0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
41 tayangan5 halaman
This document summarizes a court case between Floraida Teraña and Antonio Simuangco regarding the demolition and reconstruction of a house Teraña was leasing from Simuangco. The key details are:
1. Teraña demolished the original house and built a new one without Simuangco's consent, violating their lease contract. Teraña claimed she had Simuangco's consent but provided no evidence.
2. The court ruled Teraña did not specifically deny the allegations in her response, so she was deemed to have admitted demolishing the house without consent.
3. The court found Teraña violated the lease terms and ruled in favor of Simuang
This document summarizes a court case between Floraida Teraña and Antonio Simuangco regarding the demolition and reconstruction of a house Teraña was leasing from Simuangco. The key details are:
1. Teraña demolished the original house and built a new one without Simuangco's consent, violating their lease contract. Teraña claimed she had Simuangco's consent but provided no evidence.
2. The court ruled Teraña did not specifically deny the allegations in her response, so she was deemed to have admitted demolishing the house without consent.
3. The court found Teraña violated the lease terms and ruled in favor of Simuang
This document summarizes a court case between Floraida Teraña and Antonio Simuangco regarding the demolition and reconstruction of a house Teraña was leasing from Simuangco. The key details are:
1. Teraña demolished the original house and built a new one without Simuangco's consent, violating their lease contract. Teraña claimed she had Simuangco's consent but provided no evidence.
2. The court ruled Teraña did not specifically deny the allegations in her response, so she was deemed to have admitted demolishing the house without consent.
3. The court found Teraña violated the lease terms and ruled in favor of Simuang
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH XIV, NASUGBU, BATANGAS AND ANTONIO B. SIMUANGCO G.R. No. 15211 A!"#$ 2%, 2&&% FACTS' Antonio Simuangco owned a house and lot at 138 J.P. Laurel St., Nasugbu, Batangas, which he leased to Floraida era!a. Sometime in 1""#, era!a demolished the leased house and erected a new one in its $lace. Simuangco alleged that this was done without his consent. %n &ontract o' Lease, the( agreed that the lessee is obligated to )ee$ the leased $ro$ert( in such re$air and condition and not to ma)e an( alterations in the Leased $ro$ert( without the )nowledge and consent o' the Lessor. era!a allegedl( also ga*e the materials 'rom the demolished house to her sister, who built a house ad+acent to Simuangco,s $ro$ert(. -hen Simuangco disco*ered what era!a did, he immediatel( con'ronted her and ad*ised her to *acate the $remises. She re'used. %n Februar( 3, 1""., Simuangco sent a letter demanding era!a to *acate the leased $ro$ert(. /es$ite this letter o' demand, which era!a recei*ed on Februar( 10, she still re'used to *acate the said $ro$ert(. Simuangco thus 'iled a com$laint 'or unlaw'ul detainer against the $etitioner on A$ril 1#, 1"". on the ground o' the $etitioner,s *iolation o' the terms o' the &ontract o' Lease. era!a denied allegations o' the com$laint in her 1Sagot." She claimed that she demolished the old building and built a new one with the )nowledge and consent o' Simuangco2 that the original house was old and was on the *erge o' colla$sing2 that without the timel( re$airs made b( era!a, the house,s colla$se would ha*e caused the death o' era!a and her 'amil(. ISSUE' -hether or not Simuangco had the burden o' $ro*ing this allegation with $ositi*e e*idence a'ter era!a 'rontall( denied it in her answer. RULING' he material allegations in a com$laint must be s$eci'icall( denied b( the de'endant in his answer. Section 10, 3ule 8 o' the 1"". 