J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0037: RAQUEL G. KHO VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VERONICA G. KHO (G.R. 187462, 01 JUNE 2016, PERALTA J.)(SUBJECT/S: MARRIAGE LICENSE; EXCEPTIONAL MARRIAGES; EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT SC MUST ONLY RESOLVE  QUESTIONS OF LAW) (BRIEF TITLE: KHO VS. REPUBLIC)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby declares the marriage contracted between Raquel G. Kho and Veronica Borata on June 1, 1972 null and void ab initio pursuant to Article 80 of the Civil Code and Articles 4 and 5 of the Family Code.  The foregoing is without prejudiced to the application of Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern, Samar for proper registration of this decree of nullity of marriage.

So ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

OSG ARGUES THAT THE ISSUES ARE FACTUAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE NOT PROPER FOR SC TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES. IS OSG CORRECT?

NO.

THE ISSUES INVOLVE A DETERMINATION AND APPLICATION OF LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE INTERTWINED WITH A QUESTION OF FACT: WHETHER A MARRIAGE LICENSE WAS OBTAINED BY THE PARTIES PRIOR TO MARRIAGE.

WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT SC SHALL NOT ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS OF FACT?

THERE ARE 10:

( 1) WHEN THE CONCLUSION IS A FINDING GROUNDED ENTIRELY ON SPECULATION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES;

(2) WHEN THE INFERENCE MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN, ABSURD OR IMPOSSIBLE;

(3) WHERE THERE IS A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION;

( 4) WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS;

(5) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONFLICTING;

(6) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN MAKING ITS FINDINGS, WENT BEYOND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE AND THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF BOTH APPELLANT AND APPELLEE;

(7) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARC CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT; (8) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT CITATION OF SPECIFIC EVIDENCE ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED; /D.ATL5. T?1

 (9) WHEN THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION AS WELL AS IN THE PETITIONERS’ MAIN AND REPLY BRIEFS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE RESPONDENTS;

AND (I 0) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE PREMISED ON THE SUPPOSED ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RCCORD.11

IS THIS PRESENT CASE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE?

YES.

BECAUSE  THE FINDINGS OF THE RTC AND THE CA ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS INDEED A MARRIAGE LICENSE ARE CONFLICTING.

WHAT IS THE APPLICABLE  LAW  ON MARRIAGE LICENSE?

ARTICLE 53 OF THE CIVIL CODE SPELLS OUT THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE AS A CONTRACT. IT READS:

ART. 53. NO MARRIAGE SHALL  BE SOLEMNIZED  UNLESS ALL THESE  REQUISITES ARE COMPLIED WITH:

(1) LEGAL CAPACITY OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES;

(2) THEIR CONSENT, FREELY GIVEN;

(3) AUTHORITY OF THE PERSON PERFORMING THE MARRIAGE; AND

(4) A MARRIAGE LICENSE, EXCEPT IN A MARRIAGE OF EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER.13

WHAT ARE MARRIAGES OF EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER?

THESE MARRIAGES ARE:

(I) MARRIAGES IN ARTICULO MORTIS OR AT THE POINT OF DEATH DURING PEACE OR WAR;

(2) MARRIAGES IN REMOTE PLACES;

(3) CONSULAR MARRIAGES;

( 4) RATIFICATION OF MARITAL COHABITATION;

(5) RELIGIOUS RATIFICATION OF A CIVIL MARRIAGE;

(6) MOHAMMEDAN OR PAGAN MARRIAGES; AND

(7) MIXED MARRIAGES. PETITIONER’S AND RESPONDENT’S MARRIAGE DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THESE EXCEPTIONS.

SUPPOSE A MARRIAGE IS PERFORMED WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE. IS IT VALID?

IT IS VOID PER ART. 80 OF THE CIVIL CODE.

WHY IS MARRIAGE LICENSE NECESSARY?

BECAUSE IT IS THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE STATE TO THE CONTRACTING PARTIES, AFTER THE PROPER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL HAS INQUIRED INTO THEIR CAPACITY TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE.

