Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
HELD:
Quisumbing, J.:
Facts:
Petitioner Rosemarie and respondent Rosario are sisters. The
present controversy stemmed from an investment agreement
between the two sisters. Rosario, represented by her daughter
Grace Galvez as her attorney-in-fact filed a complaint before RTC
Quezon to collect a sum of money from Spouses Wee.
It was alleged that the sisters entered into an agreement whereby
Rosario would send Rosemarie $20k. However, Rosario asked for
the return of the $20k and for an accounting and Rosemarie then
promised to comply but failed to do so.
Once again, Rosario, through her attorney-in-fact, sent Rosemarie a
written demand for her money and accounting but Rosemarie
ignored the demand, thus causing Rosario to file suit.
Then spouses Wee moved to dismiss the case in which one of the
grounds is the certification against forum shopping was defective,
having been executed by an attorney-in-fact and not the plaintiff, as
required by Rule 7, Sec. 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
However the trial court denied Wees motion to dismiss. On appeal,
the CA denied their petition. Hence the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the certification of Non-Forum shopping executed by
the plaintiffs attorney-in-fact is defective.
Facts:
Severo and Maxima were husband and wife without any children.
Severo left several parcels of land registered under his name which
are located in Mandaue City.
Severo died intestate and survived by his full blood brothers and
sisters as well as his half blood siblings.
Maxima also died intestate and survived by her siblings.
Then petitioners herein filed with the RTC of Mandaue an action for
judicial partition of the properties left by Severo and Maxima.
After trial, the RTC rendered a decision for partition of the properties
wherein the property belongs to the respondent heirs of Eulogio
covers only 42 sq. meters. The latter then filed a motion for
correction which the RTC amended it by changing the area of 42 sq.
meters to 255 sq. meters which decisions became final and
executory.
Petitioners then filed with the CA a petition to annul the judgment of
RTC. Initially the CA dismissed the petition but upon petitioners
motion for reconsideration which the CA granted, it reinstated the
petition.
Subsequently, respondent heirs of Eulogio filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of CAs resolution, on the ground that it was made
to appear in the petition for annulment of judgment that Quintin
Retuya, one of the petitioners, had signed the certification against
forum shopping on Mar. 18, 2003, when he had already died on Jul.
29, 1996.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition.
HELD:
No. CA is correct. The SC agreed with the CA that the substantial
rule on the filing of the certification of N-FS is not applicable in this
case because of petitioners dishonesty committed against the CA.
Petitioners actuation showed their lack of forthrightness to the CA
which the latter correctly found to be a dishonest act committed
against it. PETITION DENIED
Jabalde vs PNB
Central Surety vs
REYES, J.:
C. N. HODGES and CA
Conception, C.J.:
Facts:
Jabalde seeks recovery of P10k allegedly deposited by him with
PNB, P5k in genuine PH currency on 1941 and another P5k on 1943
in mixed genuine PH currency and Jap. Military notes.
-Defendants answer was not under oath, admits the making of
deposits but denies the dates of deposit alleging that both deposits
were made in 1944 hence being not reimbursable for being null and
void under EO 49.
Issue:
Facts:
Prior to Jan. 15, 1954, two lots were sold by C.N. HODGES to
Vicente M. Layson for the sum of P43K on instalments.
As of the abovementioned date, Layson incurred an outstanding
balance of P15k. Layson persuaded C.N. to execute in his favor an
absolute deed of sale in order to obtain a loan with the bank.
Layson executed a promissory note in favor of C.N. for P15k with
interest thereon and the sum of P1.5k for attys fees and costs in
case of default.
Whether or not the banks failure to deny under oath the entries in
the passbook as copied in the complaint constitutes an admission
of the genuineness and due execution of the document.(Sec.8, Rule
8)
Then, the Petitioner Surety through its manager, Mrs. Rosita Mesa,
executed in favor of Hodges the surety bond.
Held:
Layson then admitted the formal allgetions and denied the other
allegations while the petitioner failed to file its answer and been
declared as default.
Upon presentation of evidence of HODGES, judgment was rendered
in fovor of the latter but subsequently modified by CFI upon motion
for reconsideration by petitioner.
It was ruled that petitioner is liable only for the amount of P8K
because Mrs. Mesa could only issue security bonds not exceeding
P8k.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in applying the rule on implied
admission by reason of failure to deny under oath the authenticity of
a pleaded document.
HELD:
Sec. 8 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court is in authority.
SC: We have however, held that: .where a case has been tried in
complete disregard of the rule and the plaintiff having pleaded a
document by copy, presents oral evidence to prove the due
execution of the document as well as the agents authority and no
objections are made to the defendants evidence in refutation, the
rule will be considered waived.
In the case at bar, the parties acted in the complete disregard of
Sec.8, Rule 8. Hodges had neither objected to the evidence
introduced by petitioner in order to prove that Mrs, Mesa had no
authority to issue a surety bond, much less one in excess of P8k,
and took no exception to the admission of said evidence. Hence,
Hodges must be deemed to have waived the benefits of said rule
and petitioner herein cannot be held liable in excess of the sum of
P8k.
Facts:
Capitol Motors filed a complaint against Yabut based on a
promissory note excuted by Yabut in favor of the plaintiff for the sum
of P30k payable on instalments. It was also stipulated that should
defendant fail to pay two successive instalments, the principal sum
remaining will become due and demandable. Then having Yabut
failed to pay the two instalments successively and thereupon having
failed to pay the whole debt upon demand, Capitol Motors prayed
that judgment be rendered in his favor.
Defendant filed an answer in this wise:
DEFENDANT thorugh his counsel alleges:
1. Paragraph 1 of the complaint is admitted.
2. Paragraphs 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 of the complaint are
specifically denied for lack of knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth thereof.
Plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground
that the defendant failed to deny specifically the material allegations
of the complaint. The defendant did not file an opposition to the
motion. Then the lower court rendered judgment granting in toto the
plaintiffs prayer.
B4 the issue, said the SC: We agree w/ defendant that one of the
modes of specific denial contemplated in Sec.10, Rule 8, is a denial
by stating that the defendant is w/o knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the
complaint. The question however is
ISSUE:
Quisumbing, J.:
Facts:
HELD:
No. The rule authorizing an answer to the effect that the defendant
has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of an averment and giving such answer the effect of a denial,
does not apply where the fact as to which want of knowledge is
asserted, is so plainly and necessarily within the defendants
knowledge that his averment of ignorance must be palpably untrue.
It is evident that a mere allegation of the facts alleged in the
complaint is insufficient to raise an issue; the defendant must aver
positively or state how it is that he is ignorant of the facts so alleged.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action
against petitioner.
Held:
In this case, annexed to the subject complaint are the three contracts
above mentioned governing rights and obligations between petitioner
and respondent.
Records show that recurring in each of the said contracts is the
provision that payment by petitioner shall be subject to its timely
receipt of similar payments from Fil-Estate.
The said attached contracts, which define and delimit the rights and
obligations of the parties, clearly require a specific condition before