3ules o' &ourt, $ro*ides4 A de'endant must s$eci'( each material allegation o' 'act the truth o' which he does not admit and, whene*er $racticable, shall set 'orth the substance o' the matters u$on which he relies to su$$ort his denial. -here a de'endant desires to den( onl( a $art o' an a*erment, he shall s$eci'( so much o' it as is true and material and shall den( the remainder. -here a de'endant is without )nowledge or in'ormation su''icient to 'orm a belie' as to the truth o' a material a*erment made in the com$laint, he shall so state, and this shall ha*e the e''ect o' a denial. Section 11, 3ule 8 o' the 3ules o' &ourt li)ewise $ro*ides that material allegations in the com$laint which are not s$eci'icall( denied, other than the amount o' unli5uidated damages, are deemed admitted. A denial made without setting 'orth the substance o' the matters relied u$on in su$$ort o' the denial, e*en when to do so is $racticable, does not amount to a s$eci'ic denial. he $etitioner,s denial in her answer consists o' the 'ollowing4 1. Maliban sa personal na katangian at tirahan ng nasasakdal, ay walang katotuhanan ang mga isinasakdal ng nagsasakdal; 2. Na hindi lumabag sa kasunduan ng upahan ang nasasakdal; 3. Na, ang pagpapagawa ng bahay na inuupahan ng nasasakdal ay sa kaalaman at kapahintulutan ng nagsasakdal at higit na gumanda at tumibay ang bahay ng nagsasakdal sa pamamagitan ng pagpapagawa ng nasasakdal; xxx -e do not 'ind this denial to be s$eci'ic as the $etitioner 'ailed to set 'orth the substance o' the matters in which she relied u$on to su$$ort her denial. he $etitioner merel( alleged that consent was gi*en2 how and wh(, she did not sa(. 6' indeed consent were gi*en, it would ha*e been eas( to 'ill in the details. She could ha*e stated in her $leadings that she *erball( in'ormed the res$ondent o' the need 'or the re$airs, or wrote him a letter. She could ha*e stated his res$onse, and how it was con*e(ed, whether *erball( or in writing. She could ha*e stated when the consent was solicited and $rocured. hese, she 'ailed to do. Ergo, the $etitioner is deemed to ha*e admitted the material allegations in the com$laint. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN( vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, )*+ ATT,. MORDENO CUA G.R. No. 12-15 J)*.)"/ 10, 2&&0 FACTS' %n Se$tember #, 1""0, PNB 'iled a com$laint against the &ua with the 3&, &aga(an de %ro &it(, Branch 78, wherein it alleged that on /ecember 18, 1"89, remitted an amount o' P7#7,."3.08 under Account No. 1#08. u$on demand o' :antrust &or$oration. 6t was disco*ered that the account was not maintained b( the &/% PNB branch but in the name o' CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STUDIES with &ua as the sole signator( hence, &/% PNB Branch trans'erred and deli*ered the amount o' ;18,09#.79 to Account No. 1#08. with the P&6 Ban), &aga(an de %ro Branch and 'unds were withdrawn b( &ua. <$on trans'er, :antrust recti'ied their message and instructed PNB that the message was not intended to PNB. /ue to the recall, PNB re5uested P&6 Ban) 'or the return o' the amount but the( were in'ormed that the amount were alread( withdrawn b( &ua. =erbal and written re5uests were made to &ua but all e''orts 'ailed as :ordeno &ua re'used and continue to re'use to restitute or ma)e necessar( arrangement 'or the restitution. &ua, in his answer, denied the allegations and claim that he has no )nowledge o' the trans'er and he was no noti'ied o' the trans'er o' the amount. >e denied withdrawing such amount. he trial court ruled that the $etitioner adduced the re5uisite 5uantum o' e*idence to $ro*e its claim against the $ri*ate res$ondent. %n a$$eal, the &ourt o' A$$eals re*ersed the decision o' the trial court, holding that the $etitioner 'ailed to $ro*e that the $ri*ate res$ondent withdrew the mone( remitted to the account o' &?SS with the P&6B, &aga(an de %ro Branch b( the PNB, &aga(an de %ro &it( Branch. ISSUE' -hether or not &ua is in good 'aith in den(ing the allegations. RULING' hus, in $aragra$h B, the $ri*ate res$ondent denied the a*erments in $aragra$h 3 o' the com$laint, including the a*erment that Account No. 1#08. was carried with the P&6B, &aga(an de %ro Branch in the name o' &?SS. Ne*ertheless, this denial was ine''ecti*e because such 'act was within the )nowledge o' the $ri*ate res$ondent, being the signator( thereto. he de'endant,s denial is, thus, e5ui*alent to an admission. Li)ewise, the $ri*ate res$ondent,s 'ailure to s$eci'icall( den(, in $aragra$h & o' his Answer, the allegation in $aragra$h 8 o' the com$laint that the PNB, &aga(an de %ro Branch trans'erred and deli*ered the amount o' <S;18,09#.79 to Account No. 1#08. carried b( the P&6B, &aga(an de %ro Branch was e5ui*alent to his admission o' the truth thereo'. <ndeniabl(, the $ri*ate res$ondent did not s$eci'icall( den( in $aragra$h ? o' his Answer the material a*erment in $aragra$h # o' the com$laint, that is, that the $etitioner recei*ed in'ormation that the entire remittance o' <S;18,09#.79 had alread( been withdrawn b( the $ri*ate res$ondent. >owe*er, such 'ailure did not constitute as an admission that the said amount was withdrawn b( the $ri*ate res$ondent. 6n Paragra$h & o' his Answer to the a*erment in $aragra$h 8 o' the com$laint, the $ri*ate res$ondent s$eci'icall( alleged that he ne*er withdrew 1'rom the 'und trans'er o' the $etitioner@Ban)1 and that he was not noti'ied o' the 'und trans'er b( the $etitioner to the P&6B, &aga(an de %ro Branch. he $ri*ate res$ondent,s admissionsAdenials in his Answer to the com$laint should be considered in their entiret( and not truncated $arts. 6n sum then, the $etitioner was able to $ro*e that, indeed, the <S;18,09#.79 was remitted to P&6B Account No. 1#08. under the name o' &?SS with the $ri*ate res$ondent as the de$ositor,s sole signator(. >owe*er, the $etitioner 'ailed to $ro*e that the $ri*ate res$ondent withdrew the amount 'rom the said account. -e agree with the $ri*ate res$ondent,s contention that the $etitioner was burdened to $ro*e not onl( that the amount was remitted to Account No. 1#08., but also that the $ri*ate res$ondent withdrew the same in his ca$acit( as the sole signator( o' the owner o' the account. FELIX CAMITAN, FRANCISCO CAMITAN, SEVERO CAMITAN )*+ VICTORIA CAMITAN vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS )*+ THE FIDELIT, INVESTMENT CORPORATION G.R. No. 121&%% D232452" 2&, 2&&- FACTS' %n 13 /ecember 1"#., the s$ouses :ateo &amitan and LorenBa AlcaBar sold to Fidelit( 6n*estment &or$oration a $arcel o' land located in Baranga( :aunong, &alamba, Laguna. <$on the eCecution o' the /eed o' Absolute Sale, the s$ouses &amitan deli*ered to the &or$oration the owner,s du$licate certi'icate o' title D%wner,s &o$(E. From then on, the &or$oration has been $a(ing the real estate taCes due on the $ro$ert( and has remained in actual $h(sical $ossession thereo'. %n 7" /ecember 1""3, a'ter the death o' the s$ouses &amitan, without the )nowledge o' the &or$oration, the heirs o' the s$ouses 'iled a $etition 'or the issuance o' a new %wner,s &o$(, >owe*er, it a$$ears that the &or$oration was not gi*en notice o' such $roceedings. he trial court issued an order o' general de'ault. A'ter an ex parte $resentation o' e*idence, the trial court granted the $etition and directed the 3%/ o' Laguna to issue a new %wner,s &o$(, while at the same time declaring *oid the 'irst %wner,s &o$(. -hen the &or$oration learned o' the $etition and order 'or the 'irst time in :arch 1""9, it caused the annotation o' a notice o' sale on the title o' the $ro$ert(. herea'ter, on 7# A$ril 1""9, it 'iled a Notice o' Ad*erse &laim with the 3egister o' /eeds o' &alamba, Laguna. he &or$oration 'iled a $etition 'or the annulment o' the order. he &ourt o' A$$eals granted the $etition and ordered the annulment o' the im$ugned %rder. 6t 'ound that the %wner,s &o$( is in the $ossession o' res$ondent since 1"#.. hus, $etitioners do not own the $ro$ert(, nor do the( ha*e an( interest thereon that could ha*e been the sub+ect o' succession. &o$( was ne*er lost in the 'irst $lace. Petitioners sought reconsideration o' the 3esolution, but the motion was denied 'or lac) o' merit. Petitioners now claim that the( ha*e no )nowledge o' the $ur$orted sale and that the( were not aware o' an( claim whatsoe*er o*er the $ro$ert( in 5uestion 'or o*er twent(@se*en@ D7.E (ears, stressing that $ro$ert( is still registered, declared 'or taCation, and realt( taCes $aid thereon in the name o' the s$ouses &amitan. ISSUE' -hether or not the heirs o' &amitan were in good 'aith when the( denied in'ormation o' the sale. RULING' Although $etitioners $ut their unmista)abl( s$arse denial o' res$ondent,s allegations relati*e to the eCecution o' the deed o' sale in its 'a*or and its $ossession o' the %wner,s &o$( under the heading 1SP?&6F6& /?N6ALS1 and anteceding it with the ad*erb 1s$eci'icall(,, the same cannot 'unction as an o$erati*e denial within the $ur*iew o' the 3ules. A denial is not s$eci'ic sim$l( because it is so 5uali'ied b( the de'endant. A general denial does not become s$eci'ic b( the use o' the word 1s$eci'icall(.1 -hen the matters o' whether the de'endant alleges ha*ing no )nowledge or in'ormation su''icient to 'orm a belie', are $lainl( and necessaril( within the de'endant,s )nowledge, his alleged ignorance or lac) o' in'ormation will not be considered as a s$eci'ic denial. 6n one case, it was held that when a res$ondent ma)es a 1s$eci'ic denial1 o' a material allegation o' the $etition without setting 'orth the substance o' the matters relied u$on to su$$ort its general denial, when such matters were $lainl( within its )nowledge and the de'endant could not logicall( $retend ignorance as to the same, said de'endant 'ails to $ro$erl( tender an issue. Petitioners, 1s$eci'ic denial1 in this case is ine''ecti*e and amounts to an admission $ursuant to 3ule 8, Sec. 11 o' the 3ules o' &ourt. APOLONIO GALOFA vs. NEE BON SING G.R. No. L622&11 J)*.)"/ 17, 1%-1 FACTS' A$olonio Falo'a 'iled a com$laint against Nee Bon Sing 'or the reco*er( o' $ossession o' and to 5uiet title o*er a certain $arcel o' land in Sta. Lourdes, Barcelona, Sorsogon, alleging therein the $rior ownershi$ and $ossession o' the land b( his late 'ather, Francisco Falo'a, and its ad+udication in 'a*or o' the $lainti'' in an oral $artition among his co@heirs. he com$laint alleges that due to the unwarranted ad*erse claim o' rights o' ownershi$ and $ossession b( the de'endant andAor his tenant or encargado, Abion Pantilone he was not able to ta)e $ossession o' the $ro$ert(. Such $ossession is unwarranted because Nee Bon Sing had no right whatsoe*er to legall( dis$ose the $ro$ert( not being the owner thereo', aside 'rom the 'act that the de'endant is not allowed under the law to own and $ossess real $ro$erties being an alien. 6n his answer Nee Bon Sing denies the material a*erments contained in $aragra$h 8 o' the &om$laint, the truth being, that the de'endant ne*er asserted title o' ownershi$ to the $ro$ert( described in the &om$laint to an(bod(, much less to the herein $lainti'' in *irtue o' an( deed o' con*e(ance eCecuted in 'a*or o' the de'endant b( one Fe Nicolas, nor claimed an( right o*er the said $ro$ert(, either b( himsel' or through another. ISSUE' -hether or not the denial o' Nee Bon Sing is a negati*e $regnant. RULING' 6t is to be noted that, to the $lainti''Gs allegation o' his inabilit( to ta)e actual $ossession o' the $arcel o' land due to 1an unwarranted ad*erse claim o' rights o' ownershi$ and $ossession b( the de'endant . . .1, 'ollowed b( an allegation o' how such claim was eCercised, the de'endantGs denial is as to 1the materials a*erments contained in $aragra$h 8 o' the &om$laint, . . .1 con+oined with his disclaimer or dominical or $ossessor( rights in the manner alleged in the com$laint. he de'endantGs denial is, there'ore, a negati*e $regnant, which is e5ui*alent to an admission. A denial in the 'orm o' a negati*e $regnant is an ambiguous $leading, since it cannot be ascertained whether it is the 'act or onl( the 5uali'ication that is intended to be denied. D81 Am. Jur. 87"E -here a 'act is alleged with some 5uali'(ing or modi'(ing language, and the denial is con+uncti*e, a 1negati*e $regnant1 eCists, and onl( the 5uali'ication or modi'ication is denied, while the 'act itsel' is admitted. 6son *. 6son, 119 S- 7d. 330, 7.7 H(. 