<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Uber Case Digests</title>
	<atom:link href="http://uber2002.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com</link>
	<description>SCRA Made Easier!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2013 00:46:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on People of the Philippines vs Cayat by What are the Requisites of a Valid Classification? &#124; Uber Digests</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/people-of-the-philippines-vs-cayat/#comment-2318</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[What are the Requisites of a Valid Classification? &#124; Uber Digests]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2013 00:46:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=436#comment-2318</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] ** Taken from People of the Philippines vs Cayat. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] ** Taken from People of the Philippines vs Cayat. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Miguel Singson vs National Labor Relations Commission &amp; Philippine Airlines by What are the Requisites of Procedural Due Process in Administrative Proceedings? &#124; Uber Digests</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/miguel-singson-vs-national-labor-relations-commission-philippine-airlines/#comment-2316</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[What are the Requisites of Procedural Due Process in Administrative Proceedings? &#124; Uber Digests]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:29:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=409#comment-2316</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] **Based on Miguel Singson vs National Labor Relations Commission &amp; Philippine Airlines [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] **Based on Miguel Singson vs National Labor Relations Commission &amp; Philippine Airlines [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA et al by mary ponape</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/people-of-the-philippines-vs-francisco-juan-larranaga-et-al/#comment-2117</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mary ponape]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 07:58:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=1799#comment-2117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[must see documentary film on this case: watch for showings,  www.pacodocu.com]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>must see documentary film on this case: watch for showings,  <a href="http://www.pacodocu.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pacodocu.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform by Ylangylang Cruz</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/association-of-small-landowners-vs-secretary-of-agrarian-reform/#comment-1929</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ylangylang Cruz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:17:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=447#comment-1929</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How about tresppass /unlawful detainer by squatters
who are emboldened by CARP to settle &amp; usurp the landowners&#039; property? The court seems so biased towards even
those who commit crimes such as taking produce from
the land they do not own &amp; trespassed upon with impunity?

Frequent postponement of hearings granted by the court,
drags the case &amp; depletes the resources of the small
landowner for decades.

Where is the spirit of the law or the equal protection
of rights for the law abiding tax paying small landower?

He does not receive anything from the land he has title
to, he can not go to his property to farm/manage it himself because the trespassers make it untenable/unsafe.

They have unlicensed  firearms.

With this kind of skewed interpretation of social justice
where the one who trespassed, squatted &amp; brought in more
squatters gets to stay on the legal owner&#039;s property,
it looks like it is all so one sided in favor
of of those who steal/grab from the law abiding, tax paying
smalll landowner/s.

Eventually, the rule of law is eroded because those who
are tasked in interpreting same does so only with one
party in mind. This kind of &quot;justice&quot; practically gives
the land to the trespasser despite ownership of title.
It will erode the faith of small landowners
majority of whom
are in the middle class in the 
judicial system.

The middle class is supposed to be the vanguard of society.Weakened &amp; thinned, the middleclass willbe rendered inutile to perform its socio-economic mandate.

Deprived of rightful enjoyment/utilization of their land,
the middle class small landowners will just be as impoverished or become  impoverished as the intended beneficiary of this sham  of land distribution system in the name of &quot;social  justice&quot; gets to own the land that
rightfully belongs to the middle class small landowner.

It so easy &amp; convenient for owners of shielded vast tracts of
land to seize &amp; expropriate smalll tracts of land belonging to small landowners who are mostly in the middle class.

They are not affected by CARP. Their 100&#039;s or 1000&#039;s of hectares are owned by a corporate entity. They have converted their land to industrial use or big agribusiness.

Hence, it is no sweat to be so benevolent at the expense of
the middle class. They are dispensing others&#039; properties
not their own wealth---ill gotten or not.

This distribution of wealth,so called &quot;humanitarian&quot; move
should have started with owners of big tracts of private land,idle public lands,&amp; extensive land holdings of the church.

There should be fair &amp; equitable distribution of
wealth/land except for   those whose wealth/land are
enormous. Is that right? That is hypocricy &amp; exploitative
&amp; condescending offensive onslaught on people&#039;s
intelligence.

It is a very narrow  selective self serving
interpretation of  &quot;social justice&quot;.

One can cite all the laws relevant to the issue.
Not all the expertise of debate is going to convince
even the most mediocre that this redistribution of
wealth/land system (based on actual cases of
implementation)
is reasonable nor justifiable.

If the law is ambigous or
controversial by itself, then it
should be modified or repealed. 

