Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Under the Rules on Evidence, Best Evidence Rule does not apply
when a document is offered in court as evidence not to prove its content
but other matters.
Here, the subject of the inquiry is not the content of the letters of
credit but the existence of such letters of credit which does not call for the
application of Best Evidence Rule.
II.
Here, the subject of the inquiry in the action is not the genuiness and
due execution of the deed of sale, thus, it need not be specifically denied
under oath and does not bar the raising of the defense of forgery.
Here, the action filed by Guina was a collection sit in behalf of Air
Swift, which is a juridical entity and having a principal office located at
Pasay City. Thus, the collection suit may be filed by the plaintiff in Pasay
City where Air Swift has principal office or in San Fernando Pampanga
where Manguila resides at the election of the Plaintiff Guina in behalf of
Air swift.
IV.
The motion to dismiss filed by Rona on the ground that the ex parte
petition for a writ of possession contained a false certification against
forum shopping should be denied.
VI.
(a)
No, the court may not grant the motion for execution on the ground
of the filing of the bond.
Hence, the court may not grant the motion for execution on the
ground of filing of the bond.
VII
(a)
VIII
Under the Rules on Special Civil Action, action for eviction based on
forcible entry on the of stealth may be filed, by a party who was deprived
of the possession of real property, within one (1) year from notice to the
other party to vacate the premises of the subject property.
Under the Rules on Special Civil Action, a party may file a petition
for declaratory relief asking the court to declare the rights and duties of the
parties in a statute, ordinance, regulation, title or contract which is
ambiguous or not clear. The petition for declaratory relief must be filed
before the Regional Trial Court since it is an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation.
(a)
XI
The court should grant the motion to strike out the judicial affidavit
on the ground that the testimony of the character witness is irrelevant.
Hence, the court should grant the moton to strike out the judicial
affidavit on the ground that the testimony of the character witness is
irrelevant.
XVIII
Here, double jeopardy will not apply since the first offense
committed by Eras was based under the Cybercrime Prevention Act and
the second offense was based from Anti-Child Pornography Act which is a
different and distinct law in which Eras’ second jeopardy was based.
XIX
(a) The court should not grant the motion to dismiss filed by Vishy on
the ground of res judicata.
Hence, the court should not grant the motion to dismiss filed by
Vishy on the ground of prescription.