Latest Entries »

CASE 2017-0015: RODANTE F. GUYAMIN, LUCINIA F. GUYAMIN, and EILEEN G. GATARIN, VS. JACINTO G. FLORES and MAXIMO G. FLORES, represented by RAMON G. FLORES, (G.R. No. 202189 25 APRIL 2017, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (DEFENSE MUST BE BASED ON MERITS NOT TECHNICALITIES) (BRIEF TITLE: GUYAMIN ET AL VS GATARIN ET AL.)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment
June 9, 2017

CASE 2017-0015: RODANTE F. GUYAMIN, LUCINIA F. GUYAMIN, and EILEEN G. GATARIN,  VS. JACINTO G. FLORES and MAXIMO G. FLORES, represented by RAMON G. FLORES,   (G.R. No. 202189   25 APRIL 2017, DEL CASTILLO, J.) (DEFENSE MUST BE BASED ON MERITS NOT TECHNICALITIES) (BRIEF TITLE: GUYAMIN ET AL VS GATARIN ET AL.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The May 23, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 92924 is AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

PETITIONERS STAYED IN RESPONDENTS’ LAND OUT OF THE LATER’S TOLERANCE. RESPONDENTS FILED CASE TO OUST PETITIONERS AFTER MEDIATION FAILED. PETITIONERS WERE  DECLARED IN DEFAULT BUT THEY  FILED AN ANSWER THOUGH LATE AND RESPONDENTS FILED A REPLY. RESPONDENTS FAILED TO FILE A FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE BUT DESPITE THIS, THE LOWER COURT STILL ISSUED A DECISION WHICH WAS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS.

 

PETITIONERS RAISED THE DEFENSE THAT THEY  SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DECLARED IN FAULT SINCE THEY  FILED AN ANSWER AND RESPONDENTS IN FACT FILED A REPLY  AND THAT THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE RESPONDENT FAILED TO FILE A FORMAL OFFER OF EVIDENCE. IS PETITIONER CORRECT?

 

 NO. PETITIONERS’ DEFENSES ARE PURELY TECHNICAL AND NOT BASED ON MERITS.

 

PETITIONERS RAISED PURELY PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS AND NOTHING MORE. IN OTHER WORDS, PETITIONERS AIM TO WIN THEIR CASE NOT ON THE MERIT, BUT ON PURE TECHNICALITY.

 

“To repeat, this Court will not waste its precious time and energy in a futile exercise where the result would be for naught; petitioners will not be indulged when it appears that they have no valid claim in the first place. Quite the contrary, the Court must give respondents the justice they deserve. As owners of the subject property who have been deprived of the use thereof for so many years owing to petitioners’ continued occupation, and after all these years of giving unconditionally to the petitioners who are their relatives, respondents must now enjoy the fruits of their ownership.”

 

“The Rules of Court was conceived and promulgated to set forth guidelines in the dispensation of justice, but not to bind and chain the hand that dispenses it, for otherwise, courts will be mere slaves to or robots of technical rules, shorn of judicial discretion. That is precisely why courts, in rendering justice, have always been, as they in fact ought to be, conscientiously guided by the norm that on the balance, technicalities take a backseat to substantive rights, and not the other way around. As applied to the instant case, in the language of then Chief Justice Querube Makalintal, technicalities ‘should give way to the realities of the situation’ .22 (Emphasis supplied)”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2017-0015-RODANTE F. GUYAMIN, ET AL. VS. JACINTO G. FLORES AND MAXIMO G. FLORES REPRESENTED BY RAMON G. FLORES

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

Comment

CASE 2017-0014: DUTCH MOVERS, INC., CESAR LEE AND YOLANDA LEE VS. EDILBERTO LEQUIN, ET AL.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment
June 6, 2017

CASE 2017-0014: DUTCH MOVERS, INC., CESAR LEE AND YOLANDA LEE VS. EDILBERTO LEQUIN, ET AL.

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The July 1, 2013 Decision and November 13, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 113774 are AFFIRMED with the modification that instead of reinstatement, Dutch Movers, Inc. and spouses Cesar Lee and Yolanda Lee are solidarily liable to pay respondents’ separation pay for every year of service.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2017-0014-DUTCH MOVERS INC., CESAR LEE AND YOLANDA LEE VS. EDILBERTO LEQUIN ET AL.