THE REQUIREMENT AND ISSUANCE OF A MARRIAGE LICENSE IS THE STATE’S DEMONSTRATION OF ITS INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN EVERY MARRIAGE, IN THE MAINTENANCE OF WHICH THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS INTERESTED.

OSG ARGUES THAT THE PRESUMPTION IS ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE AND THAT ANY DOUBT SHOULD BE RESOLVED TO SUSTAIN SUCH VALIDITY. IS THEIR ARGUMENT CORRECT?

YES BUT NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT. EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT NO MARRIAGE LICENSE WAS OBTAINED BY THE PARTIES.

THE PRESUMED VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE PARTIES HAD BEEN OVERCOME, AND THAT IT BECAME THE BURDEN OF THE PARTY ALLEGING A VALID MARRIAGE TO PROVE THAT THE MARRIAGE WAS VALID, AND THAT THE REQUIRED MARRIAGE LICENSE HAD BEEN SECURED. 20

AS STATED ABOVE, PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO PRESENT A CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF ARTECHE, EASTERN SAMAR ATTESTING THAT THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR “HAS NO RECORD NOR COPY OF ANY MARRIAGE LICENSE EVER ISSUED IN FAVOR OF RAQUEL G. KHO [PETITIONER] AND VERONICA M. BORATA [RESPONDENT] WHOSE MARRIAGE WAS CELEBRATED ON JUNE 1, 1972.”21

THUS, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CERTIFICATION, THE PRESUMED VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE OF PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT HAS BEEN OVERCOME AND IT BECOMES THE BURDEN OF RESPONDENT TO PROVE THAT THEIR MARRIAGE IS VALID AS IT IS SHE WHO ALLEGES SUCH VALIDITY. AS FOUND BY THE RTC, RESPONDENT WAS NOT ABLE TO DISCHARGE THAT BURDEN.

RESPONDENT ON THE OTHER  HAND FAILED TO PRESENT COPY OF THE ALLEGED MARRIAGE LICENSE.

BUT PETITIONER’S MOTIVE WHICH IS TO LEGITIMIZE HIS ILLICIT AFFAIR WITH ANOTHER WOMAN IS NOT PURE. WILL THIS FACT NOT BE CONSIDERED?

NO.

THE LAW MUST BE APPLIED.

AS THE MARRIAGE LICENSE, AN ESSENTIAL REQUISITE UNDER THE CIVIL CODE, IS CLEARLY ABSENT, THE MARRIAGE OF PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IS VOID AB INITIO.

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

SCD-2016-0037-KHO

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”.

CASE 2016-0036: ANDRES L. DIZON VS. NAESS SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC. AND DOLE UK (LTD.) (G.R.–NO. 201834, 01 JUNE 2016; PERES J.) (SUBJECT/S: SEAMAN’S DISABILITY BENEFITS, MANDATORY POST EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION; WHAT IS WORK-RELATED SICKNESS;  WHEN DISABILITY IS COMPENSABLE; WHEN IS THERE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE).

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter declaring Naess Shipping Phils. Inc. And/or DOLE UK (Ltd.) Jointly and severally liable to pay Andres L. Dizon US Dollars Sixty Six Thousand Pesos (US$66,000.00) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. However, for humanitarian considerations, taking into account complainant’s unblemished record of  thirty (30) years of service to respondents, the latter are hereby directed to pay Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) financial assistance to complainant.”

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS?

NO.

BECAUSE HE FAILED TO SUBMIT HIMSELF TO POSTEMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION BEFORE THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED DOCTOR WITHIN 3 DAYS UPON HIS ARRIVAL.

WHAT IS THE RULE THAT THE PETITIONER VIOLATED?

THE PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT HE SIGNED WHICH STATES THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION AND DISABILITY BENEFITS BUT HE SHALL SUBMIT HIMSELF TO A POST EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION BY A COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WITHIN THREE WORKING DAYS UPON HIS RETURN.

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE?

YES.

EXCEPTION: WHEN HE IS PHYSICALLY INCAPACITATED TO DO SO, IN WHICH CASE A WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE AGENCY WITH THE SAME PERIOD IS DEEMED AS COMPLIANCE.

WHAT IS THE RESULT IF HE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SUCH RULE?

