Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    247 Mantruste Systems vs. CA - 179 SCRA 136 (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Ivann Endozo
    1) Mantruste Systems (MSI) leased the Bayview Plaza Hotel from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for over a year and allegedly advanced 12 million pesos to make the hotel operational. 2) President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 50 which launched the privatization of certain government assets, including the Bayview Hotel. The hotel was transferred to the Asset Privatization Trust for disposition and public bidding. 3) MSI sought a preliminary injunction claiming a right of retention over the hotel. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 31 of Proclamation No. 50-A did not impinge on judicial power and that MSI did not have a legally demandable right to retention or an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    247 Mantruste Systems vs. CA - 179 SCRA 136 (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Ivann Endozo
    19 views1 page
    1) Mantruste Systems (MSI) leased the Bayview Plaza Hotel from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for over a year and allegedly advanced 12 million pesos to make the hotel operational. 2) President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 50 which launched the privatization of certain government assets, including the Bayview Hotel. The hotel was transferred to the Asset Privatization Trust for disposition and public bidding. 3) MSI sought a preliminary injunction claiming a right of retention over the hotel. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 31 of Proclamation No. 50-A did not impinge on judicial power and that MSI did not have a legally demandable right to retention or an

    Original Title

    247 Mantruste Systems vs. CA- 179 SCRA 136 [1989]

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Mantruste Systems (MSI) leased the Bayview Plaza Hotel from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for over a year and allegedly advanced 12 million pesos to make the hotel operational. 2) President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 50 which launched the privatization of certain government assets, including the Bayview Hotel. The hotel was transferred to the Asset Privatization Trust for disposition and public bidding. 3) MSI sought a preliminary injunction claiming a right of retention over the hotel. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 31 of Proclamation No. 50-A did not impinge on judicial power and that MSI did not have a legally demandable right to retention or an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views1 page

    247 Mantruste Systems vs. CA - 179 SCRA 136 (1989)

    Uploaded by

    Ivann Endozo
    1) Mantruste Systems (MSI) leased the Bayview Plaza Hotel from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for over a year and allegedly advanced 12 million pesos to make the hotel operational. 2) President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 50 which launched the privatization of certain government assets, including the Bayview Hotel. The hotel was transferred to the Asset Privatization Trust for disposition and public bidding. 3) MSI sought a preliminary injunction claiming a right of retention over the hotel. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 31 of Proclamation No. 50-A did not impinge on judicial power and that MSI did not have a legally demandable right to retention or an

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 BLOCK CASE DIGEST

    Section 1A December 2023

    MANTRUSTE SYSTEMS VS CA
    G.R. No. 86540-41
    November 6, 1989

    Topic: Sec. 2: Power of Legislative Apportion Jurisdiction

    FACTS
    For over a year, Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) leased its Bayview Plaza
    Hotel to petitioner Mantruste Systems, Inc. (MSI) for its operation. MSI allegedly advanced
    P12M to make the Hotel operational. Pres. Aquino, in the exercise of her legislative power,
    issued Proc. No. 50 which launched the privatization of certain Govt assets, including the
    Bayview Hotel. Accordingly, the Hotel was transferred from DBP to the Asset Privatization
    Trust (the Trust) for disposition and was opened to public bidding in which it was awarded to
    another. Claiming that they have a right of retention over the Hotel, MSI sought a writ of
    preliminary injunction which was granted by the RTC for the reason, among others, that Proc.
    No. 50-A was unconstitutional as Sec 31 thereof impinges upon the judicial power defined in Art
    VIII, Sec 1 of the Constitution. Said Sec 31 provides that “No court xxx shall issue any xxx
    injunction against the Trust in connection with the xxx disposition of assets transferred to it…
    Nor shall such xxx be issued against any purchaser of assets sold by the Trust xxx.” CA nullified
    the writ, hence this petition.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not Sec. 31 of Proclamation No. 50-A impinge upon the judicial power of courts

    RULING
    NO. Under Sec 2, Art VIII of the Constitution, the power to define, prescribe and
    apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts belongs to the legislature.198 Hence, judicial
    power may be regulated and defined by law, and the law in this particular case (Proc. No. 50-A)
    provides that judicial power may not be exercised in the form of an injunction against the acts of
    the Trust xxx. Moreover, judicial power refers to the power to settle actual controversies
    involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. MSI’s claim of a right to
    retention does not exist, and thus, neither does the right to the relief (injunction) demanded.

    Settled is the rule that lessees are not possessors in good faith. They know that their
    occupancy continues only during the life of the lease; hence, “he builds his house at his own
    risk”. Thus, they cannot as a matter of right, recover the value of their improvements (in this case
    the P12M) from the lessor, much less retain the premises until they are reimbursed.

    Petition dismissed.

    You might also like