It will not serve
its purpose if one group, in this particular case ,
the small landowners,are deprived of their land
even by trespassers or squatters because the law says
squatters who are punishable or can be 
affected by the new law
in the definition are those
who can be classified as &quot;professional squatters&quot;.

If they are landless &amp; can not afford to support
themselves then they are in effect not classified
as &quot;professional squatters&quot;. In essence,they will
be exempted.

Is it fair to the small landowner who has title to
the land, been paying taxes, but impeded from 
setting foot on his property because 

despite
years of litigation, the trespassing squatters
who is stealing produce from his land,
invited other similarly inclined trespassing squatters
to occupy the land he squatted on &amp; grabbed
&amp; armed   themselves with unlicensed firearms to
further intimidate the rightful owners
can not be ejected from his private property
that falls within the retention law?

We do not need the gobble d gook sophisticated
legal lingo for this. It is merely common
sense. You can not take from Juan &amp; give to
Jose what legally belongs to Juan.

Why not distribute your own land or wealth first
if you have more than 5 hectares?

Just compensation? That is another laughable
matter. It is laughable except when you are
the intended victim.

Fair &amp; just compensation?
A piece of land which would sell for
at least P1000/sq.meter will be valued at how much?

Who is going to stop the beneficiary squatter
tenant from selling land taken from
legal law abiding
tax paying citizens now owned by
these beneficiaries from
selling at true market value which the present
system will not allow the small landowner to 
receive as just compensation?

Forget about all the technicalities.
The bottom line is, the way it has been
set up will not allow so called just compensation
to the landowner.

It will take three parties who are in agreement to
finalize the deal. You can appeal?
Are you kidding? To whom? All the agencies involved
have their laws to go by---  the acceptable formula
set by the implementing agencies that are given
the responsibility to put into effect the tenets of
CARP. 

In theory beautiful, laudable, sublime, humanitarian,
etc. etc. 

It is all that except for the hapless
middle class small landowner.

Okay, after the middle class has been rendered useless/
powerless, what is left or who is left?
The very rich oligarchs who have taken measures to
protect their wealth &amp; by no means is bothered by the
&quot;trifling&quot; nuances of the small landowners.

Who else? Just like prior to CARP the peasants who
now by virtue of an inequitably implemented law,
became title holders or physical possesors of land
that belonged to the rightful small landowners.

Because local big business &amp; their foreign cohorts
are beckoning them to lease or sell their &quot;lawful&quot; landholding for mono crops such as those intended
for biofuels &amp; other big scale agribusiness,
due to
ignorance/economic needs they will lease
or sell not knowing or bothering to find out
what the long term consequences will be.

Ecological imbalance for one, food &amp; water shortages,
soil erosion &amp; more disastrous flooding.

Another thing, why base all our laws on laws in 
another country such as the US?

There is no comparison in area.
The culture &amp; traditions
are different.

Don&#039;t misunderstand me. I&#039;m all for so called
humanitarian sentiments or social justice but
not at the expense of one group/class.

I&#039;m not a lawyer. However,I believe everyone should have
an input on this issue; not just the governemnt
and its three branches. 


All groups&#039; interests should
be taken into consideration. 

The laws should be clear.

It is either you criminalize illegal activity or you
don&#039;t. The implementation should be 
fair for all parties &amp; done within a reasonable period.

How long should it take to prove who owns the property
vs. impostors/trespassers, illegal occupants, land grabbers,
usurpers of the legal &amp; rightful title holder&#039;s rights?

A law should be created to limit the number of postponements
for unlawful detainer/forcible entry, trespass,
squatting,landgrabbing. A law should be introduced
to define clearly a reasonable time for adjudication
of such cases.

In the present set up, the law abiding,tax paying
small landwoner who was  robbed of access &amp; use of his land
by clearly criminal elements, has to suffer moral
&amp; financial hardships due to
the frequent postponements, years (and in many cases
decades long) of litigation.

This situation is a travesty of justice---&amp; selective
&amp; narrow interpretation of the law.

The intent may have been for the good of all
but if the law itself is not clear, subject to
varying debates,interpretation &amp; decision,
justice is long denied the lawful owner.

This is a very important matter that deserves
the attention of everyone who is in the position
to take the initiative for administrative remedies
&amp; repeal of the ambigous law that repealed
Marcos&#039; agrarian reform presidential order.

The survival &amp; continued role of the
middle class in maintaining a balance of 
power in the nation is at stake.

Matalino man tayo kung ang katalinuhan ay para
lang sa  pansariling kapakanan at kung tutuusin
sa iilan lang na higit ng nakakaangat sa karamihan,
ay ano naman kayanng
kinabukasan ang ating maratnan???

Para sa atin lahat itong aking mga minumungkahi.
Uunlad at magiging malakas ang  ating pagaasenso
kung walang naaapakan na bahagi ng lipunan.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about tresppass /unlawful detainer by squatters<br />
who are emboldened by CARP to settle &amp; usurp the landowners&#8217; property? The court seems so biased towards even<br />
those who commit crimes such as taking produce from<br />
the land they do not own &amp; trespassed upon with impunity?</p>
<p>Frequent postponement of hearings granted by the court,<br />
drags the case &amp; depletes the resources of the small<br />
landowner for decades.</p>
<p>Where is the spirit of the law or the equal protection<br />
of rights for the law abiding tax paying small landower?</p>
<p>He does not receive anything from the land he has title<br />
to, he can not go to his property to farm/manage it himself because the trespassers make it untenable/unsafe.</p>
<p>They have unlicensed  firearms.</p>
<p>With this kind of skewed interpretation of social justice<br />
where the one who trespassed, squatted &amp; brought in more<br />
squatters gets to stay on the legal owner&#8217;s property,<br />
it looks like it is all so one sided in favor<br />
of of those who steal/grab from the law abiding, tax paying<br />
smalll landowner/s.</p>
<p>Eventually, the rule of law is eroded because those who<br />
are tasked in interpreting same does so only with one<br />
party in mind. This kind of &#8220;justice&#8221; practically gives<br />
the land to the trespasser despite ownership of title.<br />
It will erode the faith of small landowners<br />
majority of whom<br />
are in the middle class in the<br />
judicial system.</p>
<p>The middle class is supposed to be the vanguard of society.Weakened &amp; thinned, the middleclass willbe rendered inutile to perform its socio-economic mandate.</p>
<p>Deprived of rightful enjoyment/utilization of their land,<br />
the middle class small landowners will just be as impoverished or become  impoverished as the intended beneficiary of this sham  of land distribution system in the name of &#8220;social  justice&#8221; gets to own the land that<br />
rightfully belongs to the middle class small landowner.</p>
<p>It so easy &amp; convenient for owners of shielded vast tracts of<br />
land to seize &amp; expropriate smalll tracts of land belonging to small landowners who are mostly in the middle class.</p>
<p>They are not affected by CARP. Their 100&#8242;s or 1000&#8242;s of hectares are owned by a corporate entity. They have converted their land to industrial use or big agribusiness.</p>
<p>Hence, it is no sweat to be so benevolent at the expense of<br />
the middle class. They are dispensing others&#8217; properties<br />
not their own wealth&#8212;ill gotten or not.</p>
<p>This distribution of wealth,so called &#8220;humanitarian&#8221; move<br />
should have started with owners of big tracts of private land,idle public lands,&amp; extensive land holdings of the church.</p>
<p>There should be fair &amp; equitable distribution of<br />
wealth/land except for   those whose wealth/land are<br />
enormous. Is that right? That is hypocricy &amp; exploitative<br />
&amp; condescending offensive onslaught on people&#8217;s<br />
intelligence.</p>
<p>It is a very narrow  selective self serving<br />
interpretation of  &#8220;social justice&#8221;.</p>
<p>One can cite all the laws relevant to the issue.<br />
Not all the expertise of debate is going to convince<br />
even the most mediocre that this redistribution of<br />
wealth/land system (based on actual cases of<br />
implementation)<br />
is reasonable nor justifiable.</p>
<p>If the law is ambigous or<br />
controversial by itself, then it<br />
should be modified or repealed. </p>
<p>It will not serve<br />
its purpose if one group, in this particular case ,<br />
the small landowners,are deprived of their land<br />
even by trespassers or squatters because the law says<br />
squatters who are punishable or can be<br />
affected by the new law<br />
in the definition are those<br />
who can be classified as &#8220;professional squatters&#8221;.</p>
<p>If they are landless &amp; can not afford to support<br />
themselves then they are in effect not classified<br />
as &#8220;professional squatters&#8221;. In essence,they will<br />
be exempted.</p>
<p>Is it fair to the small landowner who has title to<br />
the land, been paying taxes, but impeded from<br />
setting foot on his property because </p>
<p>despite<br />
years of litigation, the trespassing squatters<br />
who is stealing produce from his land,<br />
invited other similarly inclined trespassing squatters<br />
to occupy the land he squatted on &amp; grabbed<br />
&amp; armed   themselves with unlicensed firearms to<br />
further intimidate the rightful owners<br />
can not be ejected from his private property<br />
that falls within the retention law?</p>
<p>We do not need the gobble d gook sophisticated<br />
legal lingo for this. It is merely common<br />
sense. You can not take from Juan &amp; give to<br />
Jose what legally belongs to Juan.</p>
<p>Why not distribute your own land or wealth first<br />
if you have more than 5 hectares?</p>
<p>Just compensation? That is another laughable<br />