IT SHALL  RESULT IN HIS FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO CLAIM THE DISABILITY BENEFITS.

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE MANDATORY POST-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION WITHIN 3 DAYS FROM REPATRIATION?

IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR A PHYSICIAN TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE ILLNESS OR INJURY.

ASCERTAINING THE REAL CAUSE OF THE ILLNESS OR INJURY BEYOND THE PERIOD MAY PROVE DIFFICULT.

TO IGNORE THE RULE MIGHT SET A PRECEDENT WITH NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS, LIKE OPENING FLOODGATES TO A LIMITLESS NUMBER OF SEAFARERS CLAIMING DISABILITY BENEFITS, OR CAUSING UNFAIRNESS TO THE EMPLOYER WHO WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY DETERMINING THE CAUSE OF A CLAIMANT’S ILLNESS BECAUSE OF THE PASSAGE OF TIME.

FOR DISABILITY TO BE COMPENSABLE WHAT ARE THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS?

 (1) THE INJURY OR ILLNESS MUST BE WORK-RELATED; AND

 (2) THE WORK-RELATED INJURY OR ILLNESS MUST HAVE EXISTED DURING THE TERM OF THE SEAFARER’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.

FOR AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AND THE RESULTING DISABILITY OR DEATH TO BE COMPENSABLE, WHAT CONDITIONS MUST BE PRESENT?

1. THE SEAFARER’S WORK MUST INVOLVE THE RISKS DESCRIBED HEREIN;

2. THE DISEASE WAS CONTRACTED AS A RESULT OF THE SEAFARER’S EXPOSURE TO THE DESCRIBE[ D] RISKS;

3. THE DISEASE WAS CONTACTED WITHIN A PERIOD OF EXPOSURE AND UNDER SUCH OTHER FACTORS NECESSARY TO CONTRACT IT; [AND]

4. THERE WAS NO NOTORIOUS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE SEAFARER.

WHAT IS WORK-RELATED SICKNESS?

ANY SICKNESS RESULTING TO DISABILITY OR DEATH AS A RESULT OF AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE LISTED IN SECTION 32-A OF THE  POEA-SEC CONTRACT.

HOW    SHALL THE PROVISIONS OF POEA-SEC CONTRACT BE APPLIED?

MUST BE APPLIED FAIRLY, REASONABLY AND LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE SEAFARERS, FOR IT IS ONLY THEN THAT ITS BENEFICENT PROVISIONS CAN BE FULLY CARRIED INTO EFFECT.

HOWEVER, THIS CATCHPHRASE CANNOT BE TAKEN TO SANCTION THE AWARD OF DISABILITY BENEFITS AND SICKNESS ALLOWANCE BASED ON FLIMSY EVIDENCE AND EVEN IN THE FACE OF AN UNJUSTIFIED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE THREE-DAY MANDATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENT UNDER THE POEA-SEC.

WHY WAS THIS PETITION DENIED?

BECAUSE PETITIONER FAILED TO ESTABLISH BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE  ENTITLEMENT TO DISABILITY BENEFITS, HAVING FAILED TO UNDERGO A POST-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW WITHOUT VALID OR JUSTIFIABLE REASON, AND TO ESTABLISH THAT HIS ILLNESS WAS CONTRACTED DURING THE TERM OF HIS CONTRACT AND THAT THE SAME WAS WORKRELATED.

IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES?

NO BECAUSE HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS.

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

 SCD-2016-0036-DIZON

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”.

CASE 2016-0035: GABRIEL YAP, SRL. DULY REPRESENTED BY GILBERT YAP AND ALSO IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, GABRIEL YAP, JR., AND HYMAN YAP, VS. LETECIA SIAO, L YNEL SIAO, JANELYN SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE SIAO, SHELETT SIAO AND HONEYLET SIAO (G.R. NO. 212493) CEBU SOUTH MEMORIALGARDEN, INC.,  VS. LETECIA SIAO, L YNEL SIAO, JANELYN SIAO, ELEANOR FAYE SIAO, SHELETT SIAO AND HONEYLET SIAO (G.R. NO. 212504, 01 JUNE 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECTS: REQUIRMENT OF BOARD RESOLUTION IN  NON-FORUM SHOPPING CERTIFICATION; LAW OF THE CASE; GENUINE ISSUE; SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ESTOPPEL) (BRIEF TITLE: YAP ET AL VS. SIAO ET AL).

