This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-12-18 |
|||||
| Anent the contention that the petition erroneously impleaded the CA as respondent in contravention of Section 4(a)[28] of Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, we shall apply our ruling in Simon v. Canlas,[29] wherein we held that: x x x [The] Court agrees that the correct procedure, as mandated by Section 4, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is not to implead the lower court which rendered the assailed decision. However, impleading the lower court as respondent in the petition for review on certiorari does not automatically mean the dismissal of the appeal but merely authorizes the dismissal of the petition. Besides, formal defects in petitions are not uncommon. The Court has encountered previous petitions for review on certiorari that erroneously impleaded the CA. In those cases, the Court merely called the petitioners' attention to the defects and proceeded to resolve the case on their merits. | |||||
|
2008-12-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| However, it is observed that based on the said allegations, the action could still be treated as one for partition or for reconveyance, although it appears to be more in the nature of an action for partition, with reconveyance of the 1/7 claimed share of plaintiff-respondent only as one of the reliefs sought. Nevertheless, the issues joined during the pre-trial of the case readily reveal that they are factual and evidentiary, which can best be passed upon and threshed out during a full-blown trial.[19] To deny plaintiff-respondent the right to present evidence constitutes a denial of due process, as there are issues therein that cannot be resolved without adducing evidence, and this can be done only through a full-blown trial of the case on the merits.[20] | |||||
|
2008-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Ordinarily, when there is sufficient evidence before the Court to enable it to resolve fundamental issues, it will dispense with the regular procedure of remanding the case to the lower court or appropriate tribunal in order to avoid a further delay in the resolution of the case. However, a remand of this case, while time consuming, is necessary because the proceedings below are grossly inadequate to settle factual issues.[39] | |||||