![]() ![]() During respondents' initial negotiation, petitionerĪnd Amelia were still the registered owners of the property. Spouses Sy took place and the date Francisco secured a certificate of Title considering the close proximity between the date the sale to Negotiating on the sale, the latter already knew of the existence of her At the time Francisco and Spouses Sy started While the sale of the same property to Spouses Sy was supposedly done įrancisco was able to secure a title in her name only on July 16, 2012, 006-2012000889 was further issued in the name of Spouses Sy. įrancisco subsequently sold the property to Spouses Sy for Last ten (10) years already prior to the supposed date of the sale. Volition since she had been suffering from Alzheimer's disease for the Other hand, her sister Amelia could not have signed the same on her own She left the Philippines on MarchĢ0, 2012 and returned only on August 24, 2012, as evidenced by herĪrrival and departure record issued by the Bureau of Immigration. at the time it was purportedly executed on July 6,Ģ012 and notarized on July 10, 2012. It was impossible for her to have signed the deed of sale since she was The deed of sale was purportedlyĮxecuted between her and her sister Amelia, on the one hand,Īnd their niece Francisco, on the other. Relative that their title had been cancelled by the RD Makati,Īnd by virtue of a deed of sale, a new TCT No. Legitimate owners of a property located at 73 Amorsolo Street, San 133936, she and her sister Amelia Roa (Amelia) are the Petitioner averred that, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of To the Regional Trial Court (RTC) - Branch 66, Makati City. Sy (Spouses Sy),Īnd Register of Deeds of Makati City (RD Makati). (Francisco), Spouses Robinson K., and Mary Valerie S. Roa) filed the aforesaidĬomplaint against respondents Marie Antoinette R. On March 19, 2013, petitioner (Zenaida D. Immediately preceeding text appears at serial pages (289105) and (264279).Resolution dated Novemwhich denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The provisions of this Rule 572 amended March 3, 2004, effective July 1, 2004, 34 Pa.B. 1477 (March 18, 2000).įinal Report explaining the Maamendments to paragraph (A) published with the Courts Order at 34 Pa.B. 3128 (July 6, 1996).įinal Report explaining the Mareorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Courts Order at 30 Pa.B. Rule 304 adopted Jand November 22, 1977, effective as to cases in which the indictment or information is filed on or after Januamended October 21, 1983, effective Januamended June 19, 1996, effective Jrenumbered Rule 572 and amended March 1, 2000, effective Apamended March 3, 2004, effective July 1, 2004.įinal Report explaining the Jamendments published with the Courts Order at 26 Pa.B. The traditional function of a Bill of particulars is to clarify the pleadings and to limit the evidence which can be offered to support the information. (D) When a motion for relief is made, the court may make such order as it deems necessary in the interests of justice. If further particulars are desired after an original bill of particulars has been furnished, a motion therefor may be made to the court within 5 days after the original bill is furnished. (C) Upon failure or refusal of the attorney for the Commonwealth to furnish a bill of particulars after service of a request, the defendant may make written motion for relief to the court within 7 days after such failure or refusal. ![]() (B) The request shall set forth the specific particulars sought by the defendant, and the reasons why the particulars are requested. The request shall promptly be filed and served as provided in Rule 576. ![]() (A) A request for a bill of particulars shall be served in writing by the defendant upon the attorney for the Commonwealth within 7 days following arraignment. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |