G.R. No. 16254 - Cuunjieng vs. Patstone

Ask AI

G.R. No. 16254: Cuunjieng vs. Patstone

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Your conversations and searches stay on your device. We do not store or track your activity on our servers. To know more about our privacy commitment see jur.ph/privacy Ask AI provides quick answers grounded in full case texts to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

Ask AI

Title Supreme Court: Cuunjieng vs. Patstone

Case: G.R. No. 16254

Decision Date: Feb 21, 1922

Plaintiff sought mandamus to compel issuance of a building permit, challenging Manila ordinance requiring arcade construction and excessive fees. Court ruled ordinance unconstitutional, exceeding municipal powers, and affirmed mandamus as remedy. Dissent upheld ordinance's public benefit.

mandamus

constitutionality

statute

Case Summary (G.R. No. 16254)

Full Text Too Short for AI Analysis

END

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Summary (G.R. No. 16254)

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 16254)