This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, the CA rightly exercised its discretion when it admitted respondents' appeal. As to the lack of page references in respondents' appeal brief, this Court has held that "failure to cite page reference to the records of the case may be considered as a formal defect which is not fatal."[36] As to the supposed lack of statement of issues of fact or law, the citations found in respondents' brief sufficiently enabled the appellate court to locate expeditiously the portions of the record referred to, and apprised said court of the essential facts and nature of the case, as well as the issues raised and the laws necessary for its disposition. Thus, there is substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 13, Rule 44. The determination of whether or not respondents' appeal brief complied with the Rules was properly within the appellate court's discretion. Nothing in the records indicates that it was exercised capriciously, whimsically, or with a view of permitting injury upon petitioner. | |||||
|
2014-06-25 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| So it was that in Rizal v. Naredo,[29] We ruled in the following wise: Article 484 of the New Civil Code provides that there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. Thus, on the one hand, a co-owner of an undivided parcel of land is an owner of the whole, and over the whole he exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is truly abstract. On the other hand, there is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically described. | |||||