Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REPLY/REJOINDER TO
OPPOSITION TO
OPPOSITORs MOTION TO
DISMISS
No factual legal basis for
the claim of petitioner
that subject property is
reclaimed land. Petitioner
sought OR of its title over
the property acquired
through alleged
continuous possession
under Sec. 14(1) of PD
1529 and not RA 1899
BACELONIA v. CA
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES after a vehicular accident.
Petitioners were defendants as operators of the school
shuttle service while Simeon Roxas-Cu and Daniel Carino
were the owner and driver of the cargo truck.
Petitioners filed a complaint for damages arising from
their co-defendants. They entered into a compromise
which led to the dismissal of the complaint in this case
between them.
Upon termination of testimony of the second witness for
the complainants, petitioners filed a motion to be dropped
as defendants on the ground that a compromise
IMPORTANT RATIO:
1. MR of the trial court reso on Jan. 10, 2000 was filed on
Jan. 31, 2000, the date and time of hearing thereof set on
February 15, 2000 at 8:30. 15.5 provides that the notice
of hearing shall be addressed to all the parties concerned
and shall specify the date and time of the hearing which
must not be later than 10 days after the filing of the
motion.
2. The scheduled hearing of the said MR was beyond the
period specified by the ROC which was not later than 10
days after filing of the motion
3. Motion that fails to religiously comply with the mandatory
provision of 15.5 is pro forma and presents no question
which merits the attention and consideration of the
court.
RUSTIAS
MR with advance notice of
appeal
Acceptance of PNRs rate
without any evidence
presented to support it
PNR v. RUSTIA
Rustias were co-owners of two parcels of land. 70 years
ago PNR took possession of about 6,658 sq.m. to build
railroad tracks. No expropriation suit was ever initiated,
US v. RUIZ
US had a naval base in Zambales pursuant to the Military
Bases Agreement. It invited bids for repairs of its offender
system and the shoreline.
Eligio de Guzman and Co submitted bids and it received
two telegrams requesting it to confirm its price proposals
and for the name its bonding company. The company
complied with the requests.
De Guzman filed a complaint against the US Govt,
alleging the US had accepted its bids because A request
to confirm a price proposal confirms the acceptance of a
bid pursuant to the US bidding practices
Company received a letter from the US Navy stating that
De Guzmans company did not qualify because (1) of a
previous unsatisfactory performance rating on a repair
contract for the sea wall; and (2) contract had been
awarded to third parties.
Complaint is for specific performance to order defendants
to allow plaintiff to perform work on the projects and for
damages; also asked for writ of Prelim Injunction to
restrain defendants from entering into contracts with 3 rd
parties for work on the projects
Defendants entered their special appearance for purpose
of questioning KD of the court over the subject matter
(acts and omissions of individual defendants as agents of
defendant US)
Defendants filed a MOTION TO DISMISS. (DENIED)
Defendants filed for PROHIBITION to restrain perpetually
the proceedings in the case for lack of jurisdiction.
SC: PETITION MERITORIOUS
PHILVILLE VS JAVIER
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ; Dec. 13, 2007
NATURE
Instant petition for review on certiorari
FACTS
- This case traces its antecedents to a verified complaint filed by
Mercedes Javier, herein respondent with the RTC for damages and
injunction. Impleaded as defendant was PHILVILLE Development
and Housing Corporation (PHILVILLE).
- The complaint alleges that spouses Crisanto (now deceased) and
Javier have been tenant-cultivators of
a 5.5 hectare parcel of rice land owned by Felimon Emperado, a
holder of a free patent.
- Sometime in 1977, PHILVILLE proposed to buy the land for
conversion into a housing subdivision.
Spouses Javier, PHILVILLE and Emperado then entered into a
Kasulatan ng Pagsasalin at Kusang Loob na Pagsusuko. Among the
terms agreed upon by the parties was that the Javiers would be
given a 2,000 square meter lot as a disturbance compensation.
However, instead of giving them a single lot measuring 2,000 sq.m.
what they received were 2 separate lots of 1,000 sq. m. each
located far apart. This prompted Mercedes tosue PHILVILLE for
damages.
