This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-08-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In view of the foregoing, the Partial Pre-trial Order[58] mistakenly stated that petitioners were declared as the ones in possession of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 in the ejectment case. Even the trial court stated during the pre-trial conference held on October 28, 1988 that there was no mention of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 in the decision[59] of the CFI of Zambales, Branch II-Iba in the ejectment case (Civil Case No. 706-I).[60] Moreover, contrary to the contention of petitioners, respondent did not admit that petitioners and the intervenors were in possession of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, respectively, which fact was clearly stated in the Partial Pre-trial Order. | |||||