People v Bustamante

R
1.
2.

Bustamante was charged with rape of his 11 year old daughter.

The girl testified that when she was left alone with the accused, the latter forced her to lie and removed her
undergarments, then the accused proceeded to the felonious act.
3. On redirect examination, she testified that she filed a case against the accused so she wouldnt have to stand
the maltreatment and abuse.
3.1 further, she testified that she did not shout because she was afraid.
4. Bustamante testified that on the day of the alleged incident he was not there and was in fact in Tuguegarao
and when they got home, a certain Purita told Bustamante that he was a traitor.
4.1 Bustamente alleges that Purita told her brothers to maul him and tie him up.
4.2 And when the barangay police arrived, Bustamante was taken.
4.3 His daughter AAA charged him of the heinous crime of rape because his wife and brothers-inlaw
harbored ill feelings against him, blaming him to have spread the rumor that Rogelio Torrado was the
father of the child of his own sister Purita Torrado.
4.4 Also, his daughter AAA admitted to him that she had sexual relations with her cousin Randy Torrado
for which reason he went to Tuguegarao to help AAA file a complaint against said Randy Torrado. It
was after they came from Tuguegarao that his daughter AAA charged him with rape.
5. RTC: Bustamante is guilty.
6. On appeal, CA affirmed the case.
7. Hence this petition.
The testimony of the girl deserves full credence.
It is settled in jurisprudence that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of
the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course
of things. Jurisprudence is likewise instructive that the factual findings of the trial court, especially on the
credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.
In his defense, appellant interposes denial while also ascribing ill motive on the part of the victim, his own
biological daughter, for accusing him of rape. However, it is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear
and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law because denial cannot
prevail over the positive, candid and categorical testimony of the complainant, and as between the positive
declaration of the complainant and the negative statement of the appellant, the former deserves more credence.
Likewise, the testimonies of the witnesses presented by appellant failed to buttress his defense of denial as they
merely related to tangential matters which do not seriously affect the issue of AAAs credibility.

Metrobank v. Hon Sandoval, RP

R31; Separate Trial
1.

In 1987, The RP brought a complaint for reconveyance with the Sandiganbayan against the members of the
Marcos Family and other individuals (ie they are the original defendants).
1.1 The action obviously pertained to the Ill-gotten Wealth.
1.2 One of the properties under litigation is a property owned by the Defendant Spouses Genito in Tandang
Sora, QC.
2. The Republic also sought to implead Asian Bank Corp. because of questionable properties it claims
ownership to.
3. As the case proceeded, the Republic now seeks to have a SEPARATE TRIAL against Asian Bank Corp.
4. Asian Bank countered that it would be deprived of due process if a separate trial were conducted against
because they were not sufficiently appraised about the evidence presented by the Republic before they were
impleaded.
5. RP replied that a separate trial was proper because RP has a different cause of action against the original
defendants and against them.
5.1 The issue against Asian Bank: whether Asian Bank knew that the properties they lay claim on are
subject of a litigation?
5.2 The issue against the original defendants: whether they accumulated ill-gotten wealth.
6. Asian Bank asserted that the 2 issues was intimately related.
7. Sandiganbayan: motion for separate trial of RP granted. Asian Bank will be proceeded with separately.
8. MR denied.
9. Hence this petition.
No separate trial against Metrobank. Sandiganbayan must try the case.
We conclude that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of its discretion in ordering a separate trial as to Asian
Bank (Metrobank) on the ground that the issue against Asian Bank was distinct and separate from that against the
original defendants. Thereby, the Sandiganbayan veered away from the general rule of having all the issues in every
case tried at one time, unreasonably shunting aside the dictum in Corrigan, supra, that a single trial will generally
lessen the delay, expense, and inconvenience to the parties and the courts. Exceptions to the general rule are
permitted only when there are extraordinary grounds for conducting separate trials on different issues raised in the
same case, or when separate trials of the issues will avoid prejudice, or when separate trials of the issues will further
convenience, or when separate trials of the issues will promote justice, or when separate trials of the issues will give
a fair trial to all parties. Otherwise, the general rule must apply.
The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim,
counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims,
counterclaims, third-party complaints or issues. The text of the rule grants to the trial court the discretion to
determine if a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party complaint, or of any separate
issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party complaints or issues should be held,
provided that the exercise of such discretion is in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice to any party.
Corpus Juris Secundum makes clear that neither party had an absolute right to have a separate trial of an issue;
hence, the motion to that effect should be allowed only to avoid prejudice, further convenience, promote justice, and
give a fair trial to all parties, to wit: Generally speaking, a lawsuit should not be tried piecemeal, or at least such a
trial should be undertaken only with great caution and sparingly.
There should be one full and comprehensive trial covering all disputed matters, and parties cannot, as of right, have
a trial divided. It is the policy of the law to limit the number of trials as far as possible, and separate trials are
granted only in exceptional cases. Even under a statute permitting trials of separate issues, neither party has an
absolute right to have a separate trial of an issue involved. The trial of all issues together is especially appropriate in
an action at law wherein the issues are not complicated, x x x, or where the issues are basically the same x x x x x x
Separate trials of issues should be ordered where such separation will avoid prejudice, further convenience, promote
justice, and give a fair trial to all parties.

