legal Free Legal Advice

[M16A2]

Can law enforcers legally confiscate your driver's license if you were caught of a traffic violation? Then get the same upon paying the violation in a redemption area (e.g LTO office).

 

I cant recall if there is a law barring law enforcers doing this

[rocco69]

according to the law one of the restricted/prohibited items for import is:

 

Written or printed articles, negatives or film, photographs, engravings, lithographs, objects, paintings, drawings, or other representation of an obscene or immoral character.

 

quoted from: http://www.philexport.ph/philippines.html

 

but with the sites heading (Doing Business in the Philippines) it seems this is limited only to corporations or business. is it?

 

i'm asking because i'm planning to order internationally adult materials. for personal use of course.

 

i'm i covered by this law or any other laws? tnx.

 

According to Customs officials I have queried regarding this matter, you can bring pornographic materials into the Philippines if it is for personal use. The rule of thumb at the Bureau of Customs is that personal use means "not more than 12 items of the same kind"

[ncd]

good morning po me balita po ba kayo kung kelan release ng bar exam results? tnx po

[R@v3n]

How could one reformat and reinstall an OS on a hard drive if the optical drive of the computer is not working? Do I have to take out the HD?

 

Although I haven't tried it, you could use a USB drive (1GB above...) that contains the files from your installation CD and boot there if your motherboard supports it... :headsetsmiley:

[rocco69]

Can law enforcers legally confiscate your driver's license if you were caught of a traffic violation? Then get the same upon paying the violation in a redemption area (e.g LTO office).

 

I cant recall if there is a law barring law enforcers doing this

 

In Metro Manila, law enforcers may not confiscate a driver's license if he is caught committing a traffic violation. Section 5 of PD 1605 specifically provides:

 

Section 5. In case of traffic violations, the driver's license SHALL NOT BE CONFISCATED but the erring driver shall be immediately issued a traffic citation ticket prescribed by the Metropolitan Manila Commission which shall state the violation committed, the amount of fine imposed for-the violation and an advice that he can make payment to the city or municipal treasurer where the violation was committed or to the Philippine National Bank or Philippine Veterans Bank or their branches within seven days from the date of issuance of the citation ticket.

 

xxx xxx xxx

 

This prohibition to confiscate has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Metropolitan Traffic Command v. Gonong (187 SCRA 432 [1990]) and in SolGen v. MMA (Sept. 11, 1991), and most recently reiterated in MMDA v. Garin (G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005)

[author]

Need an advice about this situation, a friend and his family own a house but not the land where it is situated. The owner of the land has been harassing them, asking them to buy the land but they refuse, saying that they can't afford it. Now, the owner of the land wants them to sign a waiver which declares that they agree to the landowner's plan to sell the land to an interested buyer, saying that once the sale is done, the new owner of the land can evict them anytime. Is this true? Do my friend and his family have the right to refuse to sign the waiver? Can the original landowners evict them? My friend's family have been on that land for almost forty years now. They want to own the land(priced at almost two million) but they just can't afford it. Is there a way for them to acquire the land that won't be too much of a financial burden for them?

[Aspire10]

help naman po.kasi po pag magpaplay ako ng dvd or cd sa pc ko diko sya makita sa my computer.then pag tingin ko naman sa device manager may nakayellow na ! mark sa slimtype DVDRW SSM-8515S don sa dvd drive ko.kahit anong gawin ko diko marecover at diko alam kung anong gagawin.sira napo ba ang cd drive ko? thanks in advance po sa sasagot.

[booby_trap]

good morning po me balita po ba kayo kung kelan release ng bar exam results? tnx po

 

 

sources say april 3. *jitters*jitters*

 

good luck to all the soon-to-be lawyers out there!

[rocco69]

Need an advice about this situation, a friend and his family own a house but not the land where it is situated. The owner of the land has been harassing them, asking them to buy the land but they refuse, saying that they can't afford it. Now, the owner of the land wants them to sign a waiver which declares that they agree to the landowner's plan to sell the land to an interested buyer, saying that once the sale is done, the new owner of the land can evict them anytime. Is this true? Do my friend and his family have the right to refuse to sign the waiver? Can the original landowners evict them? My friend's family have been on that land for almost forty years now. They want to own the land(priced at almost two million) but they just can't afford it. Is there a way for them to acquire the land that won't be too much of a financial burden for them?