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

Comment

CASE 2017-0013: TEDDY CASTRO AND LAURO SEBASTIAN, VS. PABLITO V. MENDOZA, SR., ON HIS BEHALF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF RICARDO C. SANTOS, ARLENE C. MENDOZA, MARGIE AC DE LEON, NANCY S. REYES, MARITA PAGLINAWAN, NATIVIDAD C. MUNDA, MARILOU DE GUZMAN RAMOS, LEONCIA PRINCIPIO, CECILIA DINIO, ANGEL DELA CRUZ, ZENAIDA SANTOS, LOURDES S. LUZ, MARIFE F. CRUZ, ANTONIO H. SANTOS, CONSTANCIA SANTOS, MARCELINA ” SP. DAMEG, PLACIDO DE LEON, LILIAN SANTOS, (COLLECTIVELY ORGANIZED AS BUSTOS PUBLIC MARKET II VENDORS AND STALL OWNERS ASSOCIATION) AND MUNICIPALITY OF BUSTOS, BULACAN, (G.R. NO. 212778 26 APRIL 2017, JARDELEZA, J.)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
June 2, 2017

CASE 2017-0013: TEDDY CASTRO AND LAURO SEBASTIAN, VS. PABLITO V. MENDOZA, SR., ON HIS BEHALF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF RICARDO C. SANTOS, ARLENE C. MENDOZA, MARGIE AC DE LEON, NANCY S. REYES, MARITA PAGLINAWAN, NATIVIDAD C. MUNDA, MARILOU DE GUZMAN RAMOS, LEONCIA PRINCIPIO, CECILIA DINIO, ANGEL DELA CRUZ, ZENAIDA SANTOS, LOURDES S. LUZ, MARIFE F. CRUZ, ANTONIO H. SANTOS, CONSTANCIA SANTOS, MARCELINA ” SP. DAMEG, PLACIDO DE LEON, LILIAN SANTOS, (COLLECTIVELY ORGANIZED AS BUSTOS PUBLIC MARKET II VENDORS AND STALL OWNERS ASSOCIATION) AND MUNICIPALITY OF BUSTOS,   BULACAN,   (G.R. NO. 212778   26 APRIL 2017, JARDELEZA, J.)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108859 is AFFIRMED. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in DARAB Case No. 749-Bulacan ’94 is directed to compute the amount of disturbance compensation to be paid pet1t10ners Teddy Casfro and Lauro Sebastian by public respondent Municipality of Bustos, Bulacan in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended. No costs.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

IS RIGHT OF REDEMPTION AN ADJUDICATION OF OWNERSHIP?

 

NO BECAUSE ONE HAS TO REDEEM FIRST THE PROPERTY BEFORE IT CAN OWN IT.

 

IN THIS CASE THE PARAD RULING FAVORING PETITIONER SIMPLY RECOGNIZED THEIR PROPERTY RIGHT TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY BUT DID NOT RULE THAT THEY OWN THE PROPERTY.

 

SUPPOSE THERE IS ADJUDICATION OF OWNERSHIP. CAN THE COURT ISSUE WRIT FOR DELIVERY OF POSSESSION?

 

YES. POSSESSION IS AN INCIDENT OF OWNERSHIP AND WHOEVER OWNS THE PROPERTY HAS THE RIGHT TO POSSESS IT.

 

DOES CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER (CLT)  VEST OWNERSHIP IN ITS HOLDER?

 

NO. IT MERELY EVINCES THAT ITS GRANTEE IS QUALIFIED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE STATUTORY MECHANISM FOR THE ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND TILLED BY HIM AS PROVIDED UNDER P.D. NO. 27.

 

IT IS NOT A MUNIMENT OF TITLE THAT VESTS IN THE FARMER/GRANTEE ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF HIS TILLAGE.

 

IT IS ONLY AFTER COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS WHICH ENTITLE A FARMER/GRANTEE TO AN EMANCIPATION PATENT THAT HE ACQUIRES THE VESTED RIGHT OF ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP IN THE LANDHOLDING-A RIGHT WHICH THEN WOULD HAVE BECOME FIXED AND ESTABLISHED, AND NO LONGER OPEN TO DOUBT OR CONTROVERSY.  

