Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1-4
1
1. Reyes vs. Court of Appeals
216 SCRA 25
November 26, 1992
Doctrine: As an exception to the scope of the Rules of Evidence, Section 16 of P.D. No. 946 ( a decree reorganizing the
courts of agrarian relations) provides that the rules of court shall not be applicable even in a suppletory character in
Agrarian cases.
Facts: Juan Mendoza, father of Olympio Mendoza is the owner of Farm Lots No. 46 and 106.The lots were tenanted and
cultivated by Julian dela Cruz, husband of respondent Eufrocina dela Cruz. Eufrocina filed a complaint before the
Agrarian Court for recovery of possession and damages against Olympio Mendoza and petitioners. She alleged that upon
the death of Julian, Olympio Mendoza in conspiracy with petitioners Reyes, Parayao, Aguinaldo and Mananghaya,
prevented her daughter and workers from entering and working on the subject lots.
Petitioners in this case were duly elected and/or appointed barangay officials in Pampanga,denied interference in the
tenancy relationship existing between respondent Eufrocina and defendant Mendoza,particularly in the cultivation of the
latter's farm lots. They asked for the case to be dismissed claiming that they have always exercised fairness, equity,
reason and impartiality in the discharge of their official functions. For his part, Mendoza raised abandonment, sublease
and mortgage of the farm lots without his consent and approval, and non-payment of rentals, irrigation fees and other
taxes due the government, as his defenses.
The agrarian court ordered petitioners to restore possession of the farm lots to Eufrocina. This decision was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals. On appeal, the petitioners questioned the favorable consideration given to the affidavits of Eufrocina
and Efren Tecson, since the affiants were not presented and subjected to cross-examination.
Issue: Whether the lower court erred in giving favorable consideration to the affidavits o Eufrocina and Efren
Tecson even if the affiant was not subjected to cross-examination?
Held: No. The trial court did not err when it favorably considered the affidavits of Eufrocina and Efren Tecson
although the affiants were not presented and subjected to cross-examination. Section 16 of P.D.No. 946 provides
that the "Rules of Court shall not be applicable in agrarian cases even in a suppletory character." The same provision
states that "In the hearing, investigation and determination of any question or controversy, affidavits and counter- affidavits
may be allowed and are admissible in evidence".
Sec. 2, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides that the rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials
and hearings, except as otherwise provided by the law or these rules. Section 16 of P.D 946 is covered by the phrase ,
except as otherwise provided by the law or these rules.
The Court also affirmed the findings of the lower court that petitioners participated in the dispossession of the farm lots
tenanted by Eufrocina Dela Cruz. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable with Olympio Mendoza.
2. PEOPLE V TURCO
G.R. No. 137757 | August 14, 2000 | J. Melo
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Rodegelio Turco, Jr. (aka Totong) was charged with the rape of his neighbor 13-year-old Escelea
Tabada. Escelea was about to sleep when she heard a familiar voice calling her from outside her house. She recognized
appellant Turco immediately as she had known him for 4 years and he is her second cousin. Unaware of the danger that
was about to befall her, Escelea opened the door. Turco, with the use of towel, covered Esceleas face, placed his right
Case Digests c/o Castillo, Danduan, Fumera, Merlin, Rivera, Rodriguez, Superable, Uy,
3. Bautista Aparece
Case Digests c/o Castillo, Danduan, Fumera, Merlin, Rivera, Rodriguez, Superable, Uy,
4. Jesse G. LOPEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert HEESEN and Sears, Roebuck and Company, a corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
The proper rule is that industry standards are not conclusive as to ordinary care in design, but rather are
admissible evidence.
Facts: Jesse G. Lopez, originally filed suit against Robert Heesen, alleging that on October 15, 1958, Heesen unlawfully,
violently, maliciously and feloniously assaulted and shot him with a shotgun, thereby inflicting dangerous and painful
wounds and injuries, causing him great bodily and mental pain and anguish. Heesen answered denying the allegations of
the complaint and thereafter Lopez filed a demand for jury trial. Sears, Roebuck and Company was joined as a partydefendant. Sears, was engaged in the design and manufacture of hunting firearms and was also engaged in the selling
of firearms in Albuquerque.
Case Digests c/o Castillo, Danduan, Fumera, Merlin, Rivera, Rodriguez, Superable, Uy,
Case Digests c/o Castillo, Danduan, Fumera, Merlin, Rivera, Rodriguez, Superable, Uy,
Case Digests c/o Castillo, Danduan, Fumera, Merlin, Rivera, Rodriguez, Superable, Uy,
Case Digests c/o Castillo, Danduan, Fumera, Merlin, Rivera, Rodriguez, Superable, Uy,
Case Digests c/o Castillo, Danduan, Fumera, Merlin, Rivera, Rodriguez, Superable, Uy,
Case Digests c/o Castillo, Danduan, Fumera, Merlin, Rivera, Rodriguez, Superable, Uy,