 

We have got to know first how they became "owners" of the house, as their good faith or bad faith determines the rights of the owners of the house and of the lot. Also, how much is the house, as its value vis-a-vis the land may also be impt.

[Google]

help naman po.kasi po pag magpaplay ako ng dvd or cd sa pc ko diko sya makita sa my computer.then pag tingin ko naman sa device manager may nakayellow na ! mark sa slimtype DVDRW SSM-8515S don sa dvd drive ko.kahit anong gawin ko diko marecover at diko alam kung anong gagawin.sira napo ba ang cd drive ko? thanks in advance po sa sasagot.

 

winxp ba ang operating system mo? afaik, dapat detected sya sa winxp automatically.

but then, here is what you can do.

right click mo yung device manager mo na naka yellow na may ! mark.

click properties, go to the driver tab, and click update driver. your driver should be in the floppy. yun ang magiging source nya.

 

pag hindi gumana, remove the actual device sa device driver, reboot your pc, and try to have it automatically detected.

[Google]

Although I haven't tried it, you could use a USB drive (1GB above...) that contains the files from your installation CD and boot there if your motherboard supports it... :headsetsmiley:

 

yup. this one should work. just make sure your installation CD as well as your recovery CD image is stored dun sa USB drive. during the boot up sequence, ensure that your USB drive is the top most priority.

[Dr_PepPeR]

In Metro Manila, law enforcers may not confiscate a driver's license if he is caught committing a traffic violation. Section 5 of PD 1605 specifically provides:

 

Section 5. In case of traffic violations, the driver's license SHALL NOT BE CONFISCATED but the erring driver shall be immediately issued a traffic citation ticket prescribed by the Metropolitan Manila Commission which shall state the violation committed, the amount of fine imposed for-the violation and an advice that he can make payment to the city or municipal treasurer where the violation was committed or to the Philippine National Bank or Philippine Veterans Bank or their branches within seven days from the date of issuance of the citation ticket.

 

xxx xxx xxx

 

This prohibition to confiscate has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in Metropolitan Traffic Command v. Gonong (187 SCRA 432 [1990]) and in SolGen v. MMA (Sept. 11, 1991), and most recently reiterated in MMDA v. Garin (G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005)

 

I seem to recall that MMDA vs Garin, SolGen vs MMA and MTC vs. Gonong were rulings on the legislative/police authority of the Metro Manila Authority/Development Authority. I believe that law enforcement agencies can validly confiscate an erring driver's license. Take a look at this link, it may prove interesting:

 

http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/resear...rrb_0302_11.pdf

 

Edited April 2, 2007 by Dr_PepPeR

[rocco69]

I seem to recall that MMDA vs Garin, SolGen vs MMA and MTC vs. Gonong were rulings on the legislative/police authority of the Metro Manila Authority/Development Authority. I believe that law enforcement agencies can validly confiscate an erring driver's license. Take a look at this link, it may prove interesting:

 

http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/resear...rrb_0302_11.pdf

 

 

That is precisely why my answer states that "in METRO MANILA, law enforcers may not confiscate a driver's license if he is caught committing a traffic violation. In Metro Manila, it is PD 1605 which governs, rather than RA 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code) since PD 1605 transfers all the powers of the LTO/LTFRB to the MMDA (with regarda to Metro Manila) and then goes on to specifically state in Section 5 thereof that licenses may not be confiscated here in Metro Manila.

 

Note that in Solicitor General v. MMA (Dec. 11, 1991) the Supreme Court noted that police authorities had been confiscating drivers licenses in Metro Manila. It then declared, in the dispositive portion of Solicitor General v. MMA that judgment is hereby declared enjoining ALL law enforcement authorities in Metropolitan Manila from removing the license plates of motor vehicles (except when authorized under LOI 43) and CONFISCATING DRIVER LICENSES for traffic violations within the said area.

 

As for the argument that RA7924 grants the MMDA the power to “install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and CONFISCATE and suspend or revoke DRIVER’S LICENSES in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, THE PROVISIONS OF Rep. Act No. 4136 and P.D. No. 1605 TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING," MMDA v. Garin has specifically declared that the MMDA has no police power and in the absence of any other law allowing them to confiscate drivers licenses, they cannot do so (in the Metro Manila area).

