Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 92 views

    49 Ayala Land v. Tagle

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    1) ASB Realty Corporation filed a case against Ayala Land, Inc. and others seeking to nullify a contract for the sale of real property, claiming EMRASON had already entered into an agreement to conditionally sell 65% of the land to ASB. 2) ASB sought to take the deposition of Emerito Ramos Sr., the chairman of EMRASON, due to his advanced age of 87 and the possibility he may not be able to testify at trial. 3) The court permitted the deposition, finding the ground of Ramos Sr.'s age to be valid under the rules. It overruled all of Ayala Land's objections to the deposition after carefully considering each one

    Copyright:

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

    49 Ayala Land v. Tagle

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    92 views2 pages
    1) ASB Realty Corporation filed a case against Ayala Land, Inc. and others seeking to nullify a contract for the sale of real property, claiming EMRASON had already entered into an agreement to conditionally sell 65% of the land to ASB. 2) ASB sought to take the deposition of Emerito Ramos Sr., the chairman of EMRASON, due to his advanced age of 87 and the possibility he may not be able to testify at trial. 3) The court permitted the deposition, finding the ground of Ramos Sr.'s age to be valid under the rules. It overruled all of Ayala Land's objections to the deposition after carefully considering each one

    Original Description:

    CIV PRO

    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) ASB Realty Corporation filed a case against Ayala Land, Inc. and others seeking to nullify a contract for the sale of real property, claiming EMRASON had already entered into an agreement to conditionally sell 65% of the land to ASB. 2) ASB sought to take the deposition of Emerito Ramos Sr., the chairman of EMRASON, due to his advanced age of 87 and the possibility he may not be able to testify at trial. 3) The court permitted the deposition, finding the ground of Ramos Sr.'s age to be valid under the rules. It overruled all of Ayala Land's objections to the deposition after carefully considering each one

    Copyright:

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

    49 Ayala Land v. Tagle

    Uploaded by

    Rem Serrano
    1) ASB Realty Corporation filed a case against Ayala Land, Inc. and others seeking to nullify a contract for the sale of real property, claiming EMRASON had already entered into an agreement to conditionally sell 65% of the land to ASB. 2) ASB sought to take the deposition of Emerito Ramos Sr., the chairman of EMRASON, due to his advanced age of 87 and the possibility he may not be able to testify at trial. 3) The court permitted the deposition, finding the ground of Ramos Sr.'s age to be valid under the rules. It overruled all of Ayala Land's objections to the deposition after carefully considering each one

    Copyright:

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

    Ayala Land v.

    Tagle
    GR No. 153667, 11 August 2005

    FACTS:

    Civil Case No. 931-94 for nullification of Contract to Sell Real Properties, Cancellation of
    Annotations on Transfer Certificates of Title and Damages was filed before the Regional
    Trial Court of Imus, Cavite City, by ASB Realty Corporation (ASB) and E. M. Ramos and
    Sons, Inc. (EMRASON) against Ayala Land, Inc. (ALI), Emerito B. Ramos, Jr., et al.

    In its complaint, ASB alleged that on 21 May 1994, EMRASON, a real estate company
    which owns real estate properties in Dasmarias, Cavite City, with a total area of 372
    hectares, whose chairman and president is Emerito M. Ramos, Sr., with his wife, Susana
    B. Ramos, and children as stockholders, entered into a Letter-Agreement with ASB for
    the conditional sale of sixty-five percent (65%) of the said land for a consideration of
    P400,000,000.00 payable in five installments.

    However, ASB, through its president, Mr. Luke C. Roxas, received a letter from the
    children of Emerito Ramos, Sr., informing him that on 18 May 1994, they entered into a
    Contract to Sell said real estate properties with ALI. ASB confirmed the contract of the
    Ramos children with ALI when it found out that the same was annotated on the Transfer
    Certificates of Title of the real estate properties in dispute. This prompted ASB to file the
    Complaint dated 13 June 1994 before the trial court.

    ALI, thereafter, filed its Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim and Cross-claim.Plaintif
    ASB subsequently filed a Motion for Leave to take testimony by deposition upon oral
    examination of Emerito Ramos, Sr., citing Section 4(c), Rule 24 of the Revised Rules of
    Court stating that Emerito Ramos, Sr. was already 87 years old and although he was of
    sound mind there is always the possibility that he may not be able to testify on plaintifs
    behalf in the course of the trial on the merits.

    The motion was granted, however this was questioned by ALI sought rulings on its
    objections to leading questions, violations of the best-evidence rule, rule on presentation
    of secondary evidence, incompetence of the deponent, opinion rule, manner of
    presentation of evidence, and testimonies not forming part of the ofer.

    ISSUE + RULING

    Whether the alleged deposition of the witness Emerito Ramos Sr. is admissible under the
    rules. YES

    In this case, the trial court permitted the taking of Emerito Ramos, Srs deposition chiefly
    because of his advance age which ground is considered valid and justified under the
    Rules of Court.

    This Court has observed that the trial court has painstakingly gone over every objection
    of ALI contained in its Motion dated 30 January 1995 and ruled on every single objection
    in the Order dated 05 May 1995 and these objections were again taken up in the Order
    of the trial court dated 07 September 1995. On this point, we find no compelling reason
    to disturb the conclusions arrived at by the trial court. It has been repeatedly held that
    the deposition-discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment and the
    liberty of a party to make discovery is well-nigh unrestricted if the matters inquired into
    are otherwise relevant and not privileged, and the inquiry is made in good faith and
    within the bounds of the law, as in the case at bar.

    You might also like