G.R. No.

184823

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,

vs.

AICHI FORGING COMPANY OF ASIA, INC., Respondent

FACTS: Respondent Aichi Forging Company of Asia, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines, is engaged in the manufacturing, producing, and processing of steel and its by-products.3 It
is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a Value-Added Tax (VAT) entity and its products, "close
impression die steel forgings" and "tool and dies," are registered with the Board of Investments (BOI) as a pioneer
status.

On September 30, 2004, respondent filed a claim for refund/credit of input VAT for the period July 1, 2002 to September
30, 2002 in the total amount of ₱3,891,123.82 with the petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), through the
Department of Finance (DOF) One-Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent’s judicial and administrative claims for tax refund/credit were filed within the two-
year prescriptive period provided in Sections 112(A) and 229 of the NIRC

HELD: Unutilized input VAT must be claimed within two years after the close of the taxable quarter when the sales were
made. In computing the two-year prescriptive period for claiming a refund/credit of unutilized input VAT, the Second
Division of the CTA applied Section 112(A) of the NIRC.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed July 30, 2008 Decision and the October 6, 2008 Resolution of
the Court of Tax Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE
G.R. No. 140500

ERNESTINA BERNABE, petitioner,

vs.

CAROLINA ALEJO as guardian ad litem for the minor ADRIAN BERNABE, respondent

FACTS: The late Fiscal Ernesto A. Bernabe allegedly fathered a son with his secretary of twenty-three (23) years, herein
plaintiff-appellant Carolina Alejo. The son was born on September 18, 1981 and was named Adrian Bernabe. Fiscal
Bernabe died on August 13, 1993, while his wife Rosalina died on December 3 of the same year, leaving Ernestina as the
sole surviving heir.

On May 16, 1994, Carolina, in behalf of Adrian, filed the aforesaid complaint praying that Adrian be declared an
acknowledged illegitimate son of Fiscal Bernabe and as such he (Adrian) be given his share in Fiscal Bernabe’s estate,
which is now being held by Ernestina as the sole surviving heir.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that respondents had four years from the
attainment of minority to file an action for recognition as provided in Art. 285 of the Civil Code, in complete disregard of
its repeal by the [express] provisions of the Family Code and the applicable jurisprudence as held by the Honorable
Court of Appeals

HELD: No, Petitioner contends that respondent is barred from filing an action for recognition, because Article 285 of the
Civil Code has been supplanted by the provisions of the Family Code. She argues that the latter Code should be given
retroactive effect, since no vested right would be impaired in accordance with Article 285 of Civil Code.

G.R. No. 125932 April 21, 1999

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners

vs.

CLAUDE A. MILLER and JUMRUS S. MILLER, respondents

FACTS: On July 29, 1988, the spouses Claude A. Miller and Jumrus S. Miller, filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch
59, Angeles City, a verified petition to adopt the minor Michael Magno Madayag.

The trial court scheduled the petition for hearing on September 9, 1988, at 9:00 in the morning. At the hearing, with the
attendance of an assistant city fiscal of Angeles City, in representation of the Solicitor General, respondents adduced
evidence

ISSUE: Whether or not the court may allow aliens to adopt a Filipino child despite the prohibition under the Family
Code, 4 effective on August 3, 1988 5 when the petition for adoption was filed on July 29, 1988, under the provision of
the Child and Youth Welfare Code 6 which allowed aliens to adopt

HELD: Yes, an alien who filed a petition for adoption before the effective of the Family Code, although denied the right
to adopt under Art. 184 of said Code, may continue with his petition under the law prevailing before the Family Code.
G.R. No. 138509 July 31, 2000

IMELDA MARBELLA-BOBIS, petitioner,

vs.

ISAGANI D. BOBIS, respondent

FACTS: On October 21, 1985, respondent contracted a first marriage with one Maria Dulce B. Javier. Without said
marriage having been annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent contracted a second marriage with
petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis on January 25, 1996 and allegedly a third marriage with a certain Julia Sally Hernandez.
Based on petitioner's complaint-affidavit, an information for bigamy was filed against respondent on February 25, 1998,
which was docketed as Criminal Case No. Q98-75611 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226, Quezon City

ISSUE: Whether or not the subsequent filing of a civil action for declaration of nullity of a previous marriage constitutes
a prejudicial question to a criminal case for bigamy

HELD: Yes, in the light of Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent, without first having obtained the judicial declaration
of nullity of the first marriage, can not be said to have validly entered into the second marriage. Per current
jurisprudence, a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party can marry again;
otherwise the second marriage will also be void.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The order dated December 29, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226 of
Quezon City is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the trial court is ordered to IMMEDIATELY proceed with Criminal Case No.
Q98-7561

G.R. No. 166738

ROWENA PADILLA-RUMBAUA, Petitioner,

vs.

