Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DANIEL D. CELINO v. HEIRS OF ALEJO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 173008 2012-02-22	NENITA GONZALES v. MARIANO BUGAAY PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The Court has previously explained the nature of a demurrer to evidence in the case of Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago[18] as follows: "A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and is presented after the plaintiff rests his case. It is an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue. The evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that which pertains to the merits of the case."
	GR No. 150731 2007-09-14	CASENT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. PHILBANKING CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
What should be resolved in a motion to dismiss based on a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief based on the facts and the law. The evidence contemplated by the rule on demurrer is that which pertains to the merits of the case, excluding technical aspects such as capacity to sue.[22] However, the plaintiff's evidence should not be the only basis in resolving a demurrer to evidence. The "facts" referred to in Section 8 should include all the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court in ascertaining matters in judicial proceedings. These include judicial admissions, matters of judicial notice, stipulations made during the pre-trial and trial, admissions, and presumptions, the only exclusion being the defendant's evidence.
	GR NO. 168943 2006-10-27	IGLESIA NI CRISTO v. THELMA A. PONFERRADA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Anent the issue of the authority of Enrique G. Santos to represent his co-heirs/co-plaintiffs, we find no necessity to show such authority. Respondents herein are co-owners of the subject property. As such co-owners, each of the heirs may properly bring an action for ejectment, forcible entry and detainer, or any kind of action for the recovery of possession of the subject properties. Thus, a co-owner may bring such an action, even without joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.[32]
	GR NO. 161916 2006-01-20	ARNELITO ADLAWAN v. EMETERIO M. ADLAWAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The present controversy should be differentiated from the cases where the Court upheld the right of a co-owner to file a suit pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code. In Resuena v. Court of Appeals,[32] and Sering v. Plazo,[33] the co-owners who filed the ejectment case did not represent themselves as the exclusive owner of the property. In Celino v. Heirs of Alejo and Teresa Santiago,[34] the complaint for quieting of title was brought in behalf of the co-owners precisely to recover lots owned in common.[35] Similarly in Vencilao v. Camarenta,[36] the amended complaint specified that the plaintiff is one of the heirs who co-owns the controverted properties.