 

However, there is no argument that in other parts of the country, law enforcers may validly confiscate driver's licenses.

[Aspire10]

winxp ba ang operating system mo? afaik, dapat detected sya sa winxp automatically.

but then, here is what you can do.

right click mo yung device manager mo na naka yellow na may ! mark.

click properties, go to the driver tab, and click update driver. your driver should be in the floppy. yun ang magiging source nya.

 

pag hindi gumana, remove the actual device sa device driver, reboot your pc, and try to have it automatically detected.

yes windows xp po ang operating system ko.thanks po try ko po yan. :cool:

[author]

We have got to know first how they became "owners" of the house, as their good faith or bad faith determines the rights of the owners of the house and of the lot. Also, how much is the house, as its value vis-a-vis the land may also be impt.

 

Thanks for the reply. The original owners of the house was my friend's grandparents. The grandparents built it on that lot with the landowner's permission several decades ago. The house was then given to my friend's parents. The house had underwent several renovations and is probably around 1.5 million pesos worth now.

[Aspire10]

winxp ba ang operating system mo? afaik, dapat detected sya sa winxp automatically.

but then, here is what you can do.

right click mo yung device manager mo na naka yellow na may ! mark.

click properties, go to the driver tab, and click update driver. your driver should be in the floppy. yun ang magiging source nya.

 

pag hindi gumana, remove the actual device sa device driver, reboot your pc, and try to have it automatically detected.

nagawa ko na po yon sinabi nyo.kaya lang di pa rin gumana.my laptop model is Acer Aspire 3004 WLMi.baka naman po meron makakatulong sakin pls. :hypocritesmiley: :goatee:

[deus]

How could one reformat and reinstall an OS on a hard drive if the optical drive of the computer is not working? Do I have to take out the HD?

 

Unless you have the software and knowledge to create a bootable flash disk using the boot image of microsoft, specify the number of loaded sector, supports iso 9660+joliet file system, and your motherboard has the instruction to boot using flash disks, then why not?

 

Easier way is buy/replace the cd-rom which is very cheap and easy to install.

[rocco69]

Thanks for the reply. The original owners of the house was my friend's grandparents. The grandparents built it on that lot with the landowner's permission several decades ago. The house was then given to my friend's parents. The house had underwent several renovations and is probably around 1.5 million pesos worth now.

 

Since their predecessor was permitted to build on the lot, they can most probably be classified as "builders in good faith." Under Art. 448 of the Civil Code:

 

Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. (361a)

 

Clearly, it is the option of the landowner whether 1) to appropriate the house upon payment of necessary and useful expenses; or 2) oblige the builder to pay the price of the land. In other words, the landowner can really force your friend to buy the lot if the price therefore is not markedly disproportionate to the price of the building. Since the price being asked by the landowner (P2M) is quite near to the value of the house (P1.5) I think your friend's refusal to buy puts them, in this situation, on the wrong side of the law.

 

Likewise, it is my understanding that once the landowner properly exercises his option (choosing either Option 1 or Option 2) and the builder refuses to comply with the wishes of the owner, the owner is now allowed to have him evicted and the structure removed (see Sarmiento v. Agana, 129 SCRA 122). In fine, your friend may be evicted by the new owner for their failure to comply with Art. 448

[Google]

nagawa ko na po yon sinabi nyo.kaya lang di pa rin gumana.my laptop model is Acer Aspire 3004 WLMi.baka naman po meron makakatulong sakin pls. :hypocritesmiley: :goatee:

 

 

hmmm....

please try to install that device in another PC using WinXP.

if it works, then probably, your operating system has some problem.

if it does not, then the device can be defective.

[fauxhead]

On the contrary, they cannot be held builders in good faith. The term "good faith" is not to be applied in its generic application. Good faith, as to be under Art 448, consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his, and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title (Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10). This means that he must have built, planted or sown on the land in the concept of an owner. Thus, Art. 448 is not in point.

 

The situation falls properly under the contract of commodatum, more precisely under its sub-category, precarium. The applicable provisions of the New Civil Code are:

 

Art. 1933. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.

 

Art. 1935. The bailee in commodatum acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits; if any compensation is to be paid by him who acquires the use, the contract ceases to be a commodatum.

