Descripción: Unidad didáctica de fútbol para 1er. año de educación secundaria.
laboratorio
Full description
Descripción: evaluacion final
Descripción: Microondas (ODU 1+1 1+0)
Descripción completa
Cutaran vs. DENR
FACTS: Cutaran et. al, assails the validity of DENR Special Order 31 , Special Order 25, and Department Administrative Order 2 for being issued without prior legislative authority. Special Order (SO) 31 (1990): “
Creation of a Special Task force on ac ceptance, identification, delineation and recognition of ancestral
land claims nationwide. Department Administrative Order (DAO) 2: Implementing Rules and Guidelines of Special Order no. 25. The same year SO 31 was issued, relatives of petitioners fi led separate applications for Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) for the land they occupy inside t he Camp John Hay Reservation. These petitions were denied. Also pursuant to the S O s the heirs of A peg Cervantes ’
filed application for CALC for some portions of the lands in Camp- John Hay Reservation, overlapping some of the land occupied by the petitioners. The pe titioners contend that if not for the re spondent s ’
timely resistance to the Orders, the petitioners would be totally evicted from their land. Petitioners filed in the CA petition to enjoin respondents from implementing Orders on the ground that they are void for lack of legal basis. Court of Appeals ruled that SO31 h as no force and effect for preempting legislative prerogative for it was issued prior to the effectivity of RA7586 (National Integrated Protected Sys tems), but it sustained SO25 and DAO2 on the ground that they were issued pursuant to powers delegated d elegated to DENR under RA7586. Petitioners now contend that CA err ed in upholding the validity of SO25 and DAO2 and seek to enjoin the DENR from processing the application of CALC of heirs of Carantes.
ISSUE: Whether or Not Special Order no. 25 and Department Administrative Order no. 2 are valid.
RULING: The Court ruled that it is not a justiciable controversy. The petition was prematurely filed. There is yet no justiciable controversy for the court to resolve. The adverse l egal interests involved are the competing claims of the petitioners and heirs of Carantes to possess a common piece of land. since the CALC application of the heirs of Carantes has not yet been granted or issued, and which the DENR may or may not grant, there is yet no actual or imminent violation of petitioner s asserted right to ’
possess the disputed land. Justiciable Controversy has been defined as : a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests which may be resolved by a court of law through the application of a law. Subject to certain well-defined exceptions, the courts will not touch an issue involving the validity of a law unless there has been a governmental act accomplished or performed that has a direct adverse e ffect on the legal right of the person contesting its validity. This Court cannot rule on the basis of petitioners speculation that the DENR will approve the application of ’
the heirs of Carantes. There must be an actual governmental act which directly causes or w ill imminently cause injury to the alleged legal right of the petitioner to possess the land before the jurisdi ction of this Court may be invoked. There is no showing that the p etitioners were being evicted from the land by the heirs of Carantes under orders from the DENR.