GR NO. 117029, March 19, 1997 PELTAN DEVELOPMENT, INC., ET AL.

, Petitioners, -vsCA, ALEJANDRO REY and JUAN B. ARAUJO, Respondents, Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx FACTS: Plaintiff Alejandro Rey and Juan Araujo avers that they were originally in possession of the land subject of this case until the defendants forced them out of the land. The plaintiffs applied for free patent over the property before the Bureau of Lands, however, the approval of the application was held in abeyance because of the existence of several titles thereon. Plaintiffs filed the case for Cancellation of the titles in favor the defendants on the ground that its fake, spurious and void. Defendants on the other hand avers, that the plaintiffs are not the real party in interest, as such, plaintiffs compliant has no cause of action, thus, the same should be dismissed. The trial Court ordered the dismissal of the case, but the same was reversed by the Court of Appeals. Hence the petition. ISSUES: 1. Should the trial court proceed on plaintiffs caused of action for nullification of OCT No. 4216 if the same was already ruled by the Supreme Court as genuine and valid. 2. Should the trial court proceed on plaintiffs' cause of action for damages against defendant-petitioners despite non-payment of the jurisdictional docket fees. 3. The non-application of the Gabila ruling in this case. HELD: The Court ruled that its ruling on Margolles case upholding the validity of OCT No. 4216 is a matter of judicial noticed; considering further, that the same was ahead of the assailed CA decision, the same should apply in resolving this case. The Court also holds that the plaintiffs are not the proper parties to initiate the present suit, because the cancellation of the titles of petitioners will result to reverting the land to the government under the Regalian doctrine, as held in the Gabila vs. Barriga on the government is entitled to this relief. Considering that the plaintiffs are not the real party in interest, there is no need for payment of docket fees. The decision of the CA was reversed and set aside, and dismissing the case without costs. ====================================================================== GR No. 177407, February 9, 2011 RICO ROMMEL ATIENZA, petitioner, -vs.BOARD OF MEDICINE AND EDITHA SIOSON, respondents. FACTS: The case is an administrative case filed before the Board of Medicine, respondent in this case on a case filed by private respondent Romeo and Editha Sioson, arising from the negligence of the petitioner in removing the functioning kidney of private respondent Editha Sioson instead of the non-functioning kidney. Private respondents formally offered their documentary exhibits which respondent BOM admitted together with the comment/oppositions thereto, and to which herein petitioner objected to for violating the best evidence rule, its hearsay, and incompetent to prove their purpose, thus, inadmissible evidence. The BOM denied the motion for reconsideration filed by herein petitioner. Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. ISSUES: 1. Was the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy in this case? 2. Did respondent Board of Medicine committed grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction? 3. Was the admission of the offered documentary exhibits of private-respondent Editha Sioson violates the best evidence rule? HELD: The Court ruled that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy to assail the Order of the BOM as the Orders were interlocutory. On the second issue, the Court held that there is no showing that the BOM has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before

administrative bodies such as the Board of Medicine, although trial courts are enjoined to observe strict enforcement of the rules in evidence. In connection with evidence which may appear to be of doubtful relevancy, incompetency or admissibility, the Court held it is the safest policy to be liberal and not rejecting them on doubtful or technical grounds but admitting them unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent for the reason that their rejection places them beyond the consideration of the Court, if they thereafter found relevant or competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn out to be irrelevant or incompetent the court can discard or ignore them. On the third issue, The Court held that the best evidence rule was not violated as Section 3 of the Rules of Evidence provides, "Original documents must be produced; exception when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself; except in the following: 1) when the original has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in Court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror; b) when the original is in the custody or under the control of the party against whom the evidence offered, and the latter fails to produce it after notice; c) When the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents with cannot be examined in Court without great loss of time and the facts sought to be established from them is only a general result of the whole; and, d) when the original is a public record in the custody of public officer or is recorded in a public office. The petition was denied.