 

Art. 1937. Movable or immovable property may be the object of commodatum. (n)

 

Art. 1947. The bailor may demand the thing at will, and the contractual relation is called a precarium, in the following cases:

 

(1) If neither the duration of the contract nor the use to which the thing loaned should be devoted, has been stipulated; or

(2) If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the owner. (1750a)

 

The use of the land in question properly falls under these provisions because the "builders" were merely allowed to build on it not subject to any other contract or obligation. At any rate, the contract or obligation is what the law says it is and not what the parties to the contract call it. If they pay for their use of the land,then it is a lease and these provisions will not apply.

 

As the owners of the land have the right to demand its return at will, the occupants have no option but to return the property lest they be liable for unlawful detainer and we all know how that changes the complexion of the case. The offer of the landowner to sell his land, therefore, is not an option but in fact an act of generosity.

 

The waiver being mentioned is not even needed. The owner merely wants to have it so that he can sell the land easier to prospective buyers who who might be shooed away by "squatters".

 

The better option is for the family to buy the land by obtaining a loan from PAG-IBIG or other financial institutions (the former is better because the interest rates have been set lower). They may also convince the the landowner if they can just pay rent on the use of the land until they are able to buy the land or better yet, to buy the land on installment terms.

 

Since their predecessor was permitted to build on the lot, they can most probably be classified as "builders in good faith." Under Art. 448 of the Civil Code:

 

Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. (361a)

 

Clearly, it is the option of the landowner whether 1) to appropriate the house upon payment of necessary and useful expenses; or 2) oblige the builder to pay the price of the land. In other words, the landowner can really force your friend to buy the lot if the price therefore is not markedly disproportionate to the price of the building. Since the price being asked by the landowner (P2M) is quite near to the value of the house (P1.5) I think your friend's refusal to buy puts them, in this situation, on the wrong side of the law.

 

Likewise, it is my understanding that once the landowner properly exercises his option (choosing either Option 1 or Option 2) and the builder refuses to comply with the wishes of the owner, the owner is now allowed to have him evicted and the structure removed (see Sarmiento v. Agana, 129 SCRA 122). In fine, your friend may be evicted by the new owner for their failure to comply with Art. 448

[author]

On the contrary, they cannot be held builders in good faith. The term "good faith" is not to be applied in its generic application. Good faith, as to be under Art 448, consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his, and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title (Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10). This means that he must have built, planted or sown on the land in the concept of an owner. Thus, Art. 448 is not in point.

 

The situation falls properly under the contract of commodatum, more precisely under its sub-category, precarium. The applicable provisions of the New Civil Code are:

 

Art. 1933. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.

 

Art. 1935. The bailee in commodatum acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits; if any compensation is to be paid by him who acquires the use, the contract ceases to be a commodatum.

 

Art. 1937. Movable or immovable property may be the object of commodatum. (n)

 

Art. 1947. The bailor may demand the thing at will, and the contractual relation is called a precarium, in the following cases:

 

(1) If neither the duration of the contract nor the use to which the thing loaned should be devoted, has been stipulated; or

(2) If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the owner. (1750a)

 

The use of the land in question properly falls under these provisions because the "builders" were merely allowed to build on it not subject to any other contract or obligation. At any rate, the contract or obligation is what the law says it is and not what the parties to the contract call it. If they pay for their use of the land,then it is a lease and these provisions will not apply.

 

As the owners of the land have the right to demand its return at will, the occupants have no option but to return the property lest they be liable for unlawful detainer and we all know how that changes the complexion of the case. The offer of the landowner to sell his land, therefore, is not an option but in fact an act of generosity.

 

The waiver being mentioned is not even needed. The owner merely wants to have it so that he can sell the land easier to prospective buyers who who might be shooed away by "squatters".

 

The better option is for the family to buy the land by obtaining a loan from PAG-IBIG or other financial institutions (the former is better because the interest rates have been set lower). They may also convince the the landowner if they can just pay rent on the use of the land until they are able to buy the land or better yet, to buy the land on installment terms.

