Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

First Judicial Region
Branch _____
La Trinidad, Benguet

ROSENA and JUAN, CIVIL CASE NO. 03-CV

Plaintiff,
For:

-versus- Specific Performance

and Reconveyance of
Real Property with
SPS. JULIANA AND Damages
BOSLENG,
Defendant.

x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

RESOLUTION

For resolution of the court is a Motion to Dismiss in the

Nature of Demurrer to Evidence dated September 30, 2005, filed
by defendants Sps. Julia and Bosleng, through counsel, through
which the plaintiff, through counsel, filed a
Comment/Opposition dated October 13, 2005.

Defendants, in their motion pray the granting of the

demurrer to evidence. In their motion, Defendants avers that:

1. Evidence for Plaintiffs show that the lots in Defendants

possession are the same lots, adjudicated to them under
all the deeds of partition;
2. Estoppel bars the claim of Plaintiffs, assuming there is; and
3. Nothing in the evidence for Plaintiffs establishes that the
lots being possessed by the Defendants are owned by the
latter.

In response and in Opposition to the Defendants demurrer

to evidence, Plaintiffs avers that:

1. Plaintiffs have sufficiently established their claims by clear

and convincing evidence, it clearly established that the
Amended to an Amended Extra Judicial Settlement of

RESOLUTION: CIVIL CASE NO. 03-CV Page 1

 Estate (Exh. “A”) and the Joint Partition of Estate (Exh. “B”)
together with the two Survey Plans (Exhs. “C” and “D”)
clearly showed and identified the respective lots
respectively adjudicated to the parties;
2. Defendants invoking estoppel does not apply in the case
at bar;
3. Plaintiffs clearly established in Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and
“D” that the lots identified and described therein are the
same lots adjudicated to them; and
4. It is the Plaintiffs assertion that they have clearly
established or proven their claim by clear and convincing
evidence as shown in their documentary evidence and
testimonies of the witnesses given in open court.

In praying for demurrer to evidence, defendants contends

that this Court should dismiss the case for insufficiency of
evidence.

RULING

On 20 July 2005, the plaintiff filed its Formal Offer of

Evidence and rested its case. The Order of the court dated 5
August 2005 states that:

“Acting on the Formal Offer of Evidence of the plaintiffs and

taking into consideration the fact that defendants failed to submit
their comment or opposition thereto, the court hereby resolves to
admit Exhibits “A”, “A-1” “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “G” without
objection.

Records show that for Plaintiffs to prove their claim they

presented witnesses namely: 1. Engr. 2. Atty. 3. Atty. 4.Johnny
5. Domay 6. The Municipal Assessor of Tuba 7. Rosenia and 8.
Juan. Likewise, Plaintiffs submitted numerous documents
marked as Exhibits “A”, “A-1” “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”, “F” and “G”.

A demurrer to evidence may be issued when, upon the

facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to
relief. Where the plaintiff's evidence together with such
inferences and conclusions as may reasonably be drawn
therefrom does not warrant recovery against the defendant, a
demurrer to evidence should be sustained.

From the foregoing, the Court does not find merit in the
above demurrer. For one, during the pre-trial held last 20

RESOLUTION: CIVIL CASE NO. 03-CV Page 2

February 2004 one of the issues taken up and agreed upon by
the respective counsel’s for resolution by the court is which
among the Joint Partition of Estate dated May 31, 1999 or the
Amendment to the Amended Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate
dated February 1, 2001 reflects the true intention of the parties.
This being so, the same can only be resolved upon presentation
of evidence by the parties herein regarding their respective
claims. Thus, the instant case cannot just be dismissed simply
because the defendants said so base on their own evaluation of
the evidence presented by the plaintiff.

As far as the Court is concerned the contention of the

defendants are merely conclusions they arrived at on their own
that run counter to the position of the plaintiffs. As such, the
defendants will have to present their own evidence to
substantiate their claims.

More importantly, the Court cannot just disregard the

evidence and testimonies of the witnesses presented by the
plaintiffs. Further, in order to determine the truthfulness of the
contentions being made by the parties herein, it is best that the
"other side" be heard. It is only in allowing the defendants to
present their evidence that this can be resolved judiciously.

In the end, it is for the Court to evaluate the evidence to be

presented by the parties. Indeed, a demurrer to evidence is
anchored on the claim that "upon the facts and the law the
plaintiff has shown no right to relief" (Sec. 1, Rule 33, Rules of
Court). With respect to the herein case, there is no clear showing
that plaintiffs have no right to the reliefs being sought by them.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the "Demurrer to

Evidence" dated 30 September 2005 filed by defendants Sps.
Juliana and Bosleng is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Done in chamber, this 23rd day of October 2019, at La

Trinidad, Benguet.

_____________________________
Judge

RESOLUTION: CIVIL CASE NO. 03-CV Page 3