Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
This is an examination of Tomas Florenino conducted by
the undersigned counsel in the latters Law Office located at
Di Mahanap Street, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Further, the
undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully
submits this Judicial Affidavit of the above-named witness.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
I, JUAN DELA CRUZ, of legal age, married, Filipino
citizen and a resident of ZonaKwatro, Liko-Liko Street, Di
MatanawBrgy., Cagayan. I am fully aware that I am under
oath and that I could be held criminally and civilly liable for
any false statement that I would make. I am willing to
proceed with my testimony in this Judicial Affidavit.
JUAN DELA CRUZ
PROFFER OF ORAL TESTIMONY
The testimony of JUAN DELA CRUZ is offered to prove
the following: (1) that he is the brother of MARIA DELA
1
ATTY. _____________:
Your honor, I am making on record that I showed and
handed to Juan dela Cruz the copy of the Original Certificate
of Title No. ______, and that he identified the same. The
Original Certificate of Title No. P-5044 is marked as
EXHIBIT A.
Q08: Do you know who is this Pedro dela Cruz?
A08: Yes, sir.
Q09: Why do you know him?
A09: He is the grandfather of CARING TODO MAX from
whom my sister bought the parcel of land, sir.
Q10: Who are the parents of Caring dela Cruz, if you know
any?
A10: Mariano dela Cruz and Ildefonsadela Cruz, sir.
Q11: How did Caring Todo Max acquired the parcel of land
that is covered under Original Certificate of Title No.
_______?
A11: She inherited it from her father, Mariano dela Cruz,
because the latter is the sole son of Pedro dela Cruz,
sir.
Q12: Do you have any proof of your claim that Mariano dela
Cruz is the sole son of Pedro dela Cruz?
A12: Yes, sir.
Q13: What is your proof?
A13: The Negative Certification of Birth issued by the
National Statistics Office, sir.
Q14: If I show to you a copy of Negative Certification of
Birth of Mariano dela Cruz issued by the National
Statistics Office, will you be able to identify the same?
A14: Yes, sir.
Q15: I am showing to you a copy of Negative Certification
of Birth issued by the National Statistics Office, what
can you say about this document, if there is any?
A15: This is the Negative Certification of Birth issued by the
National Statistics Office that I was referring to earlier,
sir.
ATTY. _____________:
Your honor, I am making on record that I showed and
handed to Juan dela Cruz the copy of Negative Certification
of Birth, and that he identified the same. The Original
Negative Certification of Birth is marked as EXHIBIT
B.
Q16: You have said earlier that Caring dela Cruz is the
daughter of Mariano dela Cruz, do you have any proof
to your claim?
A16: Yes, sir.
Q17: What is your proof?
A17: The Marriage Certificate between Mariano dela Cruz
and Ildefonsadela Cruz and the Birth Certificate of
Caringdela Cruz, sir.
Q18: If I show to you the Marriage Certificate between
Mariano dela Cruz and Ildefonsadela Cruz and the
Birth Certificate of Caring dela Cruz, will you be able
to identify the same?
A18: Yes, sir.
Q19: I am showing to you a copy of Marriage Certificate
between Mariano Florentino and Ildefonsa Valencia
and the Birth Certificate of Eva Florentino, what can
you say about this document, if there is any?
A19: This is the Marriage Certificate and Birth Certificate
that I was referring to earlier, sir.
ATTY. LOUIE A. SOCRATES:
Your honor, I am making on record that I showed and
handed to Tomas Juan dela Cruz the copy of the Certificate
between Mariano dela Cruz and Ildefonsadela Cruz and the
Birth Certificate of Caring dela Cruz, and that he identified
the same. The Marriage Certificate and Birth Certificate
are marked as EXHIBIT C and EXHIBIT D.
Q20: You also said that Caring dela Cruz inherited the
parcel of land covered under Original Certificate of
Title No. _______, is it safe to say that the parents of
Caring dela Cruz were already deceased?
A20: Yes, sir. They were already departed.
Q21: What is your proof?
4
2.
SUBSCIBED
AND
SWORNbefore
me
this
____________________, in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, and
affiant presented and shown to me his Roll no. _________as
proof of his identity.
EUNICE CRUZ-SANTIAGO,
168168
Petitioner,
Nullity of
of the
Family Code of the
Philippines
- versus MICHAEL SANTIAGO,
Respondent.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PRE-TRIAL BRIEF
OF THE
PETITIONER
I.
POSSIBILITY OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT OR ALTERNATIVE
MODES OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The Petitioner is not willing to consider any amicable settlement
or undergo alternative modes of dispute resolution with respect to the
primary prayer ofthis petition. However, the Petitioner is open to the
possibility of amicable settlement in relation to the partition and
10
accounting of the conjugal properties and assets of her union with the
Respondent.
II.
PROPOSED STIPULATION
OF
FACTS
for
six
(6)
11
that
Respondent
would
again
attempt
12
13.
19.
visited
them
every
day,
Respondent
did
not
seek
employment
elsewhere.
24.
