Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Yap vs. Paras, G.R. No. 101236, 30 January 1992

    Uploaded by

    jenniferthefifth
    4 views1 page
    This case involves the sale of a share in an intestate estate by Paras to Yap for P300 evidenced by a private document. 19 years later, Paras sold the same share to Saya-ang for P5,000 evidenced by a notarized deed. When Yap learned of the second sale, she filed criminal and civil complaints. The criminal court dismissed the estafa case, finding a prejudicial question in the civil case. The Supreme Court ruled there was no prejudicial question as the elements were not met, and the judge misapplied the concept. It also questioned if the notary was related to the judge.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves the sale of a share in an intestate estate by Paras to Yap for P300 evidenced by a private document. 19 years later, Paras sold the same share to Saya-ang for P5,000 evidenced by a notarized deed. When Yap learned of the second sale, she filed criminal and civil complaints. The criminal court dismissed the estafa case, finding a prejudicial question in the civil case. The Supreme Court ruled there was no prejudicial question as the elements were not met, and the judge misapplied the concept. It also questioned if the notary was related to the judge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    4 views1 page

    Yap vs. Paras, G.R. No. 101236, 30 January 1992

    Uploaded by

    jenniferthefifth
    This case involves the sale of a share in an intestate estate by Paras to Yap for P300 evidenced by a private document. 19 years later, Paras sold the same share to Saya-ang for P5,000 evidenced by a notarized deed. When Yap learned of the second sale, she filed criminal and civil complaints. The criminal court dismissed the estafa case, finding a prejudicial question in the civil case. The Supreme Court ruled there was no prejudicial question as the elements were not met, and the judge misapplied the concept. It also questioned if the notary was related to the judge.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Yap vs. Paras, G.R. No.

    101236, 30 January 1992

    FACTS:
    Paras sold to Yap his share in the intestate estate for P300.00 which was evidenced by a private
    document and after 19 years, it was sold to Santiago Saya-ang for P5,000.00 which was evidenced
    by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale.

    When Yap learned of the second sale, she filed a complaint for estafa against Paras and Saya-ang
    with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of General Santos City. On the same date, she filed a
    complaint for the nullification of the said sale with the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City.

    After investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor instituted a criminal complaint for estafa against
    Paras with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Glan-Malapatan, South Cotabato, presided by Judge
    Alfredo D. Barcelona, Sr who ordered for the dismissal of the case due there is a prejudicial
    question to a civil action. With that decision, Yap filed for certiorari in SC which could be in CA,
    but due to peculiar circumstances, SC decided on the case granting the petitioner.

    ISSUE:
    Whether there is a prejudicial question in a civil case.

    RULING:
    No. Section 7, Rule 111: Elements of prejudicial question. — The elements of a prejudicial question
    are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
    issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines
    whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

    The elements of the prejudicial question in the case is missing. The presiding judge’s precipitate
    action is intriguing, to say the least, in light of the clear provision of the above-quoted rule. The
    rule is not even new, being only a rewording of the original provision in the Rules of Court before
    they were amended. It plainly says that the suspension may be made only upon petition and not
    at the instance of the judge alone, and it also says suspension, and not dismissal. One also
    wonders if the person who notarized the disputed second sale, Notary Public Alexander C.
    Barcelona, might be related to the respondent judge.

    But more important than the preceding considerations is the trial judge's misapprehension of the
    concept of a prejudicial question.

    You might also like