12) G.R. No. 107797 August 26,1996SALVATIERRA v CAFACTS: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. 25Venancio 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.

ISSUEWON the terms of the extrajudicial partitioning are clear or ambigous?RULINGYES. 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, 1979KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY CREDIT UNION, INC., petitioner-appellant, vs. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, respondent appelleeFACTS: 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, 1974ABELLANA pertitioner v MARAVE respondentFACTS: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, 1996DANILO 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 2nd 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.