SAMPLE CASE IN SECTION 5

CASE FOR ARTICLE 5

DBP V. CA, 65 SCAD 82, 249 SCR.331, OCTOBER 16, 1995 The supreme court said that the buyer of the parcel of the parcel of land that is considered as non disposable land of the public domain didn’t acquire the valid title over the land, but recognized the certain effects of the same, in that when the buyer ask for the land was deducted from the amount reimbursed. This is the recognition of a right without title was transmitted in favor of the buyer.And the reduction of the amount reimbursed is in conformity with the rule that no one that shall enrich himself at the expense of another. 

   It is well settled doctrine that a statute requiring rendition of judgment within a specified time is generally construed to be merely directory, so that non compliance  with them does not invalidate the judgment on the theory that if the statute had intended such result it would clearly indicated it MARCOS V.COMELEC, et al 64 SCAD 358, 248 SCRA 300. AN EXAMPLE of Constitutional provision requiring courts to render judgments within a certain period. 

         All cases or matters filed after the  effectivity of the constitution must be decided or resolved within 24months from date of submission for the Supreme court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts and three months for all other lower courts 

A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the rules of the court itself.
Upon the expiration of the corresponding period a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice   or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof e record of the case attached to the matter, and served upon the parties.The certification shall state why a decision or resolution  not been rendered or issued within said period

Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination , without further delay.

 Hence such law can be considered directory. In Marcelino v. Cruz, it was said that the difference between mandatory and directory provision is determined on the ground of expediency, the reason being that less injury results to the general republic by disregarding than enforcing the letter of the law.

Prepared by:

              IRISH V. DE RAMA.Ed. D.

Reference: Judge Ed Vincent S. Albano, et . al. FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES. 2017 EDITION.Central bookstore supply INC.