- In its answer, PHILVILLE specifically denied the allegations in the
complaint and raised the following
affirmative and special defenses: (1) the complaint fails to state a
cause of action; (2) it does not allege
LACAP v. LEE
Victor Facundo mortgaged two parcels of land to Monte de Piedad
Savings Bank. In 1981, the Sps Lacap assumed to pay Facundos
mortgage obligation to the bank. They failed to pay and the bank
foreclosed. They bought the same at the auction.
Bank allowed spouses to stay under a lessor-lessee agreement.
Spouses introduced improvements worth P500,000 after relying
on banks assurance the property would be sold back to them. On
May 1996, their representative went to pay the rent but the bank
refused to accept saying it was sold to another person.
They called the bank, the VP of which told them to submit a
written offer for P1.1M. They complied the following day but the
bank turned down the offer. On June 1996, they received a letter
demanding they vacate the premises because it was owned by
respondent Jouvet Lee.
Lacaps instituted a case for CANCELLATION OF SALE AND
DAMAGES WITH AN APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION.
Respondent filed a COMPLAINT FOR UD against the lacaps in
the Davao MTC.
DAVAO MTC: In favour of Lee
Lacaps APPEALED to DAVAO RTC, which affirmed the MTC
decision, with modification that Lee should reimburse Lee for the
improvements introduced on the premises.
Respondent filed an MR praying for deletion of order to reimburse the
Lacaps. MR granted by the Davao RTC.
2.
Lacaps:
1. The Courts a quo erred in oversimplifying the issue in the case.
Since they were questioning the title of the respondent over the
subject property, the case for unlawful detainer was no longer
limited to the question of possession but also involved the
question of ownership. Courts should not have evaded ruling on
the issue of ownership as a pre-req to determination and
resolution of issue of physical possession.
2. Anchors claim on Sec. 16 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure:
When the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his
pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved
without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership
shall be resolved only to determine issue of possession.
3. They question Lees ownership on the ground that the bank failed
to offer them the subject property, making respondents title
defective.
3.
SC:
1. Defense of ownership contemplated by said rule refers to a
asituation where defendants either claim ownership of subject
property or attributes said ownership to another person other
6.
4.
5.
the legal system by filing cases of the same nature in the hope
of insuring a favourable judgment.
Facts
II. Issues-Held
WON the complaint failed to state a cause of action:
Objections:
o Failure of NBI agents to file a motion for
reconsideration of the RTC Order denying their motion
to dismiss within 15 days
o Resort to special civil action of certiorari to challenge
the denial of their Motion to Dismiss
o Propriety of including their Motion to Dismiss in their
answer
o CAs grant of a 15-day extension to file a petition for
certiorari
o Being represented by private counsel rather than the
OSG
APPENDIX
2.4 On 12 March 2002, elements of the [NBI] x x x led by
Defendant Rafael I. Gonzaga x x x entered by force the
premises belonging to Plaintiff Alexander del Rosario situated
at No. 51 New York Street, Villasol Subdivision, Angeles City,
pursuant to a Search Warrant unlawfully obtained from
the [RTC] of Angeles City, Branch 57 x x x.
xxxx
2.6 Contrary to the sworn statements given before the
court by defendants Hellenor D. Donato Jr. x x x and
contrary to the allegation in Search Warrant No. 0209A, no `fake Marlboro cigarettes and their packaging'
were found at No. 51 New York Street, Villasol Subdivision,
Angeles City x x x.
2.7 The inclusion of Plaintiff Arthur del Rosario in
Search Warrant No. 02-09 had no factual basis
considering that the premises searched is the property solely
of Plaintiff Alexander del Rosario.
