BONGATO V.

MALVAR, 387 SCRA 327

FACTS:

Spouses Severo and Trinidad Malvar filed a complaint in the MTCC for forcible
entry against Teresita Bongato, alleging that Bongato unlawfully entered a parcel of
land belonging to the spouses and erected thereon a house of light materials.

MTCC decided in favor of Malvar and ordered Bongato to vacate the land. RTC
affirmed the decision. CA also held that MTCC had jurisdiction. On appeal, Bongato
raised the issue of MTCC jurisdiction; that the complaint was filed beyond the one-year
prescriptive period.

ISSUE:

Wherther or not the MTCC had jurisdiction since the Complaint was filed beyond
the one-year period from date of alleged entry?

RULLING:

MTCC had no jurisdiction. It is wise to be reminded that forcible entry is a

One the basis of the facts, it is clear that the cause of action for forcible entry filed by
respondents had already prescribed when they filed the complaint on July 10, 1992 (the
house was built as early as 1987), thus the MTCC had no more jurisdiction to hear and
decide the case.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANDRE MARTI (193 SCRA 57)

FACTS:

On August 14, 1987, the appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes went
to Manila Packaging and Export Forwarders to send packages to Zurich, Switzerland. It
was received by Anita Reyes and ask if she could inspect the packages. Shirley refused
and eventually convinced Anita to seal the package making it ready for shipment.
Before being sent out for delivery, Job Reyes, husband of Anita and proprietor of the
courier company, conducted an inspection of the package as part of standard operating
procedures. Upon opening the package, he noticed a suspicious odor which made him
took sample of the substance he found inside. He reported this to the NBI and invited
agents to his office to inspect the package. In the presence of the NBI agents, Job
Reyes opened the suspicious package and found dried-marijuana leaves inside. A case
was filed against Andre Marti in violation of R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the court
a quo. Andre filed an appeal in the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right
of privacy was violated and that the evidence acquired from his package was
inadmissible as evidence against him.

ISSUE:

Can the Constitutional Right of Privacy be enforced against private individuals?

RULING:

The Supreme Court held based on the speech of Commissioner Bernas that the
Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state.The
constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a
restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. It is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals.
It will be recalled that Mr Job Reyes was the one who opened the box in the presence of
the NBI agents in his place of business. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not
convert the reasonable search effected by Mr. Reyes into a warrantless search and
siezure proscribed by the constitution. Merely to observeand look at that which is in
plain sight is not a search.The judgement of conviction finding appeallant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged was AFFIRMED.
 Co vs. HRET
FACTS:

The petitioners come to this Court asking for the setting aside and reversal of a
decision of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET). The HRET declared
that respondent Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born Filipino citizen and a resident of Laoang,
Northern Samar for voting purposes.

On May 11, 1987, the congressional election for the second district of Northern
Samar was held. Among the candidates who vied for the position of representative in the
second legislative district of Northern Samar are the petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and
Antonio Co and the private respondent, Jose Ong, Jr. Respondent Ong was proclaimed
the duly elected representative of the second district of Northern Samar.

The petitioners filed election protests against the private respondent premised on
the following grounds: Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born citizen of the Philippines; and
Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident of the second district of Northern Samar.

The HRET in its decision dated November 6, 1989, found for the private
respondent.

Issue:
WoN Jose Ong Jr. is a Filipino citizen.
Ruling:
On Jurisdiction, the Constitution explicitly provides that the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) shall
be the sole judges of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of
their respective members. (See Article VI, Section 17, Constitution)

The authority conferred upon the Electoral Tribunal is full, clear and complete. The
use of the word sole emphasizes the exclusivity of the jurisdiction of these Tribunals.

The Supreme Court under the 1987 Constitution, has been given an expanded
jurisdiction, so to speak, to review the decisions of the other branches and agencies of
the government to determine whether or not they have acted within the bounds of the
Constitution. (See Article VIII, Section 1, Constitution)

Yet, in the exercise thereof, the Court is to merely check whether or not the
governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the Constitutional limits of its
jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view. In the absence of a showing that the
HRET has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, there is
no occasion for the Court to exercise its corrective power; it will not decide a matter which
by its nature is for the HRET alone to decide. (See Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668
[1989]) It has no power to look into what it thinks is apparent error.

In the case at bar, the Court finds no improvident use of power, no denial of due
process on the part of the HRET which will necessitate the exercise of the power of
judicial review by the Supreme Court.