matter. It is laughable except when you are<br />
the intended victim.</p>
<p>Fair &amp; just compensation?<br />
A piece of land which would sell for<br />
at least P1000/sq.meter will be valued at how much?</p>
<p>Who is going to stop the beneficiary squatter<br />
tenant from selling land taken from<br />
legal law abiding<br />
tax paying citizens now owned by<br />
these beneficiaries from<br />
selling at true market value which the present<br />
system will not allow the small landowner to<br />
receive as just compensation?</p>
<p>Forget about all the technicalities.<br />
The bottom line is, the way it has been<br />
set up will not allow so called just compensation<br />
to the landowner.</p>
<p>It will take three parties who are in agreement to<br />
finalize the deal. You can appeal?<br />
Are you kidding? To whom? All the agencies involved<br />
have their laws to go by&#8212;  the acceptable formula<br />
set by the implementing agencies that are given<br />
the responsibility to put into effect the tenets of<br />
CARP. </p>
<p>In theory beautiful, laudable, sublime, humanitarian,<br />
etc. etc. </p>
<p>It is all that except for the hapless<br />
middle class small landowner.</p>
<p>Okay, after the middle class has been rendered useless/<br />
powerless, what is left or who is left?<br />
The very rich oligarchs who have taken measures to<br />
protect their wealth &amp; by no means is bothered by the<br />
&#8220;trifling&#8221; nuances of the small landowners.</p>
<p>Who else? Just like prior to CARP the peasants who<br />
now by virtue of an inequitably implemented law,<br />
became title holders or physical possesors of land<br />
that belonged to the rightful small landowners.</p>
<p>Because local big business &amp; their foreign cohorts<br />
are beckoning them to lease or sell their &#8220;lawful&#8221; landholding for mono crops such as those intended<br />
for biofuels &amp; other big scale agribusiness,<br />
due to<br />
ignorance/economic needs they will lease<br />
or sell not knowing or bothering to find out<br />
what the long term consequences will be.</p>
<p>Ecological imbalance for one, food &amp; water shortages,<br />
soil erosion &amp; more disastrous flooding.</p>
<p>Another thing, why base all our laws on laws in<br />
another country such as the US?</p>
<p>There is no comparison in area.<br />
The culture &amp; traditions<br />
are different.</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t misunderstand me. I&#8217;m all for so called<br />
humanitarian sentiments or social justice but<br />
not at the expense of one group/class.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not a lawyer. However,I believe everyone should have<br />
an input on this issue; not just the governemnt<br />
and its three branches. </p>
<p>All groups&#8217; interests should<br />
be taken into consideration. </p>
<p>The laws should be clear.</p>
<p>It is either you criminalize illegal activity or you<br />
don&#8217;t. The implementation should be<br />
fair for all parties &amp; done within a reasonable period.</p>
<p>How long should it take to prove who owns the property<br />
vs. impostors/trespassers, illegal occupants, land grabbers,<br />
usurpers of the legal &amp; rightful title holder&#8217;s rights?</p>
<p>A law should be created to limit the number of postponements<br />
for unlawful detainer/forcible entry, trespass,<br />
squatting,landgrabbing. A law should be introduced<br />
to define clearly a reasonable time for adjudication<br />
of such cases.</p>
<p>In the present set up, the law abiding,tax paying<br />
small landwoner who was  robbed of access &amp; use of his land<br />
by clearly criminal elements, has to suffer moral<br />
&amp; financial hardships due to<br />
the frequent postponements, years (and in many cases<br />
decades long) of litigation.</p>
<p>This situation is a travesty of justice&#8212;&amp; selective<br />
&amp; narrow interpretation of the law.</p>
<p>The intent may have been for the good of all<br />
but if the law itself is not clear, subject to<br />
varying debates,interpretation &amp; decision,<br />
justice is long denied the lawful owner.</p>
<p>This is a very important matter that deserves<br />
the attention of everyone who is in the position<br />
to take the initiative for administrative remedies<br />
&amp; repeal of the ambigous law that repealed<br />
Marcos&#8217; agrarian reform presidential order.</p>
<p>The survival &amp; continued role of the<br />
middle class in maintaining a balance of<br />
power in the nation is at stake.</p>
<p>Matalino man tayo kung ang katalinuhan ay para<br />
lang sa  pansariling kapakanan at kung tutuusin<br />
sa iilan lang na higit ng nakakaangat sa karamihan,<br />
ay ano naman kayanng<br />
kinabukasan ang ating maratnan???</p>
<p>Para sa atin lahat itong aking mga minumungkahi.<br />
Uunlad at magiging malakas ang  ating pagaasenso<br />
kung walang naaapakan na bahagi ng lipunan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ABBAS vs SET by Howard Chan</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/abbas-vs-set/#comment-1825</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Howard Chan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Aug 2012 22:52:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=2859#comment-1825</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi pabols.. there&#039;s a link to the digest above and below this full text.. or just follow this: http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/01/firdausi-abbas-et-al-vs-the-senate-electoral-tribunal/]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi pabols.. there&#8217;s a link to the digest above and below this full text.. or just follow this: <a href="http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/01/firdausi-abbas-et-al-vs-the-senate-electoral-tribunal/" rel="nofollow">http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/01/firdausi-abbas-et-al-vs-the-senate-electoral-tribunal/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on ABBAS vs SET by pabols speaks</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/abbas-vs-set/#comment-1824</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[pabols speaks]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Aug 2012 07:27:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=2859#comment-1824</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[di naman ito digested. :(]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>di naman ito digested. <img src='http://s0.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on THE PHILIPPINE JUDGES ASSOCIATION et al vs HON. PETE PRADO et al by Stat Con 1st HW &#171; Everything 1D</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/the-philippine-judges-association-et-al-vs-hon-pete-prado-et-al/#comment-1758</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stat Con 1st HW &#171; Everything 1D]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:11:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=481#comment-1758</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Judges’ Association V. Hon. Prado, 227 SCRA 703 Full Text: http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/the-philippine-judges-association-et-al-vs-hon-pete-prado-e... Case Digest: [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Judges’ Association V. Hon. Prado, 227 SCRA 703 Full Text: <a href="http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/the-philippine-judges-association-et-al-vs-hon-pete-prado-e" rel="nofollow">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/the-philippine-judges-association-et-al-vs-hon-pete-prado-e</a>&#8230; Case Digest: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on BENGZON vs DRILON by Stat Con 1st HW &#171; Everything 1D</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/bengzon-vs-drilon/#comment-1757</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stat Con 1st HW &#171; Everything 1D]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:11:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=2653#comment-1757</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] V. Drilon, 208 SCRA 703 Full Text: http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/bengzon-vs-drilon/ Case Digest: [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] V. Drilon, 208 SCRA 703 Full Text: <a href="http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/bengzon-vs-drilon/" rel="nofollow">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/bengzon-vs-drilon/</a> Case Digest: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on CASCO vs GIMENEZ by Stat Con 1st HW &#171; Everything 1D</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/casco-vs-gimenez/#comment-1756</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stat Con 1st HW &#171; Everything 1D]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:11:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=2840#comment-1756</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Philippine Chemical Co V. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 34 Full Text: http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/casco-vs-gimenez/ Case Digest: http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/01/casco-philippines-vs-gimenez/ [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Philippine Chemical Co V. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 34 Full Text: <a href="http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/casco-vs-gimenez/" rel="nofollow">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/casco-vs-gimenez/</a> Case Digest: <a href="http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/01/casco-philippines-vs-gimenez/" rel="nofollow">http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/01/casco-philippines-vs-gimenez/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on MABANAG vs LOPEZ VITO by Stat Con 1st HW &#171; Everything 1D</title>
		<link>http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/mabanag-vs-lopez-vito/#comment-1755</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Stat Con 1st HW &#171; Everything 1D]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:11:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/?p=2580#comment-1755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] V. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil 1 Full Text: http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/mabanag-vs-lopez-vito/ Case Digest: [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] V. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil 1 Full Text: <a href="http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/mabanag-vs-lopez-vito/" rel="nofollow">http://uber2002.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/mabanag-vs-lopez-vito/</a> Case Digest: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