2.8 Worse the enforcement of Searched [sic] Warrant No. 0209 was just part of the series of raids and searches that was
conducted in Angeles City and Pampanga, which was done
with much publicity in the community and had tended to
include the Plaintiffs in the same category as other persons
and entities who were in fact found to be dealing with fake
Marlboro cigarettes.
xxxx
3.2 The baseless sworn allegations that Plaintiffs had under
their control and possession counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes
and packaging to obtain a search warrant, and the malicious
service of the such warrant at the residential premises
of Plaintiff Alexander del Rosario in full and plain view
of members of the community, as part of the series of
raids and operations conducted within Angeles City and
Pampanga during that period, has tainted irreversibly the
good names which Plaintiffs have painstakingly built and
maintained over the years.
xxxx
3.4 Plaintiffs were subjected to so much humiliation and
embarrassment by the raid conducted on the subject
MARAMAG v. MARAMAG
The Heirs of Loreto Maramag filed against respondents a
PETITION FOR REVOCATION and/or REDUCTION of
INSURANCE PROCEEDS for being void and/or inofficious, with a
prayer for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary
injunction.
Petitioner were legitimate wife and children while respondents are
the concubine and illegitimate children, and both Insular and
Grepalife.
Legit family
Insurance Companies
Illegitimate children only
INSULAR
entitled to legitime of the
legitimate children, thus,
Loreto misrepresented his wife
proceeds released to Odessa
and illegitimate children as his
and to the other children were
legitimate wife and children. It
inofficious and should be
disqualified Eva as a beneficiary.
reduced
Complaint/petition failed to state a
Petitioners could not be
cause of action insofar as it
deprived of their legitimes
sought to declare as void the
designation of Eva as beneficiary
because Loreto revoked her
designation
GREPALIFE
Eva was not designated as a
beneficiary. Claims filed by the
illegit children were denied
because Loreto misrepresented
his age in his insurance
application form.
Case was premature, there being
no claim filed by legitimate family
of Loreto
BALO v. CA
Private reposndent Josefina Garrido filed a COMPLAINT FOR
JUDICIAL PARTITION of REAL PROPERTIES and
ACCOUNTING WITH DAMAGES against petitioners Ulpiano Balo
et al before the Letre RTC. She alleges she and petitioners are coowners of undivided parcels of land located at Mayorga, Leyte.
Owned by grandparents Ulpiano Sr and Maximino
petitioners and Josefina Garrido, daughter of Maximino Balo and
Salvacion Sabulao.
Josefina Garrido
Balos
After death of her grandfather,
MTD
petitioners took possession of
Failure of complaint to state COA.
the real properties without her
She failed to alleged legitimacy,
consent. She requested a fair
which is fatal considering NCC
and equal partition of the
992. To allow plaintiff to inherit
Facts:
1. Petitioners filed a complaint for cancellation of title and
reconveyance with damages after Gaudioso Ponteras Ricaforte aka
Gaudioso Ypon executed an affidavit of self-adjudication and
transferring all the parcels of land of Magdaleno to himself.
Magdaleno died intestate and childless, thus petitioners were his
collateral relatives and successors-in-interest.
2. In his answer, GY alleged he is Magdalenos lawful son, as
evidenced by a certificate of live birth, two letters from Polytechnic
School, and his passport. By way of affirmative defense, he claimed
a. petitioners had no COA against him
b. complaint fails to state COA
c. case is not prosecuted by the real parties-in-interest as it was
not shown petitioners were real heirs
3. RTC dismissed complaint because
a. No cause of action against GY
b. Though plaintiffs established their relationship to Magdaleno
in a special proceeding for issuance of letters of
administration, this did not mean they could automatically be
considered compulsory heirs
c. Gaudioso successfully established filiation through
documentary evidence
ISSUES:
Whether or not the dismissal of the RTC of the complaint was proper
(NOOO)
rule that the determination of a decedents lawful heirs should be made in the
corresponding special proceeding precludes the RTC, in an ordinary action for
cancellation of title and reconveyance, from granting the same
Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan v. CA: The Court held that the determination of who
are the decedents lawful heirs must be made in the proper special proceeding
for such purpose, and not in an ordinary suit for recovery of ownership and/or
possession
Litam, et al. v. Rivera: the declaration of heirship must be made in a special
proceeding, and not in an independent civil action
Exceptions: