You are on page 1of 6

GROUP 1: HINATA CASE

Plaintiff - Doel Lozano, Evangelista, Acaban, Rivera


Defendant - Encina, De Leon, Gargoles, Espirituo
HINATA CORPUS and BORUTO CORPUS vs.
SAKURA CORPUS, HEIRS OF SASUSKE CORPUS and
ITACHI CORPUS

Recovery of Ownership and Possession of a Parcel of Land

Plaintiffs’ Version

Hinata Corpus is of legal age, widow and presently residing in the USA. Boruto
Corpus is the son of Naruto also of legal age, married and with residence in
Sampaloc Manila. Boruto possesses a Special Power of Attorney for and in behalf
of Naruto to prosecute any civil or criminal case.

Naruto, the husband of Hinata, died on 13 February 2005 leaving no debts or


will. While still alive, Naruto and Hinata were engaged in the business of real
estate, and had a profitable business, both managed by Naruto. During the
existence of the marriage, and unbeknownst to Hinata, Naruto had an affair with
a certain Kurama Dela Cruz, and such illicit relationship bore four (4) illegitimate
children, all surnamed Corpus.

Using their conjugal funds, Hinata learned that Naruto donated (with contract
of donation) to his mistress a certain parcel of land located in Espana, Manila,
but made it appear that the mistress bought the land. Kurama did not finish
elementary education, was a stay home mother and jobless, with no substantial
source of income to purchase the property.

Defendants’ Version

Naruto first met Kurama, and the two fell in love. However, this was opposed by
the parents of Kurama. While Naruto was in Manila for studies, he met Hinata
and was forced to marry her. It was Kurama who, despite his marriage to Hinata,
assisted Naruto in the real estate business. When other women of Naruto came,
Hinata decided to move to the US. After that, Hinata and her children never
communicated with Naruto, and only returned when the latter died.

During Naruto’s wake, Boruto promised to give to his illegitimate siblings their
shares according to their father’s wishes. Believing this, their brother Negi gave
to Boruto several documents, including titles to properties, for distribution. After
receiving these papers, Boruto suddenly alleged that the properties registered in
the name of the illegitimate children belonged to the conjugal properties of
Sakura and Naruto. The property located in Espana, Manila came from labor of
the Defendants.
Finally, the title was issued in the name of Kurama thirty years ago. The law
allows only ten years for an action for reconveyance to prosper.
GROUP 2: XYZ V JKL CASE
Plaintiff - Del Rosario, Baldemoro, Olalia, Minoza
Defendant - Dayanghirang, Pion, Gernale, Bernales
XYZ vs. JKL
Damages

Plaintiff’s Version

Defendant filed a case against Plaintiff for reckless imprudence resulting to


serious physical injuries before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City,
and which was raffled before MTC Branch 6. Sometime in January 20, 2012, the
Department of Justice issued a Resolution ordering the withdrawal of the
Information filed in the MTC. A subsequent Order was issued by the said court
withdrawing the said information. Aggrieved, Plaintiff wants now to file damages
against Defendant for malicious prosecution.

Defendant’s Version

Defendant alleges that the Honorable Prosecutor found merit and probable cause
to charge Plaintiff for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in serious
physical injuries. The Resolution of the DOJ merely stated that the absence of
competent and reliable evidence from a qualified cosmetic surgeon made it
difficult to tell whether the act committed was reckless.

Background for the Criminal Case:

Before meeting Plaintiff, Defendant underwent cosmetic procedures to have a


paraffin injected in her nose for enhancement. But her body rejected the paraffin,
causing disfigurement to her nose. Plaintiff was recommended by Defendant’s
friend to have her nose fixed.

Upon consultation, Plaintiff advised Defendant to have the paraffin removed and
replaced with silicon implant to improve the disfigurement. When the surgery
was performed, Defendant noticed that her nose was not improving, causing her
to consult another Dr. FGH. FGH told her that she should not have undergone
another procedure after the paraffin was removed, and should have given her
nose to heal first before the silicon was implanted.
GROUP 3: PLAINTIFF VS. DEFENDANTS CASE
Plaintiff- Manigbas, Pantoñal, Leyva, Distura
Defendant -Siquian-Go, Erni,Navarroza, Mantilla

PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS


Ejectment

Plaintiff’s Version

On 14 October 2013, Plaintiffs filed against the Defendants a Complaint


for Unlawful Detainer entitled ABC vs. XYZ and all persons claiming rights, title
and interests under them, which was subsequently docketed as Civil Case No.
12345-CV.

Plaintiffs allege that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 98765 of the Register of Deeds of the
City of Manila, with the following technical description:

(TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OMITTED)

Sometime in 1994 “or even prior thereto”, Plaintiffs discovered that the
Defendants were occupying the above-described property without the former’s
consent. Plaintiffs offered to sell to the Defendants the property, who allegedly
“expressed their desire and willingness to enter into such transaction”, but the
same did not push through due to their inaction. Thereafter, in January of 2008,
Plaintiff informed the Defendants that should they fail to buy the property, the
former would require the latter to vacate and surrender the premises.

On 22 July 2013, Plaintiffs wrote a demand letter to the Defendants


informing the latter to vacate the premises. Despite said demand, the Defendants
still refused to vacate the premises.

Defendants Version

Defendants alleged that they are the present possessors of the subject
property. Defendants traced their possession of the property from Spouses MNO,
grandparents of the Defendants, who built a house therein sometime in 1941.
With “X”, their only child, Spouses MNO has since then lived in the property.

“X” subsequently married “Y” and continued living in their present


address. They have seven children, including “Q”, “R”, “S” and “T”, the
Defendants in this case.

Defendants further stated that they do not know the Plaintiffs and that
Certificate of Title No. 98765, which allegedly shows proof of ownership by the
Plaintiffs “do not specifically show that the property it covers is the same as the
property designated as No. 2715 Dimasalang Street, Sampaloc, Manila”.
Defendants further contended that the Tax Declaration attached by the Plaintiffs
in their pleading is located at Roxas Boulevard.

Finally, Defendants denied receiving any demand, written or otherwise,


from the Plaintiffs to vacate the premises.
GROUP 4: AOV CORP CASE
Plaintiff - Ronie Cris RG, Agustin,Baluyot, Macabangon
Defendant - Ante, Ramil, Velante, Clemente J.
AOV CORP. vs. MOB LEAGUE INC.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

Collection of Sum of Money

Plaintiff’s Version
Plaintiff is a duly organized corporation under Philippine law, and is engaged in
the sale of appliances, computer parts and accessories. Defendant, on the other
hand, is a duly licensed corporation who is also engaged in the sale and
distribution of home appliances.

Sometime in 01 December 2016 to 30 April 2017, Defendant bought several


home appliances amounting to TWO MILLION THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-
NINE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P 2,379,650.00) (Annex A to A-
149, receipts and sales invoice enumerating the items bought) and payable
within thirty (30) days from the last delivery. Despite the lapse of the thirty (30)
days and a written demand made by the Plaintiff on the thirty-fifth day (received
on the same date), no payment was made by the Defendant.

On 22 May 2017, Defendant made a partial payment of One Hundred Four


Thousand, Two Hundred Twenty-One Pesos and Seven Centavos (P 104,221.07),
and returned certain items amounting to One Million One Hundred Thirteen
Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Two Pesos (P 1,113,532.00).

Defendant’s Version

Defendant bought several home appliances to the Plaintiff. However, after only a
few months, of selling the products bought, the Defendant was inundated by
numerous complaints because of the inferior quality of the products.

Several verbal and written demands were made by the Defendant in the months
of January and February for the defective items to be serviced. Unfortunately,
these were never attended to by the Plaintiff. Because of the lack of attention of
the Plaintiff, the defective items were returned by the buyers (items returned
were evidence by official receipts).

A careful perusal of the delivery receipts and invoice of the Plaintiff, which it
attached to the demand letter, reads as follows: “I/WE HEREBY
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE LISTED ABOVE ITEM IN GOOD ORDER AND
CONDITION”, but these receipts did not bear the signature or printed name of a
representative of the Defendant. Lastly, the demand letter was never received by
any person authorized by the Defendant to receive such correspondences.
GROUP 5: - DSG V REM
Plaintiff - Cariaga, Schrauben, Diwa, Cainap
Defendant - Dimanahan, Cuerdo, Clemente, Sangalang
DSG vs. REM
Ejectment

Plaintiff’s Version

Plaintiff is the owner of a parcel of land located in Sampaloc, Manila, which is


currently being occupying by Defendant. Because there was a need to use the
property, Plaintiff made a written demand for the Defendant to vacate the
property. Defendant refused to leave the premises. The matter was brought to
the Barangay for conciliation, but such did not prosper.

Plaintiff again notified Defendant to vacate the property but still refused to do
so.

Defendant’s Version

Plaintiff and Defendant are sisters, children of the late RS and CS. The property
in question is in the name of their mother, CS. To support the claim that the
subject property is in the name of their mother, CS, Defendant provided Plaintiff
with copies of the tax declaration over the property, all in the name of CS.
Defendant built the house in the subject property using her own funds.
Group 6: PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS case
Plaintiff - Capurcos, Beldad, Hernandez, Samson
Defendant -Aguila, Loyola, Bon, Buen
PLAINTIFF vs. DEFENDANTS
Ejectment

Plaintiff’s Version

On 14 October 2013, Plaintiffs filed against the Defendants a Complaint


for Unlawful Detainer entitled ABC vs. XYZ and all persons claiming rights, title
and interests under them, which was subsequently docketed as Civil Case No.
12345-CV.

Plaintiffs allege that they are the registered owners of a parcel of land
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 98765 of the Register of Deeds of the
City of Manila, with the following technical description:

(TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OMITTED)

Sometime in 1994 “or even prior thereto”, Plaintiffs discovered that the
Defendants were occupying the above-described property without the former’s
consent. Plaintiffs offered to sell to the Defendants the property, who allegedly
“expressed their desire and willingness to enter into such transaction”, but the
same did not push through due to their inaction. Thereafter, in January of 2008,
Plaintiff informed the Defendants that should they fail to buy the property, the
former would require the latter to vacate and surrender the premises.

On 22 July 2013, Plaintiffs wrote a demand letter to the Defendants


informing the latter to vacate the premises. Despite said demand, the Defendants
still refused to vacate the premises.

Defendants Version

Defendants alleged that they are the present possessors of the subject
property. Defendants traced their possession of the property from Spouses MNO,
grandparents of the Defendants, who built a house therein sometime in 1941.
With “X”, their only child, Spouses MNO has since then lived in the property.

“X” subsequently married “Y” and continued living in their present


address. They have seven children, including “Q”, “R”, “S” and “T”, the
Defendants in this case.

Defendants further stated that they do not know the Plaintiffs and that
Certificate of Title No. 98765, which allegedly shows proof of ownership by the
Plaintiffs “do not specifically show that the property it covers is the same as the
property designated as No. 2715 Dimasalang Street, Sampaloc, Manila”.
Defendants further contended that the Tax Declaration attached by the Plaintiffs
in their pleading is located at Roxas Boulevard.

Finally, Defendants denied receiving any demand, written or otherwise,


from the Plaintiffs to vacate the premises.