Respondents motherbegan giving her son allowances
to defray his personal and familial expenses. Respondents
mother asked Petitioner what expenses were not being
covered by her salary and even volunteered to subsidize
their other household expenses.
25.
During this period of unemployment, Respondent
consistently tried to convince Petitioner to move back into
14
to
the
home
of
Respondents
mother,
(2)
needs
others
to
assume
stress
brought
about
by
Respondents
mentality and behavior, she left the home of her parentsin-law to live on her own sometime in September 2004.
32.
As found even by the National Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the Catholic Church in a decision they released
concerning the so-called union between the Petitioner and
the Respondent on 9 March 2006 penned by a Fr. Rodolfo
Dacanay, S.J., the Respondent manifested a simple but
deep-seated aversion to performing his marital obligations
as
he
failed
to
provide
the
Petitioner
with
the
16
III.
ISSUES
TO BE
TRIED
AND
RESOLVED
at
the
time
of
the
marriage,
though
only
IV.
DOCUMENTS
TO BE
PRESENTED
17
V.
WITNESSES
TO BE
PRESENTED
18
VI.
AVAILABLE DATES
FOR
TRIAL
20
JA CRIM
Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
10TH Judicial Region
Branch 1
Butuan City, Agusan del Norte
-versus-
RELATION TO R.A.7610
MARCELO BAYAMBAGO Y BULANON,
Accused.
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
OF MR. ROMMEL M. SALES
Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?
A1:
Yes Maam.
Q2:
Are you the same Rommel M. Sales, the private complainant in this
case for Physical Abuse in Relation to R.A. 7610 now pending before
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1 of Butuan City, Agusan del Norte?
A2:
Yes Maam
22
Q3:
A3:
Q4:
A4:
Yes Maam.
Q5:
A5:
Q6:
A6:
I was walking home at that time after I had visited my friend Paolo
Balesteros at Purok 1 Libertad, Butuan City.
Q7:
Who was with you during that time you were walking home?
A7:
Q8:
A8:
words
A9:
thus
words to
punched me again on
Q22: What did Marcelo do when Julius Dumanon told him to stop?
A22: He just laughed and said in visayan words again to quote
MosukolnamangyudBai, maayonangpitolon. Then he left.
Q23: What did you do then?
A23: I stood up and Julius Dumanon helped as I hardly can walk.
Then he accompanied me back home.
Q24: And then, what happened next?
A24: When I got home I told my mother about the incident and then
we reported the incident to police Station3 in Libertad, Butuan
City.
25
Q27: Based on this medical certificate you are showing to us that the
injuries would have incapacitated you for a period of 7 to 10 days?
A27: Yes, Maam, I was actually incapable to join my classes at Libertad
National High School for more than a week due to the pain that I
suffered. The next day after the incident I had bruises and it was
absolutely difficult for me to stand.
Q30: Why did you say that it was Dr. Mirasol who signed it?
26
A30: Because I was in front of her when she signed the medical certificate.
ROMMEL M. SALES
Private Complainant
PRINCESS S. DALINGAY
Asst. Provincial Prosecutor
Detailed PPO-Butuan City
Agusan del Norte
MCLE Compliance No. IV 000000
Officer-in-Charge
27
PRINCESS S. DALINGAY
Counsel for the State
28
JA CIVIL
Republic of the Philippines
Plaintiff,
- versus 29
x-----------------------------------/
OFFER OF TESTIMONY:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
I, DR. LUZ FLORA L. YAP, Filipino, of legal age, married and with
residence and postal address at 861 C. Padilla St., Mambaling, Cebu City,
after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and say that:
30
Are you aware and conscious that this is under oath, and that any
falsity of this Affidavit would subject you to prosecution for false
testimony or perjury?
A: Yes sir, I am.
2 Are you the same DR. LUZ FLORA L. YAP, the plaintiff in this case?
A: Yes, sir. I am Dr. Luz Flora Lauron Yap, the plaintiff in this case.
How come that the Villacortas are now occupying your residential
house?
A: Their predecessor-in-interest PastoraAngMosqueda leased this
property from my father PrimitivoLauron
start
leasing
this
residential
31
A: Based on our record, Lucring paid P 800.00 per month until June
1995.
17 Could you describe the residential lot and parcel of land on which it
is situated?
A: My residential house is constructed on my parcel of land
denominated as Lot 1036 with an area of 307 square meters and
located along Tres de Abril St., Pahina San Nicolas, Cebu City.
32
20
25 You said that herein defendants were lessees of your Lot 1036
situated in Pahina San Nicolas, Cebu City as they constructed their
residential house thereon. In this sketch plan, can you indicate to us
33
27 How much was the monthly rental for the use of the property?
A: The monthly rental for the use of the house was
P________________.
at
on
34
38 I have an original copy of the demand letter dated January 31, 2013
addressed to Sps. Edgar and Joan Villacorta, signed by Paulino B.
Labrado, handling counsel, with the conformity of Dr. Luz Flora L.
Yap. Is this the same demand letter that you are referring to?