 

Fauxhead and rocco 69, sirs, thanks a lot for the replies. I talked to my friend again and he said that from the start, their family have been paying a monthly rent to the lot owners. They have been renting the lot for a few decades now so they really are not 'squatters.' Would this work in their (my friend's) favor? I mean, do they stand a chance in court just in case? And do the owners really have the right to force them to buy the land or evict them if they refuse?

 

The day the owner told them that they have to buy the lot or else, they would be evicted, they(the lot owners) even collected the monthly rent from them. I'm not sure of this but I think the lot owners want them to pay in cash, just in case they decide to buy the land.

[Dr_PepPeR]

That is precisely why my answer states that "in METRO MANILA, law enforcers may not confiscate a driver's license if he is caught committing a traffic violation. In Metro Manila, it is PD 1605 which governs, rather than RA 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code) since PD 1605 transfers all the powers of the LTO/LTFRB to the MMDA (with regarda to Metro Manila) and then goes on to specifically state in Section 5 thereof that licenses may not be confiscated here in Metro Manila.

 

Note that in Solicitor General v. MMA (Dec. 11, 1991) the Supreme Court noted that police authorities had been confiscating drivers licenses in Metro Manila. It then declared, in the dispositive portion of Solicitor General v. MMA that judgment is hereby declared enjoining ALL law enforcement authorities in Metropolitan Manila from removing the license plates of motor vehicles (except when authorized under LOI 43) and CONFISCATING DRIVER LICENSES for traffic violations within the said area.

 

As for the argument that RA7924 grants the MMDA the power to “install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and CONFISCATE and suspend or revoke DRIVER’S LICENSES in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, THE PROVISIONS OF Rep. Act No. 4136 and P.D. No. 1605 TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING," MMDA v. Garin has specifically declared that the MMDA has no police power and in the absence of any other law allowing them to confiscate drivers licenses, they cannot do so (in the Metro Manila area).

 

However, there is no argument that in other parts of the country, law enforcers may validly confiscate driver's licenses.

 

That's great! Now all we have to do is educate the Metro Manila traffic law enforcers about this and tell the Binay Yellowshirts and their deputies that Makati IS part of Metro Manila.

[Butsoy]

Hi!

 

How can you cancel a Phil. Passport pag impostor ang gumamit ng pangalan mo? Kaya di ako ma release-release ng aking passport application, eh may gumamit daw ng pangalan o identity ko (siyempre ibang picture). Pang apat na beses akong pumuntang DFA.

 

Please help. Salamat!

 

 

Just PM me if you need any legal help before the Passport division

 

Butsoy

[Aspire10]

hmmm....

please try to install that device in another PC using WinXP.

if it works, then probably, your operating system has some problem.

if it does not, then the device can be defective.

salamat po,sa reply.i will try it. sana maayos na

[M16A2]

That is precisely why my answer states that "in METRO MANILA, law enforcers may not confiscate a driver's license if he is caught committing a traffic violation. In Metro Manila, it is PD 1605 which governs, rather than RA 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code) since PD 1605 transfers all the powers of the LTO/LTFRB to the MMDA (with regarda to Metro Manila) and then goes on to specifically state in Section 5 thereof that licenses may not be confiscated here in Metro Manila.

 

Note that in Solicitor General v. MMA (Dec. 11, 1991) the Supreme Court noted that police authorities had been confiscating drivers licenses in Metro Manila. It then declared, in the dispositive portion of Solicitor General v. MMA that judgment is hereby declared enjoining ALL law enforcement authorities in Metropolitan Manila from removing the license plates of motor vehicles (except when authorized under LOI 43) and CONFISCATING DRIVER LICENSES for traffic violations within the said area.

 

As for the argument that RA7924 grants the MMDA the power to “install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and CONFISCATE and suspend or revoke DRIVER’S LICENSES in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, THE PROVISIONS OF Rep. Act No. 4136 and P.D. No. 1605 TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING," MMDA v. Garin has specifically declared that the MMDA has no police power and in the absence of any other law allowing them to confiscate drivers licenses, they cannot do so (in the Metro Manila area).

 

However, there is no argument that in other parts of the country, law enforcers may validly confiscate driver's licenses.

 

While reading your first sentence I noticed that you used the word "may" instead of "shall". So does this mean if I am caught by a policeman it is up to his discretion whether he confiscate my driver's license or not? How about PNCC enforcers, can they validly confiscate your driver's license?