Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 725 views

    Cavili Vs Florendo Case Digest (Evidence)

    Uploaded by

    Equi Tin
    1) Private respondents filed a case against petitioners Perfecta, Primitivo, and Quirino Cavili for partition, but only served summons to Perfecta. 2) Perfecta and her attorney represented that she would inform her brothers about the case, but they failed to file an answer and were declared in default. 3) The trial court judge later disqualified Perfecta from testifying as a witness, but the Supreme Court ruled that she should not be disqualified as the rules do not prohibit parties in default from testifying, and default does not make one an incompetent witness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cavili Vs Florendo Case Digest (Evidence)

    Uploaded by

    Equi Tin
    725 views2 pages
    1) Private respondents filed a case against petitioners Perfecta, Primitivo, and Quirino Cavili for partition, but only served summons to Perfecta. 2) Perfecta and her attorney represented that she would inform her brothers about the case, but they failed to file an answer and were declared in default. 3) The trial court judge later disqualified Perfecta from testifying as a witness, but the Supreme Court ruled that she should not be disqualified as the rules do not prohibit parties in default from testifying, and default does not make one an incompetent witness.

    Original Description:

    Cavili vs Florendo (1987) Case Digest (Evidence)

    Original Title

    Cavili vs Florendo Case Digest (Evidence)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Private respondents filed a case against petitioners Perfecta, Primitivo, and Quirino Cavili for partition, but only served summons to Perfecta. 2) Perfecta and her attorney represented that she would inform her brothers about the case, but they failed to file an answer and were declared in default. 3) The trial court judge later disqualified Perfecta from testifying as a witness, but the Supreme Court ruled that she should not be disqualified as the rules do not prohibit parties in default from testifying, and default does not make one an incompetent witness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    725 views2 pages

    Cavili Vs Florendo Case Digest (Evidence)

    Uploaded by

    Equi Tin
    1) Private respondents filed a case against petitioners Perfecta, Primitivo, and Quirino Cavili for partition, but only served summons to Perfecta. 2) Perfecta and her attorney represented that she would inform her brothers about the case, but they failed to file an answer and were declared in default. 3) The trial court judge later disqualified Perfecta from testifying as a witness, but the Supreme Court ruled that she should not be disqualified as the rules do not prohibit parties in default from testifying, and default does not make one an incompetent witness.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PERFECTA, PRIMITIVO and QUIRINO CAVILI

    vs.
    HON. TEODORO N. FLORENDO, CLARITA, ULPIANO, ESTRELL, and PLACIDA
    CAVILI, ET AL.
    (G.R. No. 73039 October 9, 1987)
    FACTS: Private respondents filed Civil Case No. 6880 against herein petitioners for
    which summons was issued to them.
    Summons was not served to Primitivo and Quirino, but only to Perfecta.
    Atty. Jose P. Alamino filed a motion for extension to answer in behalf of the
    defendants, manifesting the representation of his client Perfecta Cavili that she will
    inform her brothers Primitivo and Quirino about the case.
    After failing to file an answer within the time allowed, they were declared in
    default, and judgment by default soon followed.
    However, an order for new trial was issued upon order of Atty. Jose P. Alamillo,
    on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and, with a meritorious defense that the properties
    sought to be partitioned have already been the subject of a written partition
    agreement between the direct heirs of the parties.
    When the case was re-raffled, Judge Cipriano Vamenta set aside the order for
    new trial and reinstated the judgment by default.
    The Supreme Court reversed the said decision and ordered new trial upon
    petition for certiorari filed by respondents
    Respondent judge Florendo disqualified petitioner Perfecta as a witness upon
    a motion for her disqualification filed by private respondents, alleging that Perfecta
    has lost her standing in court and she cannot be allowed to participate in all
    premise the even as a witness.
    Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
    ISSUE:
    Whether Perfecta should be disqualified to appear as witness
    RULING:
    No! She should be qualified to appear as witness!
    Section 18, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states who are qualified to
    be witnesses. It provides:
    Section 18. Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the next
    succeeding section, all persons who, having organs of sense, can
    perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to
    others, may be witnesses. Neither parties nor other persons
    interested in the outcome of a case shall be excluded; nor those who
    have been convicted of crime; nor any person on account of his opinion on
    matters of religious belief.
    There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default
    from taking the witness stand for non-disqualified parties. The law does not provide
    default as an exception. The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses
    (under Sections 19 and 20 of Rule 130 and Section 15 of Rule 132)

    excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned


    in the Rules. As a general rule, where there are express exceptions these
    comprise the only limitations on the operation of a statute and no other
    exception will be implied.
    Rule 18, Section 2, likewise, does not support respondents contention. Under
    this rule, a party declared in default shall not be entitled to notice of subsequent
    proceedings nor to take part in the trial. A party in default loses his right to present
    his defense, control the proceedings, and examine or cross-examine witnesses.
    There is nothing in the rule, however, which contemplates a disqualification to be a
    witness or an opponent in a case. Default does not make him an incompetent.
    As opposed to a party litigant, a witness is merely a beholder, a
    spectator or onlooker, called upon to testify to what he has seen, heard, or
    observed. As such, he takes no active part in the contest of rights
    between the parties. A party in default may thus be cited as a witness by
    his co-defendants who have the standing and the right to present
    evidence which the former may provide. To reject Perfects Cavili's presentation
    of testimonial evidence would be to treat Primitivo and Quirino, as if they too were
    in default.
    The petition is hereby GRANTED. The order of the respondent court
    disqualifying. Perfects Cavili dela Cruz as a witness in Civil Case No. 6880 is hereby
    SET ASIDE.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy