1. Cecilleville Realty v.

CA
G.R. No. 120363
FRANCISCO, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner Cecilleville Realty and Service Corporation owns a land in Sta. Maria,
Bulacan, in which private respondent Herminigildo Pascual occupies. Despite private
demands, petitioner refused to vacate the property and insisted that he is entitled to
occupy the land because he helping his mother Ana Pascual to cultivate the land in
question. Hence, petitioner instituted an ejectment suit before the MTC of Sta. Maria,
Bualacan. Finding no tenancy relationship between petitioner and private respondent, the
Municipal Trial Court, ordered private respondent to vacate the land. Private respondednt
appeled to the RTC. The RTC remanded the case to the DARAB for further adjudication.
A Motion for reconsidered was likewise denied. Hence, private respondent seek appeal to
the CA. The CA find the petition devoid of merit. The tenancy relationship dated back to
1976 when the defendants father, Sotero Pascual, became the tenant of Jose A.
Resurreccion, the President of the Cecilleville Realty and Service Corporation. The
defendant, although not the tenant himself, is afforded the protection provided by law as
his mother is already old and infirm and is allowed to avail of the labor of her immediate
household. He is entitled to the security of tenure accorded his mother. His having a
house of his own on the property is merely incidental to the tenancy. The CA affirmed the
decision of RTC. Hence, this petition for certiorari.
ISSUE:
WON, the CA erred in not finding that while the private respondent is entitled to work on
the agricultural land of petitioner in his capacity as member of the family of tenant Ana
Pascual, nonetheless he can not occupy a substantial portion thereof and utilize the same
for residential purposes.
RULING:
Petition is impressed with merit.
Under Section 22, paragraph 3, of Rep. Act No. 1199, as amended by Rep. Act No. 2263
“The tenant shall have the right to demand for a home lot suitable for dwelling with an
area of not more than 3 per cent of the area of his landholding…” The law is
unambiguous and clear. only a tenant is granted the right to have a home lot and the right
to construct or maintain a house thereon. And here, private respondent does not dispute
that he is not petitioners tenant. . Under the law, therefore, we find private respondent not
entitled to a home lot. Neither is he entitled to construct a house of his own or to continue
maintaining the same within the very small landholding of petitioner. Compassion for the
poor, as we said in Galay, et. al. v. Court of Appeals, et. al. is an imperative of every
humane society but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved
privilege.
Petitioners Abdusakur M. Tan and Basaron Burahan were the gubernatorial and vice-gubernatorial
candidates, respectively, of Sulu Province in the May 10, 2004 national and local elections. On May 17,
2004, petitioners, together with other local candidates for congressman, mayor, and vice-mayor, filed
with the COMELEC four (4) Petitions for Declaration of Failure of Elections in the towns of Maimbung,
Luuk, Tongkil, and Panamao, all of Sulu Province, docketed as SPA Nos. 04-336,8 04-337,9 04-339,10 and
04-340, respectively. For the municipality of Luuk, Sulu, another Petition for Declaration of Failure of
Elections was filed by another gubernatorial candidate, Yusop Jikiri, and it was docketed as SPA No. 04-
334. Petitioners Tan and Burahan alleged systematic fraud, terrorism, illegal schemes, and machinations
allegedly perpetrated by private respondents and their supporters resulting in massive
disenfranchisement of voters. Petitioners submitted various affidavits and photographs to substantiate
their allegations:1

In SPA No. 04-336 (Maimbung, Sulu), petitioners submitted the affidavits of poll watchers Ramil P.
Singson, Otal Ibba, Sahak P. Ibrahim, Randy J. Jurri, Hayudini S. Jamuri, and municipal councilor
candidate Jumdani Jumlail.14

In SPA No. 04-337 (Luuk, Sulu), petitioners submitted the affidavits of poll watchers Nijam Daud, Arsidan
Abdurahman, Bensali Kamlian, Gamar Basala, Najir Ahamad, Apal A. Emamil, Say Abdurasi, Faizal
Husbani, Sikal Lastam, Muktar Ailadja, Rujer Abdulkadil, Jurmin Suraid, Bakkar Jamil, Musid Madong,
Nasib Nurin, Jul-Islam Benhar, Basiri Hamsah, and registered voters Sahaya Muksan, Juratol Asibon,
Nuluddin Malihul, Tantung Tarani, Jul Ambri Abbil, and Harahun Arola.15

In SPA No. 04-339 (Tongkil, Sulu), petitioners submitted the affidavits of poll watchers Talib Usama,
Lingbird Sabtal, Yusop Mirih, Kasim Akol, Ammad Madon, Dayting Imamil, Nonoy T. Kiddang, Nilson
Bakil, Boy Sabtal, Reagan Bensali, Alguiser Abdulla, Gaming Talib, Munir Ukkang, Abdurahim Sairil,
Alcafon Talib, Rosefier Talib, Julbasil Sabtal, Darwin Lalik, Merinisa T. Abdurasid, Lim Tingkahan, and
Mujina G. Talib,16 over-all coordinators of Tongkil mayoralty candidate Olum Sirail.

Affiant poll watcher Merinisa T. Abdurasid attested to taking seven (7) photographs17 allegedly showing
electoral irregularities.

In SPA No. 04-340 (Panamao, Sulu), petitioners submitted the affidavits of poll watchers Amina D.
Undug, Dinwaza Undug, Sitti Aiza Undug, Amina Undug, Indah Taas Undug, Fadzrama Aukasa, Moreno
Adjani, Nurhaida S. Undug, Nurjaina S. Abubakar, and Altimir A. Julhani.18

Affiant poll watcher Altimir A. Julhani attested to taking five (5) photographs19 allegedly showing
electoral irregularities.

Petitioners submitted additional affidavits and photographs, particularly the affidavits of Maimbung,
Sulu poll watchers Aminkadra Abubakar, Abdulla Abubakar, Mhar Sappari, Nasirin Al-Najib, Marvin
Saraji, Naufal Abubakar, Rhino Gumbahali, Basik Abton, Abzara H. Mudahi, Ayatulla Jakaria, Uttal Iba,
Sin-sin Buklasan, Mardison I. Bakili, Abdurasmin Abdurahman, Binnar Pitong, Mahrif Sumlahani, Albinar
S. Asaad, including that of photojournalist Alfred Jacinto-Corral20 who attested taking nine (9)
photographs21 showing election irregularities.

Likewise, a report was submitted by Philippine Army 1Lt. Arthur V. Gelotin, Commanding Officer of
Alpha Company, 563rd Infantry (Matapat) BN 11D, Tanduh Patong, Maimbung, Sulu, which allegedly
showed massive failure of voters to cast their ballots.22
Meanwhile, the COMELEC Second Division, acting on the Petitions for Declaration of Failure of Elections,
issued its May 17, 2004 Order suspending the proclamation of the winning gubernatorial candidate of
Sulu,23 but lifted the suspension three (3) days later. In the May 20, 2004 lifting Order, the COMELEC
Second Division directed the Sulu PBOC to complete the canvass of votes and "to bring all canvass
documents to Manila, and to proclaim the winning candidates for Governor in Manila."24

Even before the filing of the four (4) aforesaid petitions, Abdusakur M. Tan had filed four (4) other
petitions, one before the Municipal Board of Canvassers of Parang, Sulu for the exclusion of election
returns from several precincts docketed as SPA No. 04-138, and the other three before the Provincial
Board of Canvassers of Sulu to exclude certificates of canvass from Luuk, Panamao, and Parang docketed
as SPA Nos. 04-163, 04-164 and 04-165, respectively. All these petitions were dismissed by the Boards
concerned, prompting petitioner Tan to file an appeal with the COMELEC First Division which issued an
Order25 on May 24, 2004 directing the concerned boards of canvassers to suspend their proceedings and
to refrain from proclaiming any winning candidate.

However, on the same day that the COMELEC First Division issued the said Order, private respondent
Benjamin Loong was proclaimed the winning governor of Sulu and he assumed office. This prompted
petitioner Tan to file a Petition for Annulment of the Proclamation with the COMELEC First Division,
docketed as SPA No. 04-205.

On June 21, 2004, the COMELEC First Division issued an Order26 which granted the petition and annulled
the proclamation of respondent Loong as governor of Sulu Province.

In the meantime, on July 19, 2004, respondent Yusop H. Jikiri filed before the COMELEC a Petition of
Protest Ad Cautelam,27 docketed as EPC No. 2004-66 praying, inter alia, for the recount or revision of
the ballots cast and the examination of election returns in four (4) municipalities of Sulu, namely, Luuk,
Tongkil, Maimbung, and Parang.

The COMELEC en banc, through its October 18, 2004 Joint Resolution, dismissed all five (5) petitions filed
on May 17, 2004 to declare a failure of elections. This prompted respondent Jikiri to immediately
convert his petition ad cautelam into a regular election protest which was granted by the COMELEC First
Division in an Order28 dated October 28, 2004.
2. PLDT VS. CIR
Petitioner PLDT claiming that it terminated in 1995 the employment of several rank and file,
supervisory and executive employees dues to redundancy. In compliance with labor law
requirements, it paid those separated employees separation pay and other benefits, and that as
employer and withholding agent, it deducted from the separation pay withholding taxes which
was remitted to BIR.

Petitioner filed with BIR a claim of tax credit or refund invoking sec. 28(b)(7)(B) of NIRC which
excluded from gross income any amount received by an official or employee or by his heirs from
the employer as a consequence of separation of such official or employee from service of the
employer due to death, sickness or other physical ability or for any cause beyond the control of
the said official or employer.

CTA denied PLDT claim on the ground that it failed to sufficiently prove that the terminated
employees received separation pay and that taxes were withheld therefrom or remitted to the
BIR.

ISSUE: WON the withholding taxes, which petitioner remitted to the BIR, should be refunded for
having been erroneously withheld and paid to the later?

HELD:
PLDT failed to establish that the redundant employees actually received separation ay and it
withheld taxes therefrom and remitted the same to the BIR.

A taxpayer must do two (2) things to be able to be able to successfully make a claim for the tax
refund:
1. Declare the income payment it received as part of its gross income.
2. Establish the fact of withholding.

On this score, the relevant revenue regulations provides as follows: