PRACTICE COURT BLOG 2021

 FAIRLAND KNITCRAFT CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. ARTURO LOO PO Facts: In a complaint  for unlawful detainer, docketed as Civil Case No. 19429, filed before the MeTC, Fairland alleged that it was the owner of Condominium Unit No. 205 in Cedar Mansion II on Ma. Escriba Street, Pasig City. The said unit was leased by Fairland to Po by verbal agreement, with a rental fee of P20,000.00 a month, to be paid by Po at the beginning of each month. From March 2011, Po had continuously failed to pay rent. For said reason, Fairland opted not to renew the lease agreement anymore.  Fairland sent a formal letter   to Po demanding that he pay the amount of P220,000.00, representing the rental arrears, and that he vacate the leased premises within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the letter. Despite receipt of the demand letter and the lapse of the said 15-day period to comply, Po neither tendered payment for the unpaid rent nor vacated the premises. Thus, on December 12, 2012,...

  Facts: Ronald Geralino M. Lim (Ronald) filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor a Complaint for grave threats against his brother Edwin M. Lim (Edwin). Acting favorably on the Complaint, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed an Information against Edwin before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Iloilo City. On arraignment, Edwin pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. The case was then referred to the Philippine Mediation Center for mediation. But due to the parties' failure to reach a settlement, the case was referred back to the court.  On August 12, 2013, the case was set for pre-trial. 1âшphi1  However, because of Ronald's and his counsel's absence, pre-trial was reset to September 5, 2013.  After Edwin's counsel had filed a Motion for time to submit a counter-affidavit, pre-trial was again reset to October 17, 2013. On October 17, 2013, the defense counsel moved that the hearing be set at 10:00 a.m. However, because the private pro...

SPS GOLEZ vs HEIRS OF BERTULDO GR No. 201289 May 30, 2016   FACTS:   The dispute involves two neighboring unregistered parcels of land located at Roxas, Capiz. Designated as Lot 1024 and Lot 1025. After the sale of Lot 1024 by Benito to Sps. Golez, the latter started constructing their house at Lot 1025 instead of Lot 1024.   Sometime, the respondent heirs confronted the Sps. Golez after a relocation survey on Lot 1025 was conducted which happens that the latters house stood on the Lot. To correct the alleged error on the sale, the parties executed an Amended Deed of Absolute Sale to change the stated property sold as Lot 1024 to Lot 1025.   Subsequently, a Complaint for Quieting of Title was filed over Lot 1025 against the respondent heirs but this was denied by the RTC. Meanwhile, the respondent heirs filed for a free patent over Lot 1025 which was contested by the Sps. Golez and applied their own free patent over the same lot. The latter continued their possession...

  https://drive.google.com/file/d/12YmymiVzRLARLnc43EVLQfEeJ7qsii-I/view?usp=sharing

 INFORMATION: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wF93N0c2s7vKI-pNwR2jmP78_Xja0DFS/view?usp=sharing JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17HMBFOWXRJerxUMOedXZtJtVF-kBLrIa/view?usp=sharing

COMPLAINT: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cc3t5YVoq4fDb0MoRFy79iQGO0ngQ03h/view?usp=sharing ANSWER: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_s59nU7ZUzO0jt_HPXLAiToi5_YR5WIp/view?usp=sharing  

  TERESITA BONGATO, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES SEVERO A. MALVAR AND TRINIDAD MALVAR, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 141614, August 14, 2002  FACTS:     Spouses Severo and Trinidad Malvar filed a complaint for forcible entry against petitioner Teresita Bongato, alleging that petitioner Bongato unlawfully entered a parcel of land  belonging to the said spouses and erected thereon a house of light materials. The petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer which the MTCC denied; it being proscribed under the Rule on Summary Procedure, and likewise containing no notice of hearing. Petitioner filed an answer which the MTCC disregarded, the same having been filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period. Later, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss which the MTCC denied as being contrary to the Rule on Summary Procedure.     Thereafter, the MTCC rendered a decision ordering petitioner to vacate the land in question, and to pay rentals...