EDWARD RUMBAUA, Respondent

FACTS: The petitioner alleged that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to exercise the essential obligations
of marriage. Petitioner and responder got married on February 23, 1993, however they never lived together as the
respondent was scared that public knowledge of their marriage would affect his application for a PAL scholarship. In
1994, the parties’ respective families discovered their secret marriage.

ISSUES: Whether or not the OSG certification requirement can be dispensed with because AM No. 02-11-10-SC, which
relaxed the requirement, took effect only on March 15, 2003?

HELD: No, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is applicable. The court emphasized the role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and
the OSG; they are to appear as counsel for the State in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages
G.R. No. L-2246

JOVITO R. SALONGA, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

WARNER, BARNES AND CO., LTD., defendant-appellant.

FACTS: On August 28, 1946, Westchester Fire Insurance Company of New York entered into a contract with Tina J.
Gamboa whereby said company insured one case of rayon yardage which said Tina J. Gamboa shipped from San
Francisco, California, on steamer Clovis Victory, to Manila, Philippines and consigned to Jovito Salonga, plaintiff herein.
According to the contract of insurance, the insurance company undertook to pay to the sender or her consignee the
damages that may be caused to the goods shipped subject to the condition that the liability of the company will be
limited to the actual loss which the insured may suffer not to the exceed the sum of (2,000.

ISSUE: Whether or not an agent, who acts within the scope of his authority, can assume personal liability for a contract
entered into by him in behalf of his principal?

HELD: The Court agrees with counsel for the appellee that the defendant is a settlement and adjustment agent of the
foreign insurance company and that as such agent it has the authority to settle all the losses and claims that may arise
under the policies that may be issued by or in behalf of said company in accordance with the instructions it may receive
from time to time from its principal, but we disagree with counsel in his contention that as such adjustment and
settlement agent, the defendant has assumed personal liability under said policies, and, therefore, it can be sued in its
own right
G.R. No. 163103

CHARLIE VIOS and SPS. ROGELIO and TERESITA ANTONIO, and as nominal party, Hon. Emilio L. Leachon, Presiding
Judge, RTC, Br. 224, Quezon City, Petitioners,

vs.

MANUEL PANTANGCO, JR. Respondent

FACTS: Respondent Manuel Pantangco, Jr. (Pantangco) filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 32, Quezon
City a complaint for ejectment and damages against petitioners Charlie Vios (petitioner Vios) and the Spouses Rogelio
and Teresita Antonio (Spouses Antonio) (collectively, the petitioners). Pantangco alleged in complaint that:

1. he is a co-owner of a residential land located on Sampaguita St., Barangay Pasong Tamo, Quezon City
2. prior to his purchase of the property, he inquired from the petitioners whether they were interested in buying
the property
3. after the consummation of the sale to him, the petitioners refused to vacate notwithstanding the agreement
4. he filed the complaint when no settlement was reached before the Pangkat Tagapagkasundo

ISSUE: Whether or not an error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion or error of judgment which the trial court
might have committed?

HELD: Yes, the CA erred from the very beginning in ruling on Pantangco’s petition; Pantangco opted for a mode of
review other than the appeal that the Rules of Court require. Therefore, CA PARTIALLY GRANT the petition and
declare the Court of Appeals in error in ruling on the merits of respondent Pantangco’s Rule 47 petition.
G.R. No. 180764 January 19, 2010

TITUS B. VILLANUEVA, Petitioner,

vs.

EMMA M. ROSQUETA, Respondent.

FACTS: Respondent Emma M. Rosqueta (Rosqueta) tendered her courtesy resignation from that post on January 23,
2001, shortly after President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office. But five months later on June 5, 2001, she
withdrew her resignation, claiming that she enjoyed security of tenure and that she had resigned against her will on
orders of her superior.

Meantime, on July 13, 2001 President Arroyo appointed Gil Valera (Valera) to respondent Rosqueta’s position.
Challenging such appointment, Rosqueta filed a petition for prohibition, quo warranto, and injunction against
petitioner Titus B. Villanueva (Villanueva), then Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, and Valera with
the Regional Trial Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in holding petitioner Villanueva liable in damages to respondent Rosqueta for
ignoring the preliminary injunction order that the RTC issued in the quo warranto case (Civil Case 01-101539), thus
denying her of the right to do her job as Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau and to be officially recognized as such
public officer?

HELD: Yes, petitioner Villanueva claims that he merely acted on advice of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
when he allowed Valera to assume the office as Deputy Commissioner since respondent Rosqueta held the position
merely in a temporary capacity and since she lacked the Career Executive Service eligibility required for the job.

The Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 30, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV
85931 with MODIFICATION in that petitioner Titus B. Villanueva is ORDERED to pay respondent Emma M. Rosqueta
the sum of ₱200,000.00 in moral damages, ₱50,000.00 in exemplary damages, and ₱50,000.00 in attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses
G.R. No. 160273 January 18, 2008

CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., SABINO R. DAPAT, RUBEN D. ALMENDRAS, JULIUS Z. NERI, DOUGLAS L. LUYM, CESAR T.
LIBI, RAMONTITO* E. GARCIA and JOSE B. SALA, petitioners,

vs.

RICARDO F. ELIZAGAQUE, respondent

FACTS: Sometime in 1987, San Miguel Corporation, a special company proprietary member of CCCI, designated
respondent Ricardo F. Elizagaque, its Senior Vice President and Operations Manager for the Visayas and Mindanao, as a
special non-proprietary member

As the price of a proprietary share was around the P5 million range, Benito Unchuan, then president of CCCI, offered to
sell respondent a share for only P3.5 million. Respondent, however, purchased the share of a certain Dr. Butalid for only
P3 million. Consequently, on September 6, 1996, CCCI issued Proprietary Ownership Certificate No. 1446 to respondent

ISSUE: Whether or not in disapproving respondent’s application for proprietary membership with CCCI, petitioners are
liable to respondent for damages, and if so, whether their liability is joint and several?

HELD: Yes, in rejecting respondent’s application for proprietary membership, we find that petitioners violated the rules
governing human relations, the basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and
for the stability of social order. The trial court and the Court of Appeals aptly held that petitioners committed fraud and
evident bad faith in disapproving respondent’s applications. This is contrary to morals, good custom or public policy.
Hence, petitioners are liable for damages pursuant to Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the same Code
G.R. No. 174238 July 7, 2009

ANITA CHENG, Petitioner,

vs.

SPOUSES WILLIAM SY and TESSIE SY, Respondents.

FACTS: Petitioner Anita Cheng filed two (2) estafa cases before the RTC, Branch 7, Manila against respondent spouses
William and Tessie Sy (Criminal Case No. 98-969952 against Tessie Sy and Criminal Case No. 98-969953 against William
Sy) for issuing to her Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC) Check Nos. 171762 and 71860 for ₱300,000.00 each, in
payment of their loan, both of which were dishonored upon presentment for having been drawn against a closed
account.

On March 16, 2004, the RTC, Branch 7, Manila dismissed the estafa cases for failure of the prosecution to prove the
elements of the crime.

ISSUE: Whether or not Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure and Supreme Court Circular No. 57-
97 on the Rules and Guidelines in the filing and prosecution of criminal cases under BP Blg. 22 are applicable to the
present case where the nature of the order dismissing the cases for bouncing checks against the respondents was
[based] on the failure of the prosecution to identify both the accused (respondents herein)?

HELD: Yes, the Court finds petitioner’s contention that she was not assisted by a private prosecutor during the BP Blg. 22
proceedings critical. Petitioner indirectly protests that the public prosecutor failed to protect and prosecute her cause
when he failed to have her establish the identities of the accused during the trial and when he failed to appeal the civil
action deemed impliedly instituted with the BP Blg. 22 cases. On this ground, we agree with petitioner

The petition is GRANTED. Civil Case No. 05-112452 entitled Anita Cheng v. Spouses William Sy and Tessie Sy is hereby
ordered REINSTATED. No pronouncement as to costs.
G.R. No. 179799 September 11, 2009

ZENAIDA R. GREGORIO, Petitioner,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, SANSIO PHILIPPINES, INC., and EMMA J. DATUIN, Respondents.

FACTS: On December 5, 1997, Gregorio filed before the MeTC a Motion6 for Deferment of Arraignment and
Reinvestigation, alleging that she could not have issued the bounced checks, since she did not even have a checking
account with the bank on which the checks were drawn, as certified by the branch manager of the Philippine National
Bank, Sorsogon Branch. She also alleged that her signature was patently and radically different from the signatures
appearing on the bounced checks

ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint, a civil suit filed by Gregorio, is based on quasi-delict or malicious prosecution?

HELD: No, a perusal of the allegations of Gregorio’s complaint for damages readily shows that she filed a civil suit against
Sansio and Datuin for filing against her criminal charges for violation of B.P. Blg. 22; that respondents did not exercise
diligent efforts to ascertain the true identity of the person who delivered to them insufficiently funded checks as
payment for the various appliances purchased; and that respondents never gave her the opportunity to controvert the
charges against her, because they stated an incorrect address in the criminal complaint