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated 9 October 2013 and Resolution dated 26 March 2014 in CAG.R. CV No. 02037 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Summary Judgment in Civil Case No. CEB-23707 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Cebu City is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHO ARE THE OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF A COMPANY WHO CAN SIGN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION WITHOUT NEED OF A BOARD RESOLUTION?

THEY ARE:

 ( 1) THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

(2) THE PRESIDENT OF A CORPORATION,

(3) THE GENERAL MANAGER OR ACTING GENERAL MANAGER,

( 4) PERSONNEL OFFICER, AND

( 5) AN EMPLOYMENT SPECIALIST IN A LABOR CASE.

WHAT IS THE RATIONAL BEHIND THIS RULE?

THESE OFFICERS ARE “IN A POSITION TO VERIFY THE TRUTHFULNESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION.” 17

IN CEBU METRO PHARMACY, INC V. EURO-MED LABORATORIES, PHARMACY, INC.,18 THE PRESIDENT AND MANAGER OF CEBU METRO WAS HELD BY THE COURT AS HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN THE VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING EVEN WITHOUT THE SUBMISSION OF A WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM THE BOARD.

THE COURT WENT ON TO SAY:  AS THE CORPORATION’S PRESIDENT AND MANAGER, SHE IS IN A POSITION TO VERIFY THE TRUTHFULNESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION. IN ADDITION, SUCH AN ACT IS PRESUMED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE OF HER AUTHORITY TO ACT WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF THE CORPORATION’S BUSINESS AND HER USUAL DUTIES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY PROVISION IN THE CORPORATION’S CHARTER OR BY-LAWS.19

CAN SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE REMEDY THE LACK OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE CERTIFICATION OF NON FORUM SHOPPING?

YES.

IN COSCO PHILIPPINE SHIPPING, INC. V. KEMPER INSURANCE IT WAS SO HELD.

ALSO IN CHINA BANKING CORPORATION V. MONDRAGON INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC.

 ALSO IN ABAYA INVESTMENTS CORPORATION V. MERIT PHILIPPINES.

BUT WHAT IS THE GENERAL RULE ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING?

NON-COMPLIANCE THEREWITH OR A DEFECT THEREIN, UNLIKE IN VERIFICATION, IS GENERALLY NOT CURABLE BY ITS SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSION OR CORRECTION THEREOF, UNLESS THERE IS A NEED TO RELAX THE RULE ON THE GROUND OF “SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE” OR PRESENCE OF “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR COMPELLING REASONS.”

HOW ABOUT IF THERE ARE MANY PLAINTIFFS OR PETITIONERS.  MUST ALL SIGN THE CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING?

YES.

EXCEPTION:

IF THERE ARE REASONABLE OR JUSTIFIABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER, AS WHEN ALL THE PLAINTIFFS OR PETITIONERS SHARE A COMMON INTEREST AND INVOKE A COMMON CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENSE, THE SIGNATURE OF ONLY ONE OF THEM IN THE CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH THE RULE.

CAN THE ISSUE ON CERTIFICATION ON NON-FORUM SHOPPING BE RAISED AT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST TIME?

NO.

THE COURT OF APPEALS DIRECTED THE TRIAL COURT TO RENDER A SUMMARY JUDGMENT. AFTER THE TRIAL COURT RENDERED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CAN RESPONDENTS STILL ELEVATE THE CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS?

THE ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS POSED BY RESPONDENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN PASSED UPON AND RESOLVED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS. BY APPEALING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT, RESPONDENTS ARE IN EFFECT ASKING THE COURT OF APPEALS TO REVISIT THE SAME ISSUES. THIS VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLE OF THE “LAW OF THE CASE.”

WHAT IS THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE?

THE “LAW OF THE CASE” DOCTRINE APPLIES IN A SITUATION WHERE AN APPELLATE COURT HAS MADE A RULING ON A QUESTION ON APPEAL AND THEREAFTER REMANDS THE CASE TO THE LOWER COURT TO EFFECT THE RULING;

THE QUESTION SETTLED BY THE APPELLATE COURT BECOMES THE LAW OF THE CASE AT THE LOWER COURT AND IN ANY SUBSEQUENT APPEAL.

IT MEANS THAT WHATEVER IS IRREVOCABLY ESTABLISHED AS THE CONTROLLING LEGAL RULE OR DECISION BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES IN THE SAME CASE CONTINUES TO BE THE LAW OF THE CASE, WHETHER CORRECT ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES OR NOT, SO LONG AS THE FACTS ON WHICH THE LEGAL RULE OR DECISION WAS PREDICATED CONTINUE TO BE THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT. 32

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND THIS RULE?

TO ENABLE AN APPELLATE COURT TO PERFORM ITS DUTIES SATISFACTORILY AND EFFICIENTLY, WHICH WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE IF A QUESTION, ONCE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY IT, WERE TO BE LITIGATED ANEW IN THE SAME CASE UPON ANY AND EVERY SUBSEQUENT APPEAL. WITHOUT IT, THERE WOULD BE ENDLESS LITIGATION. LITIGANTS WOULD BE FREE TO SPECULATE ON CHANGES. IN THE PERSONNEL OF A COURT, OR ON THE CHANCE OF HAVING PROPOSITIONS REWRITTEN ONCE GRAVELY RULED ON SOLEMN ARGUMENT AND HANDED DOWN AS THE LAW OF A . 33 GIVEN CASE.

WHEN IS A SUMMARY JUDGMENT PERMITTED?

ONLY IF THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE AS TO ANY MATERIAL FACT AND A MOVING PARTY IS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.

A SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER IF, WHILE THE PLEADINGS ON THEIR FACE APPEAR TO RAISE ISSUES, THE AFFIDAVITS, DEPOSITIONS, AND ADMISSIONS PRESENTED BY THE MOVING PARTY SHOWS THAT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE NOT GENUINE.

WHAT IS A GENUINE ISSUE?

A “GENUINE ISSUE” IS AN ISSUE OF FACT WHICH REQUIRES THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SHAM, FICTITIOUS, CONTRIVED OR FALSE CLAIM.

WHEN THE FACTS AS PLEADED APPEAR UNCONTESTED OR UNDISPUTED, THEN THERE IS NO REAL OR GENUINE ISSUE OR QUESTION AS TO THE FACTS, AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS CALLED FOR.

WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THE ABSENCE OF ANY GENUINE ISSUE?

THE PARTY WHO MOVES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

IN THIS CASE, IS SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPER?

YES.

PETITIONERS SEEKS FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE  FROM RESPONDENTS, I.E. TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO PETITIONER CORPORATION BASED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF AGREEMENT.

AS THEIR DEFENSE, RESPONDENTS CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE AGREEMENT.

HOWEVER, RESPONDENTS FILED A MOTION FOR SUPPORT RELYING ON THE SAME AGREEMENT THAT THEY ARE IMPUGNING.

IN VIEW OF THIS ADMISSION, RESPONDENTS ARE EFFECTIVELY BANKING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE AGREEMENT.

THUS, THERE ARE NO MORE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE THRESHED OUT.

WHAT BARS RESPONDENT FROM QUESTIONING THE AGREEMENT?

THE PRINCIPLE OF ESTOPPEL.

THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE, AS EXPRESSLY ADOPTED IN ARTICLE 1431 OF THE CIVIL CODE, AND PRONOUNCED AS ONE OF THE CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION UNDER RULE 131, SECTION 3 (A) OF THE RULES OF COURT, AS FOLLOWS: “WHENEVER A PARTY HAS, BY HIS OWN DECLARATION, ACT OR OMISSION, INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY LED ANOTHER TO BELIEVE A PARTICULAR THING TO BE TRUE, AND TO ACT UPON SUCH A BELIEF, HE CANNOT, IN ANY LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF SUCH DECLARATION, ACT OR OMISSION, BE PERMITTED TO FALSIFY IT.”

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

SCD-2016-0035-GABRIEL YAP 

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”.