IT’S TIME FOR GANGWON-DO

IT'S TIME FOR GANGWON-DO! 

Social media influencers came together to promote winter tourism in Gangwon, South Korea's up-and-coming premier destination. 

A special summit of leaders of ASEAN and South Korea marked the 30th anniversary of ASEAN-Republic of Korea dialogue relations.  The event closed last November 27. Las year, the summit was previously held in Busan. 

The visit of the social media influencers to Gangwon-do was to promote the activities for winter sports in Gangwon Province, the Yongyang International Airport, and the famous tourist spots in Hanryu which is well known for the K-culture. 

The influencers, who have  more than 1 million followers and  visited Gangwon Province, include: Renee Dominique  (the musician who just released a single album with Jason Mraz),  Bautista Vanessa, Quijano Sergio, Luigi Pacheco and Bont Bryan Oropel from thePhilippines. 

The were also joined by singer and actress Jannine Weigel of Thailand. 

Osusu, Nabee TV and Umi TV of Vietnam also appeared in the winter tourist commercial video.

The Gangwon Province Winter Tourism commercial video will be produced and published on Arirang World Channel. 

It has 142 million receiving households in 103 countries.

The ASEAN social media influencers stayed in Gangwon province for 5 nights and 6 days from 26th November to  1st of December. 

They visited many locations including Nami Island in Chuncheon, known as the location of K – drama ,Yeongjin Beach, as well as the Daegwanryeong Ski Resort in Gangwon Province, which is called the Alps in Asia, Gangneung Curling Center and Wonju Soguem Mountain suspension bridge.

Cultural exchanges between ASEAN and Korea by the social media influencers were done in the snowplows in Gangwon Province.

This will be a great chance to promote Gangwon tourism to all the ASEAN countries.

NCIP; Jurisdiction; Ancestral Domain

As held in the main decision, the NCIP shall have jurisdiction over claims and disputes involving rights of ICCs/IPs only when they arise between or among parties belonging to the same ICC/IP group because of the qualifying provision under Section 66 of the IPRA that "no such dispute shall be brought to the NCIP unless the parties have exhausted all remedies provided under their customary laws.

Ref: Galang et al., vs. Wallis  G.R. No. 223434, July 03, 2019

Revival of Judgment; Jurisdiction

An action for revival of judgment may be filed either "in the same court where said judgment was rendered or in the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides, or in any other place designated by the statutes which treat of the venue of actions in general."

Ref: 

" HEIRS OF NUMERIANO MIRANDA, SR., namely: CIRILA (deceased), CORNELIO, NUMERIANO, JR., ERLINDA, LOLITA, RUFINA, DANILO, ALEJANDRO, FELIMON, TERESITA, ELIZABETH and ANALIZA, all surnamed MIRANDA vs. PABLO R. MIRANDA" G.R. No. 179638 July 8, 2013

DAR; CLOA Title; Indefeasibility

"A Certificate of Land Ownership Award or CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or awarded to the beneficiary by the DAR, and contains the restrictions and conditions provided for in the CARL and other applicable laws. 33 Section 24 of the CARL, as amended,34 reads: 

Sec. 24. Award to Beneficiaries. -The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries shall commence from their receipt of a duly registered emancipation patent or certificate of land ownership award and their actual physical possession of the awarded land. Such award shall be completed in not more than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of registration of the title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines: Provided, That the emancipation patents, the certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible after one (1) year from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds, subject to the conditions, limitations and qualifications of this Act, the prope11y registration decree, and other pertinent laws. The emancipation patents or the certificates of land ownership award being titles brought under the operation of the torrens system, are conferred with the same indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles under the said system, as provided for by Presidential Decree No. 1529, as amended by Republic Act No. 6732. (Emphasis supplied.) xx xx 

Further, in Estribillo v. Department of Agrarian Reform,35 we held that: 

The rule in this jurisdiction, regarding public land patents and the character of the certificate of title that may be issued by virtue thereof, is that where land is granted by the government to a private individual, the corresponding patent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title is issued to the grantee; thereafter, the land is automatically brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act, the title issued to the grantee becoming entitled to all the safeguards provided in Section 3 8 of the said Act. In other words, upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate of title shall become irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding. (Emphasis and italics omitted.) The EPs themselves, like the Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in Republic Act No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), are enrolled in the Torrens system of registration. The Property Registration Decree in fact devotes Chapter IX on the subject of EPs. 

Indeed, such EPs and CLOAs are, in themselves, entitled to be as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in registration proceedings.36 (Citation omitted.) 

We, however, note that the issue involving the issuance, recall, or cancellation ofCLOAs is lodged with the DAR,37 which has primary jurisdiction over the matter. "

Revival of Judgment; Equity Jurisdiction; Laches

"[T]he Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, relaxes the rules and decides to allow the action for the revival of judgment filed by petitioners. The Court believes that it is its bounden duty to exact justice in every way possible and exercise its soundest discretion to prevent a wrong. Although strict compliance with the rules of procedure is desired, liberal interpretation is warranted in cases where a strict enforcement of the rules will not serve the ends of justice; and that it is a better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of !aches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result."

("Rubio vs. Albata," G.R. No. 203947. February 26, 2014)

--

PROFILE THE EXAMINER

Did you know that our Constitution and some of our laws, such as the NIRC or Tax Code, are among the longest in the world? It is impossible to memorize all the provisions. Hence, you need to select topics that are more likely to be asked in the bar exam.

One of the filters in predicting the question is who is the bar examiner. The formulation of bar questions is a highly human process and thus, it is susceptible to cognitive biases. This will highly factor in determining which topics or provisions of law are likely to be asked in the bar exam.

It is the same in preparing for an exam in a law school. It is advisable to research on the professor administering the exam. It is equally important to know the "who" as well as the "what" as these two factors often interplay in predicting what questions will be asked.

For example, in  preparing for your exam for Criminal Law Review, you might want to take note of the topics he frequently emphasizes during your class. You might also want to determine if your professor is highly bar-oriented. These will help you further trim down the articles you need to memorize and study in depth or even trim down the materials you need to access. There's a significant difference in impact between studying  topics which are likely to be asked, and studying extensively to cover the entire coverage (or studying even those which will not be asked in the exam).

Think about this: two professors teach criminal law, and that is all that makes the difference.

Conscientious/Moral/Religious Objector

In "Burwell vs Hobby Lobby" (US, June 2014) and in "Imbong vs Ochoa" (April 2014), the Court ruled in favor of conscientious objector (religious or moral objector) because, among others, the government failed to discharge its burden ("compelling interest" test in the Philippine case; while the government did demonstrate sufficient compelling interest, it failed to show "meaningful difference" between non-profit religious (which are exempted under Affordable Care Act) and for-profit religious organization in the US case).