Scribd
Upload
26 views1 page

Civil Procedure Case Digests Summary

1. Alfredo Ching filed criminal charges for estafa against a defendant in Makati RTC. The defendant then filed a civil case in Manila RTC for nullification of documents and damages. The defendant petitioned Makati RTC to suspend the criminal case due to prejudicial question from the civil case. Makati RTC denied this, finding that the resolution of the civil case would not determine the defendant's guilt in the criminal case. 2. Bayang initially sued Biong in 1969 to quiet title over a land, and won in 1978. In 1978 Bayang sued Biong again, this time for income earned from the land from 1970 to 1978. The court dismissed the second case, finding the income claim

Uploaded by

Robert Grenas
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
26 views1 page

Civil Procedure Case Digests Summary

1. Alfredo Ching filed criminal charges for estafa against a defendant in Makati RTC. The defendant then filed a civil case in Manila RTC for nullification of documents and damages. The defendant petitioned Makati RTC to suspend the criminal case due to prejudicial question from the civil case. Makati RTC denied this, finding that the resolution of the civil case would not determine the defendant's guilt in the criminal case. 2. Bayang initially sued Biong in 1969 to quiet title over a land, and won in 1978. In 1978 Bayang sued Biong again, this time for income earned from the land from 1970 to 1978. The court dismissed the second case, finding the income claim

Uploaded by

Robert Grenas
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Case Digest: ALFREDO CHING VS. CA
  • Case Digest: Bayang vs. CA

CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES1-3 CASE DIGESTS 1. ALFREDO CHING VS. CA G.R. NO.

110844 (2000)

GIFANY TEN-TEN L. TONGOHAN Bayang in his earlier claim for ownership of the land. As the filing of the 2 cases constitute splitting of the cause of action, the 2nd case is barred by the 1st. Also, for about 7 years, the petitioner made no move at all to amend his complaint to include a claim for the income supposedly received by private resp. during that period. He did not make the proper claim at the proper time & in the proper proceeding. Whatever right he might have had is now deemed waived bec. of his negligence.

FACTS: P was charged before the Makati RTC with Estafa, in relation to the Trust Receipts Law. Thereafter, P filed before the Manila RTC for declaration of nullity of documents and for damages. P then filed a petition before the Makati RTC for the suspension of the criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudicial question in a civil action. ISSUE: Whether there is a prejudicial question HELD: No. The two essential requisites of a prejudicial question are: (1) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and (2) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. In the case at bar, the alleged prejudicial question in the civil case for the declaration of nullity of documents and for damages, does not determine the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal action for estafa. Assuming arguendo that the court hearing the civil aspect of the casead judicates that the transaction entered into between the parties was not a trust receipt agreement, nonetheless the guilt of the accused could still be established and his culpability under penal laws determined by other evidence

2. Bayang v. CA, 148 SCRA 91 (87) FACTS: Bayang sued Biong for Quieting of Title w/ damages in 1969, w/c resulted in a ruling in his favor in 1978. In 1978, Bayang sued Biong again but this time for the income earned fr. the land while it was still in the latters possession fr. 1970 to 1978. HELD: The subject matter in the 2 cases are essentially the same as the income is only a consequence or accessory of the disputed property. The claim for income fr. the land is incidental to, & should have been raised by

CIVIL PROCEDURE – RULES1-3 CASE DIGESTS GIFANY TEN-TEN L. TONGOHAN 1. ALFREDO CHING VS. CA G.R. NO. 110844 (2000) FAC

You might also like