  ATTY. MELVIN M. MIRANDA VS. PRESIDING JUDGE WILFREDO G. OCA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, REAL, QUEZON (FORMER ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 71, PASIG CITY  A.M. No. MTJ-17-1899, SECOND DIVISION, March 07, 2018, CAGUIOA, J.   FACTS: Atty. Miranda alleged that when he was about to present private complainant, Antonio L. Villaseñor, together with his Judicial Affidavit, and began to state the purpose of the witness' testimony pursuant to Section 6 of the Judicial Affidavit Rule (JAR), Judge Oca told Atty. Miranda that there was "no need for that" and then directed the defense counsel, Atty. Ma. Antonieta B. Albano Placides to proceed to cross-examination. Atty. Miranda asked that he be allowed to state the purpose of his witness' testimony but Judge Oca asked Atty. Miranda if he included the offer or statement of the purpose of the witness' testimony in the Judicial Affidavit. Atty. Miranda replied in the negative then Judge Oca asked At...

 CELERNA CALAYAG ET AL. VS. SULPICIO LINES INC.  G.R. No. 221864, September 14, 2016 FACTS:      The subject petition stems from the 71 consolidated cases for civil damages filed by Celerna Calayag, et al. ( petitioners ), the survivors of the victims of the ill-fated  M/V Princess of the Stars , which sank on June 20, 2008, against Sulpicio Lines, Inc. ( Sulpicio )  and the owners, officers, ship captain, and ship master thereof.      Controversy arose when Sulpicio and its co-defendants suspected that Judge Villanueva was exhibiting bias in favor of petitioners. Firm in their belief, Sulpicio and its co-defendants filed separate motions for his inhibition on the basis of the following specific charges      (1) allowed witness to testify on actual damages even if there was no claim for such in the Complaint filed by [petitioners]; (2)  allowed the presentation of a mere photocopy of the circular relating to...

  [ G.R. No. 227457, June 22, 2020 ] HELEN L. SAY, GILDA L. SAY, HENRY L. SAY, AND DANNY L. SAY, PETITIONERS, VS. GABRIEL DIZON, RESPONDENT.   FACTS           This case stemmed from a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale which dismissal has attained finality. Consequently, petitioners filed an Ex-Parte Motion for Leave of Court to Set Defendants' Counterclaim for Hearing. However, petitioners filed their Judicial Affidavits one day before the scheduled hearing. Thus, respondent opposed the same claiming that the Judicial Affidavits were filed out of time as provided under Section 2 (a)[8] of the JAR, which requires that the same be filed not later than five (5) days before the scheduled hearing.           The RTC nonetheless allowed the late submission of the Judicial Affidavits pursuant to the rule that technicalities must give way to substantial ju...

[A. M. No. MTJ-00-1283 - March 3, 2004] COL. OCTAVIO ALVAREZ,  Complainant, v.  JUDGE AUGUSTUS C. DIAZ, ATTY. VICTORY EDRALIN and MR. EFREN P. LUNA, MeTC, Branch 37, Quezon City,  Respondents . FACTS This is an administrative complaint filed by Col. Octavio Alvarez against Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Clerk of Court Atty. Victory Edralin and Deputy Sheriff Efren Luna for grave abuse of authority, gross misconduct and solicitation of gifts relative to a forcible entry case. Complainant Alvarez was one of the defendants in the said  case which resulted in the demolition of his office, his tenants' houses and other structures. The allegation against the judge was centered primarily on: (1) his failure to issue to all parties a notice of hearing of the motion for execution since said notice was only furnished to the clerk of court, and (2) for granting plaintiff’s motion for demolition without notice and hearing. As to the second allegation, respondent judge argued that a...

  PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. COURT OF APPEALS  AND WESTIN SEAFOOD MARKET INC. G.R. No. 123555, January 22, 1999  FACTS:      Petitioner Progressive Development Corp.  leased to respondent Westin Seafood Market, Inc., a parcel of land with a commercial building for a period of nine (9) years and three (3) months with a monthly rental of approximately P600,000.00.  Private respondent failed to pay rentals despite several demands by petitioner.         The  non-payment of rentals constituted breach of their contract; thus, pursuant to the express authority granted of the lease agreement,  Progressive Development Corp . repossessed the leased premises, inventoried the movable properties found within and owned by  Westin Seafood Market, Inc.,  and scheduled public auction for the sale of the movables.    Private respondent filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City a compla...