has reasonable grounds to believe
that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation therein rendered him absolutely
unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.
The eventual conviction of an employee who is prosecuted for his misconduct is not indispensable to warrant his dismissal
by his employer.
On the other hand, the acquittal of an employee in the criminal case filed against him by his employer does not also
guarantee his reinstatement if the employer has lost confidence in him.
A company has the right to dismiss its erring employees if only as a measure of self-protection against acts inimical to its
interest.

ISSUE: W/N a husband, may legally enter into a long-term contract of lease involving conjugal real property without the
consent of the wife.
Ruling: No. (Case remanded to the RTC by the SC)
Even if the husband is administrator of the conjugal partnership, administration does not include acts of ownership. For while
the husband can administer the conjugal assets unhampered, he cannot alienate or encumber the conjugal realty.
As stated in Black's Law Dictionary, the word "alienation" means "the transfer of the property and possession of lands,
tenements, or other things from one person to another ... The act by which the title to real estate is voluntarily assigned by
one person to another and accepted by the latter, in the form prescribed by law." While encumbrance "has been defined to
be every right to, or interest in, the land which may subsist in third persons, to the diminution of the value of the land, but
consistent with the passing of the fee by the conveyance; any (act) that impairs the use or transfer of property or real
estate..."
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not a lease is an encumbrance and/or alienation.
Under Art. 1643 of the New Civil Code "In the lease of things, one of the parties binds himself to give to another the
enjoyment or use of a thing for a price certain, and for a period which may be definite or indefinite...." Thus, lease is a grant
of use and possession: it is not only a grant of possession.
In the contract of lease, the lessor transfers his right of use in favor of the lessee. The lessor's right of use is impaired,
therein. He may even be ejected by the lessee if the lessor uses the leased realty.

Therefore, lease is a burden on the land, it is an encumbrance on the land. The concept of encumbrance includes lease,
thus "an encumbrance is sometimes construed broadly to include not only liens such as mortgages and taxes, but also
attachment, LEASES, inchoate dower rights, water rights, easements, and other RESTRICTIONS on USE."
Moreover, lease is not only an encumbrance but also a qualified alienation, with the lessee becoming, for all legal intents
and purposes, and subject to its terms, the owner of the thing affected by the lease.
Thus, in case the wife's consent is not secured by the husband as required by law, the wife has the remedy of filing an action
for the annulment of the contract.

Damages None; Separate Suit Allows Damages for Malicious Neglect of Duty
The law finds application in the case at bar
Here is the problem for Exercise 3:

A built a house on land belonging to B in the belief that the land was his own. The error
discovered, B formally notified A that he elected to appropriate the house. All efforts to
reach an agreement as to the sum to be paid to A having failed, A began an action to
recover the expenditures incurred by him in building the house. The house was
destroyed in a fire of purely accidental origin. Would A be entitled to recover from B the
said expenditures?