 

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED IN ORDER TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION?

 

A) THE REDEMPTIONER MUST BE AN AGRICULTURAL LESSEE OR SHARE TENANT;

 

B) THE LAND MUST HAVE BEEN SOLD BY THE OWNER TO A THIRD PATTY WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SALE GIVEN TO THE LESSEE OR LESSEES AND THE DAR;

 

C) ONLY THE AREA CULTIVATED BY THE AGRICULTURAL LESSEE MAY BE REDEEMED; AND

 

D)  THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION MUST BE EXERCISED WITHIN 180 DAYS FROM WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SALE BY THE VENDEE. 83

 

WHAT IS AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT IN EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION?

 

TENDER OR CONSIGNATION IS AN INDISPENSABLE REQUIREMENT.

 

HOW CAN AN OFFER TO REDEEM EFFECTED?

 

THROUGH:

 

  • A FORMAL TENDER WITH CONSIGNATION OR

 

  • A COMPLAINT FILED IN COURT COUPLED WITH CONSIGNATION OF THE REDEMPTION PRICE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD.

 

IS IT NOT SUFFICIENT THAT A PERSON OFFERING TO REDEEM MERELY MANIFESTS HIS DESIRE TO REPURCHASE?

 

HIS INTENTION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ACTUAL AND SIMULTANEOUS TENDER OF PAYMENT OF THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE REPURCHASE PRICE, I.E., THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SALE,

 

OTHERWISE THE OFFER TO REDEEM WILL BE HELD INEFFECTUAL.

 

WHY SHOULD THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE REDEMPTION PRICE BE CONSIGNED IN COURT?

 

BECAUSE ONLY BY SUCH MEANS CAN THE BUYER BECOME CERTAIN THAT THE OFFER TO REDEEM IS ONE MADE SERIOUSLY AND IN GOOD FAITH.

 

DID PETITIONER VALIDLY EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT OF REDEMPTION?

 

NO. WHEN THEY FILED THEIR COMPLAINT THEY DID NOT CONSIGN THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE PRICE OF P1.2M WITH THE COURT.

 

CONSIDERING THAT PETITIONERS FAILED TO CONSIGN THE FULL REDEMPTION PRICE OF PL .2 MILLION WHEN THEY FILED THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE PARAD IN AUGUST 22, 1994, THERE WAS NO VALID EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO REDEEM THE PROPERTY.

 

WHEN WILL A  REGISTERED OWNER BE PRECLUDED FROM RECOVERING POSSESSION OF HIS PROPERTY?

 

WHEN THERE WOULD BE IRREMEDIABLE INJURY  TO THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL?

 

IN ONE CASE  A REGISTERED OWNER FAILED TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF THE LITIGATED PROPERTY BECAUSE THE LAND OWNER ACQUIESCED TO PETITIONER MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY’S OCCUPATION OF THE  LAND.

 

IN THIS CASE THE PROPERTY IS NOW BEING USED AS PUBLIC MARKET.

 

BUT WHAT IS THE RELIEF AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONERS?

 

SINCE THEY ARE VALID TENANTS-POSSESSORS OF THE PROPERTY, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION UNDER SECTION 36 (1)101 OF RA 3844, AS AMENDED.

 

CASE IS REMANED TO THE DARAB FOR DETERMINATION OF DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION DUE PETITIONERS RECKONED FROM THE TIME OF THEIR ACTUAL DISPOSSESSION FROM THE PROPERTY. THE DARAB, THROUGH THE PARAD, SHALL CONDUCT A HEARING AND RECEIVE EVIDENCE FROM BOTH PETITIONERS AND THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION, AND THE AMOUNT OF RENTALS ALLEGEDLY COLLECTED BY PETITIONERS FROM THE VENDORS IN THE PUBLIC MARKET, IF ANY.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2017-0013-TEDDY CASTRO AND LAURO SEBASTIAN VS. PABLITO V. MENDOZA, SR., ET AL.

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

 

Comment