83#. D78 -ords I Phrases 318E SPOUSES MARCIAL VARGAS )*+ ELI8ABETH VARGAS vs. SPOUSES VISITACION )*+ JOSE CAMINAS, SPOUSES JESUS )*+ LORELEI GARCIA, )*+ SPOUSES RODOLFO )*+ ROSARIO ANGELES DE GU8MAN G.R. No. 171-% J.*2 12, 2&&1 SPOUSES RODOLFO )*+ ROSARIO ANGELES DE GU8MAN vs. SPOUSES VISITACION )*+ JOSE CAMINAS, )*+ SPOUSES MARCIAL )*+ ELI8ABETH VARGAS G.R. No. 17%0& J.*2 12, 2&&1 FACTS' %n # August 1"88, s$ouses &aminas bought a 98@s5uare meter lot with a two@store( townhouse, designated as townhouse No. 8, 'rom rans@American Sales and ?C$osition re$resented b( its de*elo$er Jesus Farcia DFarciaE. ownhouse No. 8 is located at No. #9 Feneral Lim Street, >eroes >ill, JueBon &it( and is on a $ortion o' the land co*ered b( & No. 1"918.. S$ouses &aminas $aid Farcia P890,000 as e*idenced b( a contract o' sale and $ro*isional recei$t. According to s$ouses &aminas, the( too) $ossession o' townhouse No. 8 u$on com$letion o' its construction. 6n /ecember o' 1"88, Farcia bought 'rom s$ouses =argas *arious construction materials. As $a(ment to s$ouses =argas, Farcia eCecuted an absolute /eed o' Sale o*er townhouse No. 17. >owe*er, on 1 :arch 1""0, s$ouses =argas and Farcia eCecuted a /eed o' ?Cchange with Addendum whereb( s$ouses =argas trans'erred to Farcia townhouse No. 17, and in eCchange Farcia trans'erred to s$ouses =argas townhouse No. 8. he contracts eCecuted b( Farcia with s$ouses &aminas and s$ouses =argas were not registered with the 3egister o' /eeds. his was because & No. 1"918. was still being reconstituted and it was onl( on 1. August 1"8" that & No. .789 was issued in its stead. %n 10 :a( 1""0, s$ouses Farcia eCecuted a /eed o' 3eal ?state :ortgage o*er townhouse No. 8 in 'a*or o' s$ouses /e FuBman as securit( 'or a loan. he mortgage was annotated at the bac) o' & No. .789. As s$ouses Farcia 'ailed to $a( their indebtedness, s$ouses /e FuBman 'oreclosed the mortgage on 17 %ctober 1""0. At the $ublic auction, s$ouses /e FuBman were the highest bidder. %n 13 No*ember 1""0, s$ouses &aminas 'iled a com$laint against s$ouses Farcia, s$ouses /e FuBman, and s$ouses =argas be'ore the 3& o' JueBon &it(, 'or the declaration o' nullit( o' deed o' mortgage and deed o' sale, 'or the declaration o' absolute ownershi$, 'or the deli*er( o' title or in the alternati*e 'or re'und o' $urchase $rice and damages. %n # /ecember 1""0, s$ouses =argas 'iled a case against s$ouses Farcia and s$ouses /e FuBman, also be'ore the 3& o' JueBon &it(, 'or s$eci'ic $er'ormance, declaration o' nullit( o' the mortgage contract, damages or in the alternati*e 'or sum o' mone( and damages. he two cases were consolidated be'ore the 3&, Branch 101, as the( in*ol*ed interrelated issues. 6n their 3e+oinder dated 7. Februar( 1""3, s$ouses =argas raised the lac) o' +urisdiction o' the trial court on the ground that the sub+ect matter 'alls within the eCclusi*e +urisdiction o' the >L<3B. S$ouses =argas 'urther stated that the >L<3B had alread( rendered a decision dated 78 June 1""1 awarding the $ro$ert( in their 'a*or. ISSUE' -hether or not s$ouses =argas are esto$$ed 'rom raising the issue o' +urisdiction o' the trial court since s$ouses =argas 'iled the case and acti*el( $artici$ated in the $roceedings be'ore the trial court. RULING' %n the contention that s$ouses =argas are esto$$ed 'rom raising the issue o' +urisdiction, the well@settled rule is that the +urisdiction o' a court ma( be 5uestioned at an( stage o' the $roceedings. An eCamination o' the records o' the trial court will re*eal that in its 3e+oinder dated 7. Februar( 1""3, s$ouses =argas raised the issue o' lac) o' +urisdiction o' the trial court since the case $ro$erl( 'alls within the +urisdiction o' the >L<3B. >owe*er, the trial court 'ailed to address the issue o' +urisdiction in its decision as well as in its order granting the motion 'or reconsideration o' s$ouses /e FuBman. &learl(, the trial court erred in not dismissing the case be'ore it. <nder the 3ules o' &ourt, it is the dut( o' the court to dismiss an action whene*er it a$$ears that the court has no +urisdiction o*er the sub+ect matter.