ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 132682. July 21, 1999]

MAURICIO CACHOLA, JR. vs. ANGELINA ALFARAS.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 21, 1999.

G.R. No. 132682 (Mauricio Cachola, Jr. vs. Angelina Alfaras.)

COMPLIANCE by petitioner's counsel, Atty. Conrado F. Teodoro, Jr., dated June 2, 1999, to the Court's Resolution dated April 12, 1999 is NOTED.

COPIES of the Resolution of the Court dated November 11, 1998 as well as that dated June 15, 1998, requiring to comment on the petition, is DEEMED SERVED.

Acting on the petition, the Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit, (a) there being no reversible error nor grave abuse of discretion committed by the Court of Appeals in denying herein petitioner's urgent motion (for extension of time to file his motion for reconsideration) because it is not sanctioned by its Revised Internal Rules, and (b) there likewise being no reversible error committed by said appellate court in affirming the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89, which in our view, is fully in accord with law and jurisprudence on the matter.

Said urgent motion for extension of time is not allowed by Rule 9, Sec. 2 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.

Nor do we find any reversible error in the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated November 28, 1997, penned by Justice Omar U. Amin, and concurred in by now Presiding Justice M. Elbinias and Justice Hector L. Hofile�a. In sustaining the judgment of Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, the appellate court found no denial of due process as alleged by herein petitioner, for although the number of witnesses were limited by the trial court, "a careful review of trial proceedings fail to yield any indicia of bias or partiality on the part of the judge towards any of the parties. While the trial court may have seemingly taken an active part during the trial, this was only for the purpose of clarifying matters raised therein and to expedite trial." As well said, "the preponderance of evidence lies not on the number of witnesses presented but on the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses in open court." (Rollo, pp. 54-55.)

Our attention, however, has been called to the fact that Nilo Cachola was the witness for petitioner during the trial. But his testimony on the common-law relationship between Maurico C. Cachola, Sr. and respondent was found "not persuasive enough to convince the court a quo that there was no such relationship". (Rollo, p.56.)

Note that Nilo Cachola also represented herein petitioner, in Civil Case No. Q-91-92-93, before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, (for unlawful detainer), which found as follows:

"After all what has been said and done, the Court believes and so holds that indeed there was intimate relationship between the late Mauricio C. Cachola Sr. and the herein defendant Angelina Alfaras." (Rollo, p. 86.)

The finding of the appellate court, affirming that of the trial court, that the Novaliches property in question was acquired during the period of cohabitation of Cachola Sr. and the respondent, in our view, suffices to buttress the presumption that said property was acquired out of the common funds of the couple.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE