Thursday, July 31, 2014

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL:

   The trial court has no discretion or option to deny a notice of dismissal since dismissal by the plaintiff under Section 1, Rule 17 is a matter of right. (O.B. Jovenir Construction and Development Corporation vs. Macamir Realty and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 135803, March 28, 2006, Tinga, J.)

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

OPINION OF AN EXPERT WITNESS:

     The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer. (Felizardo S. Obando and Juan S. Obando vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 138696, July 7, 2010).

Friday, July 25, 2014

A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IS A CONDITION SINE QUA NON FOR THE FIULING OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI:

     Concededly, the settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine qua non for the filing of a petition for certiorari. (Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja, G.R. No. 169241, May, 2 2006, 488 SCRA 574, 580).  Its purpose is to grant an opportunity for the court to correct any actual or perceived error attributed to it by the re-examination of the legal and factual circumstances of the case (Estate of Salvador Serra Serra v. Heirs of Primitivo Hernaez, 466 SCRA 120, 127 (2005); National Housing Authority v. Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 58, 64 (2001). The rule is, however, circumscribed by well-defined exceptions, such as (1) where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (2) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (3) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay will prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner, or the subject matter of the action is perishable; (4) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration will be useless; (5) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (6) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable; (7) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; (8) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (9) where the issue raised is one purely of law or public interest is involved. (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved. (BEATRIZ SIOK PING TANG vs. SUBIC BAY DISTRIBUTION, INC., G.R. No. 162575, December 15, 2010, PERALTA, J.).

Thursday, July 24, 2014

COURTS ARE TASKED TO DETERMINE NOTHING MORE THAN THE EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF A WILL IN PROBATE PROCEEDINGS. DUE EXECUTION OF THE WILL OR ITS EXTRINSIC VALIDITY PERTAINS TO WHETHER THE TESTATOR, BEING OF SOUND MIND, FREELY EXECUTED THE WILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMALITIES PRESCRIBED BY LAW:

     The burden of proof that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of making his dispositions is on the person who opposes the probate of the will; but if the testator, one month, or less, before making his will was publicly known to be insane, the person who maintains the validity of the will must prove that the testator made it during a lucid interval.  x x x x An essential element of the validity of the Will is the willingness of the testator or testatrix to execute the document that will distribute his/her earthly possessions upon his/her death. (Antonio B. Baltazar et al. vs. Lorenzo Laxa, G.R. No. 174489, April 11, 2012, DEL CASTILLO, J.).

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

SANDIGANBAYAN:

     Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by way of petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 raising pure questions of law. Certiorari under Rule 65 is not the remedy (People vs. Espinosa, G.R. Nos. 153714-20, August 15, 2003).