This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The respondents also questioned Valeriana's legal personality to sue, contending that "Daniel T. Villondo,"[13] the named tiller in the Certificate of Stewardship No. 146099, is the real party-in-interest and thus should be the plaintiff in the suit and not Valeriana. They claimed that "Daniel T. Villondo" is actually Valeriana's son Romualdo Villondo (Romualdo), a construction worker who had never even cultivated the subject land. Respondents refuted Valeriana's claim that the named tiller in the Certificate refers to her husband "Daniel P. Villondo,"[14] who was awarded by the government a Certificate of Stewardship over another parcel of land in 1983.[15] Because of this, they asserted that Valeriana is misleading the court by making it appear that she has successional rights from her husband as steward. To support this, respondents submitted the respective stewardship applications[16] as well as other documents[17] indicating that Daniel P. Villondo and Daniel T. Villondo are different persons. Notably, Regino's Affidavit admits that Daniel T. Villondo refers to Romualdo.[18] | |||||
|
2012-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| After weighing the parties' respective evidence, the MTCC adjudged that the Daniel T. Villondo under whose name the Certificate of Stewardship was issued, is actually Valeriana's son, Romualdo. The MTCC pointed out that the boundaries of the lot as reflected in Romualdo's Certificate of Stewardship are way different from the boundaries mentioned in Tax Declaration No. 92638 that Carmen has been relying upon. In fact, the land covered by Romualdo's Certificate of Stewardship made no mention that it is bounded by Carmen's land or the land of her predecessors-in-interest.[21] This thus disproved respondents' claim that Certificate of Stewardship No. 146099 was issued over a land that constitutes a portion of Carmen's property. | |||||
|
2012-09-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The deadly successive shots of the appellants and their co-accused did not allow the hapless victims, i.e., PO3 Dela Cruz and T/Sgt. Dacoco, any opportunity to put up a decent defense. The attack was executed by appellants and their-co-accused in such a vicious manner as to make the defense virtually impossible. Under the circumstances, it is very apparent that appellants had murder in their hearts when they waylaid their unwary victims.[75] Thus, as to the death of PO3 Dela Cruz and T/Sgt. Dacoco, appellants should be held liable for murder. | |||||