A: Yes, sir. This is the demand letter I caused to be sent to them.
(Request for marking of Demand Letter as Exhibit F)
36
AFFIDAVIT OF ATTESTATION
1. That I was the lawyer who conducted/supervised the Affiant DR. LUZ
FLORA L. YAP in the execution of her judicial affidavit;
4. That neither did I coach her nor were there any other person doing
the same regarding her answers to the questions;
PAULINO B. LABRADO
Affiant
Philippines ID No. 46534. I also hereby certify that I personally know herein
affiant, him being a partner in the law office.
38
LEGAL OPINION
Legal Opinion
December 10, 2010
Mr. Peter Banag
16 Annapolis St.
Cubao, Quezon City
Dear Mr. Banag:
Here is the opinion you requested.The facts, gathered from you and your
documents, are as follows:
Your daughter, Mary Banag, about six years old, went to Arthur Sisons house to
buy ice-candy on September 12 at about 3 PM. Mary knocked on the gate, but having
gotten no response from Arthur who was napping then, she tested the gate by pushing it.
Upon doing so, the gate yielded and Arthurs dog jumped out, went after Mary and
attacked her from behind, biting her on the leg and arms as she fell to the ground. She
was saved by Fred Puzon, a neighbor, who kicked the dog away and protected her.
Awakened by the commotion and having heard shouts that his dog had attacked a child,
Arthur went out, sent the dog back to his yard and bought Mary to a nearby clinic for
treatment, paying the medical bill thereafter.You asked Arthur to pay Mary P20,000 in
damages for the ordeal but all you got was a letter saying that he cannot grant
yourdemand because he was not at fault. Hebased his stand on the following:
1. That there was a sign at the gate warning about the presence of the dog, in
effect implying that if Mary heeded what the sign says, the attack wouldnt
have happened
2. That at the time of the attack she was not accompanied by an adult,
impliedly putting the blame on you as her parent for letting her roam
outside unattended and therefore exposing her to danger; and
3. That he already paid the bill for Marys medication.
The issue here is clear:its whether or not Arthur is liable to Mary for damages.In
my opinion, Arthur is liable for damages notwithstanding his defenses.First and foremost,
what happened to Mary is classified as a quasi-delict, as defined by Article 2176 of the
Civil Code:
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if
there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
As for the nature of Arthurs liability, the provision that governs is Article 2183 of
the Civil Code. It provides that:
The possessor of an animal or whoever may make use of the same is responsible
for the damage which it may cause, although it may escape or be lost. This
responsibility shall cease only in case the damages should come from force
majeure from the fault of the person who has suffered damage.
39
The Supreme Court explained said provision in the case of Vestil v. Intermediate
Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74431, 179 SCRA 47), saying that:
According to Manresa, the obligation imposed by Article 2183 of the Civil Code
is not based on the negligence or on the presumed lack of vigilance of the
possessor or user of the animal causing the damage. It is based on natural equity
and on the principle of social interest that he who possesses animals for his utility,
pleasure or service must answer for the damage which such animal may cause.
Now, Arthur may say that what happenedwas brought about by contributory
negligence on Marys partas the former implied in his letter, or he may claim that letting
Mary roam the vicinity unaccompanied is negligence on your part and constitutes the
proximate cause of her injuries, notwithstanding his own negligence in leaving the gate
unlocked before napping. Both scenariosare governed by Article 2179 of the Civil Code
that provides:
When the plaintiffs own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause of
his injury, he cannot recover damages. But if his negligence was only
contributory, the immediate and proximate cause of the injury being the
defendants lack of due care, the plaintiff may recover damages, but the courts
shall mitigate the damages to be awarded.
In the first scenario, the Supreme Courts ruling in Jarco Marketing Corporation
v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 129792, 321 SCRA 375) that a child under nine years of
age must be conclusively presumed incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of
law covers Mary, hence throwing the notion of contributory negligence on her part out
the window.As for the second scenario, the ruling in Umali v. Bacani (G.R. No. L-40570,
69 SCRA 263)provides that parental negligence in allowing a young child to go out of the
house alone may at most qualify as contributory negligence and as such would be
covered by the second sentence of Article 2179.
Arthur, being the owner of the dog that attacked Mary, is liable for damages, with
all possible defenses taken into consideration.If Arthur didnt leave the gate unlocked
before taking a nap an act showing a lack of due care there would have been no way
the dog could have attacked Mary. Mary could test the gate all day long and she wouldnt
be attacked by Arthurs dog had the gate been closed. Of course, he may say that paying
Marys medical bill should be enough, but that does not cover the moral damages that
Mary is entitled to under Article 2219 (2) of the Civil Code, which specifically pertains to
quasi-delicts causing physical injuries. As mentioned earlier, the only reprieve due him
would be a mitigation of his liability.
One thing: my opinion is based on the laws and the jurisprudence applicable to
your situation. If by any circumstance you take your plight to court, I am confident that
the case will be decided in your favor.
Very truly yours,
Emile Justin P. Cebrian
40