Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 164 views

    People vs. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    cherrymea
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Loreta Gozo for violating a municipal ordinance that required obtaining a building permit. While Gozo argued the ordinance did not apply because her property was within a U.S. naval base, the Court held that the Philippines maintained sovereignty and jurisdiction over bases according to agreements with the U.S. Jurisdiction was diminished but not eliminated. Therefore, the municipal ordinance requiring a permit was valid and applicable within the naval base. Gozo's conviction and fine were upheld, but the demolition order was modified to allow her 30 days to obtain the required permit.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    cherrymea
    164 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Loreta Gozo for violating a municipal ordinance that required obtaining a building permit. While Gozo argued the ordinance did not apply because her property was within a U.S. naval base, the Court held that the Philippines maintained sovereignty and jurisdiction over bases according to agreements with the U.S. Jurisdiction was diminished but not eliminated. Therefore, the municipal ordinance requiring a permit was valid and applicable within the naval base. Gozo's conviction and fine were upheld, but the demolition order was modified to allow her 30 days to obtain the required permit.

    Original Title

    4. People vs. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476 case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Loreta Gozo for violating a municipal ordinance that required obtaining a building permit. While Gozo argued the ordinance did not apply because her property was within a U.S. naval base, the Court held that the Philippines maintained sovereignty and jurisdiction over bases according to agreements with the U.S. Jurisdiction was diminished but not eliminated. Therefore, the municipal ordinance requiring a permit was valid and applicable within the naval base. Gozo's conviction and fine were upheld, but the demolition order was modified to allow her 30 days to obtain the required permit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    164 views2 pages

    People vs. Gozo, 53 SCRA 476 Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    cherrymea
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines affirmed the conviction of Loreta Gozo for violating a municipal ordinance that required obtaining a building permit. While Gozo argued the ordinance did not apply because her property was within a U.S. naval base, the Court held that the Philippines maintained sovereignty and jurisdiction over bases according to agreements with the U.S. Jurisdiction was diminished but not eliminated. Therefore, the municipal ordinance requiring a permit was valid and applicable within the naval base. Gozo's conviction and fine were upheld, but the demolition order was modified to allow her 30 days to obtain the required permit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People vs.

    Gozo
    G.R. No. L-36409 October 26, 1973
    53 SCRA 476 (1973)

    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1
    CASE DIGEST
    SOVEREIGNTY – DOCTRINE OF AUTO LIMITATION
    What is the doctrine of sovereignty as “auto limitation”?
    In the succinct language of Jellinek, it “is the property of a state-force due to which it has the
    exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction.” A state then,if it chooses to,
    may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence.” The opinion was at
    pains to point out though that even then, there is at the most diminution of jurisdictional rights,
    not its disappearance. (Cited in Reagan vs.Commissioner, PEOPLE VS. GOZO, 53 SCRA
    476 and COMMISSIONER VS. ROBERTSON, 143SCRA 397)

    FACTS: Appellant Loreta Gozo bought a house and lot located inside the
    United States Naval Reservation within the territorial jurisdiction of Olongapo
    City, which she then demolished to build another one in its place. These she
    did without securing the building permit from the City Mayor of Olongapo City,
    as provided for in Municipal Order No. 14 Series of 1964. She was convicted
    by the trial court of violation of the said ordinance,which she contested by
    invoking due process as taught in People vs. Fajardo. Appellant Gozo
    maintained that her house was constructed within the naval base leased to
    the American armed forces. She argued the validity of Municipal Order No. 14
    or at the very least its applicability to her in view of the location of her dwelling
    within the naval base.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Municipal Order No. 14 Series of 1964 is valid and
    may be enforced within the naval base.

    HELD: Yes. First, the Court held that using the precedent in People vs.
    Fajardo is fruitless because this case contemplates upon defendant Fajardo
    who tried securing a permit from the Mayor and, when unable to, built his
    home nonetheless for needing it badly. The case at bar, on the other hand,
    shows that the appellant never bothered to comply with the ordinance. The
    Court reiterated that, under the terms of the Agreement between the
    Philippines and the United States, The Philippine Government has not
    abdicated its sovereignty over the bases as part of the Philippine territory or
    divested itself completely of jurisdiction over offenses committed therein. The
    United States Government has prior or preferential but not exclusive
    jurisdiction of such offenses.Jurisdiction of the Philippines over the military
    bases may be diminished but it does not disappear. These bases are under
    lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement
    of 1947. They are not and cannot be foreign territory. WHEREFORE, the
    appealed decision of November 11, 1969 is affirmed insofar as it found the
    accused, Loreta Gozo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of
    Municipal Ordinance No. 14, series of 1964 and sentencing her to pay a fine
    of P200.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and modified
    insofar as she is required to demolish the house that is the subject matter of
    the case, she being given a period of thirty days from the finality of this
    decision within which to obtain the required permit. Only upon her failure to do
    so will that portion of the appealed decision requiring demolition be enforced.
    Costs against the accused.

    You might also like