Republic v. Heirs of Oribello

R31; Consolidation or Severance
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Oribello bought the land in question from Valentin.

1.1 Valentin is the successor in interest of Odillon
1.2 Valentin was occupying the land with Spouses Apog.
1.3 Odillion was granted a residential permit to occupy the land in question.
Upon purchasing, Oribello filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application with the DENR
DENR denied the application stating that the land is still forest land.
The property was subsequently declared as open to disposition under the Public Land Act.
Oribello filed his application.
The Dir of Lands issued an order for the issuance of a Patent in favour of Oribello.
Now, the spouses Apog claim to be the actual occupants of the lot and protested with the DENR.
7.1 The spouses Apog sought the annulment of the sales patent issued to Oribello arguing that Oribello and
the Land Inspector committed fraud.
The DENR investigated the matter and found that there was substantial evidence of fraud.
The OSG now files a complaint for reversion with the RTC.
The complaint of the OSG and a case filed by Oribello for recovery against the Spouses Apog was
consolidated.
Later, the petitioner was declared to have abandoned the case for the government due to failure to appear in
a hearing.
Eventually the case was dismissed for the failure of the private respondent to file for substitution due to the
death of Oribello, but without prejudice.
However, upon MR of the heirs of Oribello, they were allowed to proceed.
The petitioner now also moves for reconsideration.
The heirs countered that within the time given by the court, the petitioner failed to question the order of the
court, thus making it final.
On appeal, CA denied the appeal of the Republic.
16.1The Republic now cannot avail of the remedy of appeal, having failed to question the order of the
RTC.
Hence this petition.
17.1the republic contends that the consolidated cases, without order of severance, cannot be the subject of
multiple appeals.
Petitioner-RP is wrong, a consolidated case may be the subject of multiple appeals.

Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION1.Consolidation.When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the
court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions
consolidated, and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs
or delay.

Consolidation is a procedural device to aid the court in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the
business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously and with economy while providing justice to the parties. 25 To

promote this end, the rule allows the consolidation and a single trial of several cases in the courts docket, or the
consolidation of issues within those cases.26 The Court explained, thus:

In the context of legal procedure, the term consolidation is used in three different senses:
(1)Where all except one of several actions are stayed until one is tried, in which case the judgment in the one trial
is conclusive as to the others. This is not actually consolidation but is referred to as such. (quasi-consolidation)
(2)Where several actions are combined into one, lose their separate identity, and become a single action in which
a single judgment is rendered. This is illustrated by a situation where several actions are pending between the same
parties stating claims which might have been set out originally in one complaint. (actual consolidation)
(3)Where several actions are ordered to be tried together but each retains its separate character and requires the
entry of a separate judgment. This type of consolidation does not merge the suits into a single action, or cause the
parties to one action to be parties to the other. (consolidation for trial)27

In the present case, the complaint for reversion filed by petitioner (Civil Case No. 225-0-92) was consolidated with
the complaint for recovery of possession filed by Oribello (Civil Case No. 223-0-91). While these two cases involve
common questions of law and fact,28 each action retains its separate and distinct character. The reversion suit settles
whether the subject land will be reverted to the State, while the recovery of possession case determines which
private party has the better right of possession over the subject property. These cases, involving different issues and
seeking different remedies, require the rendition and entry of separate judgments. The consolidation is merely for
joint trial of the cases. Notably, the complaint for recovery of possession proceeded independently of the reversion
case, and was disposed of accordingly by the trial court.

Allied Agri v. CA, Cherry Valley

R26; Request for Admission
1.

Cherry Valley filed a case against the Petitioner for collection of sum of money, alleging:
1.1 Allied Agri purchased several duck hatching eggs and ducklings worth 51,000 English Pounds.
1.2 Instead of paying, allied wrote to cherry valley inviting the latter to be a stockholder of a new
corporation.
1.3 Cherry Valley declined.
1.4 Nonetheless, allied expressly acknowledged their obligation to Cherry Valley.
2. Allied answered denying the allegation and contends the following:
2.1 Cherry Valley lacked the capacity to sue
2.2 The letter sent to Cherry Valley inviting them to be a stockholder was never authorized.
2.3 The amount sought to be collected did not represent the true obligation
2.4 Further, Allied alleged that not all the ducks and ducklings covered and represented by the invoices
issued by Cherry Valley were actually ordered.
3. Cherry Valley served a Request for Admission to Allied Agri:
3.1 That the chairman of the board and president of Allied Agri is Mr. Quintos;
3.2 That Out of the 3,000,000 shares of Allied Agri, 1,496,000 is owned by Quintos, and 1,432,000 is
owned by his wife.
3.3 That Allied Agri ordered and received from Cherry Valley duck hatching eggs and ducklings worth
51,000 Pounds.
3.4 That instead of paying, Allied Agri offered Cherry Valley to be stockholder of a new corporation and
that Cherry Valley declined.
3.5 That Mr. Quintos expressly acknowledged his indebtedness.
4. Allied objected and alleged that the admission requested pertains to matters Cheery Valley had the burden
to prove and that the admission requested regarding the ownership of shares is immaterial
5. RTC: directed Allied Agri to answer the request for admission.
6. Allied failed to answer.
7. Cherry Valley filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
8. RTC: judgment rendered against Allied Agri.
9. Allied Agri appealed
10. CA: affirmed RTC.
11. Hence this petition.
11.1among others, petitioner argues that their failure to answer results in admission.
The silence of Allied Agri is an admission of the facts stated in the request.
The burden of affirmative action is on the party upon whom notice is served to avoid the admission rather than upon
the party seeking the admission.The burden of affirmative action is on the party upon whom notice is served to
avoid the admission rather than upon the party seeking the admission. Hence, when petitioner failed to reply to a
request to admit, it may not argue that the adverse party has the burden of proving the facts sought to be admitted.
Petitioners silence is an admission of the facts stated in the request.
It is a settled rule that summary judgment may be granted if the facts which stand admitted by reason of a partys
failure to deny statements contained in a request for admission show that no material issue of fact exists.This
Court finds that the motion for summary judgment filed by respondent CHERRY VALLEY on the ground that there
were no questions of fact in issue since the material allegations of the complaint were not disputed was correctly
granted by the trial court. It is a settled rule that summary judgment may be granted if the facts which stand admitted
by reason of a partys failure to deny statements contained in a request for admission show that no material issue of
fact exists. By its failure to answer the other partys request for admission, petitioner has admitted all the material
facts necessary for judgment against itself.

Sps. Afulugencia v. Metrobank

R25; Interrogatories to Parties
1.

Petitioner spouses filed a complaint against Metrobank before the RTC for nullification of mortgage,
foreclosure, auction sale and certificate of sale.
2. The petitioners filed a motion for issuance of subpoena duces tecum to compel Metrobanks officers to
appear.
3. Metrobank contends that their officers cannot be compelled to appear and testify because R25 Sec. 1 and 6
requires that written interrogatories must be properly served first.
3.1 also, Metrobank contends that the petitioners are merely fishing for evidence.
4. RTC: sustained MetroBank
5. On appeal, CA: sustained RTC.
5.1 CA held that Rule 25 is quite clear in providing that the consequence of a partys failure to serve
written interrogatories upon the opposing party is that the latter may not be compelled by the former to
testify in court.
5.2 Further, By failing to serve written interrogatories upon Metrobank, petitioners foreclosed their right to
present the banks officers as their witnesses.
Metrobank is correct. Written Interrogatories must be served first to its officer before they can be compelled to
appear and testify.
As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is not allowed, unless written
interrogatories are first served upon the latter. This is embodied in Section 6, Rule 25 of the Rules, which provides
Sec. 6. Effect of failure to serve written interrogatories.Unless thereafter allowed by the court for good cause
shown and to prevent a failure of justice, a party not served with written interrogatories may not be compelled by the
adverse party to give testimony in open court, or to give a deposition pending appeal. One of the purposes of the
above rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is there to maintain order and facilitate the
conduct of trial. It will be presumed that a party who does not serve written interrogatories on the adverse party
beforehand will most likely be unable to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to call the adverse party to the
witness stand as its witness. Instead, the process could be treated as a fishing expedition or an attempt at delaying
the proceedings; it produces no significant result that a prior written interrogatories might bring.