Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A child born to a husband and wife during a valid marriage is presumed legitimate. The childs legitimacy may be impugned only under strict standards provided by law. 4. Physical resemblance between putative father and child may be offered as part of the evidence of paternity.
Note: A court order directing a putative father to submit himself to DNA testing is not offensive to the constitutional right against self incrimination. That right pertains only to testimonial evidence.
Requirement which justifies a court order directing the respondent putative father to submit to DNA testing:
There must be a show cause hearing wherein the party asking for a DNA testing must first present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or reasonable possibility of paternity or good cause for the holding of the test.
A court order for blood testing is considered a search which must be preceded by a finding of probable cause in order to be valid. Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case or reasonable possibility is imposed in civil action as the counterpart of a finding of probable cause
An action for reconveyance is a real action so that jurisdiction is determined by the assessed value of the land in suit. It is also an action in personam so that a decision binds only the parties. Consequently, a writ of execution issued in the case cannot be enforced against a stranger. 6.2. Leoveras v. Valdez, 653 SCRA 1 (2011)
Concept of Action An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the rightful landowner whose land has been erroneously or fraudulently registered in the name of another, to compel the registered owner to transfer or reconvey the land to him.
9. Res Judicata
Facura v. Court of Appeals, 643 SCRA 427 (2011) The doctrine in Montemayor, 405 SCRA 264 (2003) that res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to administrative case has been abandoned in subsequent cases so that the prevailing rule now is that the rule on res judicata also applies to administrative cases.
1) the writ of execution varies the judgment; 2) there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust; 3) execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution; 4) it appears that the controversy has never been subject of the judgment of the court; 5) the terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or 6) it appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued; or that it is defective in substance, or is issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ was issued without authority.
12.2. Golden Sun Finance Corp. v. Marmito, A.M. No. P-11-2888, July 27, 2011 Can a mortgaged property be levied on execution? A realty which has been mortgaged may still be levied on execution for the satisfaction of the judgment obligation. Reason: The beneficial owner remains to be the mortgagor. (See Sec. 9 (b) Rule 39, R.C.)
Note: In Coya v. Manquil, 481 Phil. 488 (2004) the sheriff levied upon the mortgaged property of judgment-debtor; the sheriff was administratively found culpable because he did not previously check whether judgment-debtor had personal properties which should first be levied on.
Issues and Rulings, continuation Issue No. 2 In a reinvestigation of a criminal charge, is it necessary that additional evidence or new matters should be introduced to justify an upgrading of the criminal charge? Contention of Leviste It is necessary. Ruling In a reinvestigation the presentation of additional or new evidence is not an indispensable requirement In fact reinvestigation simply means a proceeding whereby the prosecution reviews or reevaluates the evidence on hand to find out whether its first determination was correct or not.
Accused was charged before the SB with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. After trial, he was acquitted. The People filed with SC a petition for certiorari (R65) assailing the decision of acquittal as having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The grave abuse of discretion consisted of the alleged failure of the SB to consider the evidence showing bad faith of the accused in his refusal to pay the RATA of the complainant.
Ratio Decedendi: An erroneous evaluation of the evidence constitutes error in the exercise of jurisdiction which is correctible by appeal. A petition for certiorari deals only with errors in jurisdiction which is lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
a) Ordinary Appeal
SC reviews factual and legal issues whether raised or not provided that they are material in the resolution of the case. b) Petition for Review on Certiorari (R 145) SCs review is generally limited to the review of legal issues raised by the parties; the court determines whether a correct application of the law was made by the trial court on a given set of facts c) Petition for Certiorari (R 65) SC determines the propriety of the trial court s jurisdiction whether it has jurisdiction over the case and if it has, whether the exercise of that jurisdiction was attended by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
3. Abellana was charged of Estafa through falsification of Public Document by a private individual under Art. 171 (1), RPC. (Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric)
c) The judgment which required Abellana to do something or if he fails to pay a certain amount is in the nature of alternative judgments which is not allowed.
a) when necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused;
b) when necessary for the orderly administration of justice; c) when the act of the officer is without or in excess of authority;
d) where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust for vengeance;
e) no clear prima facie case against the accused.