This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-06-29 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| A reading of the Answer shows that petitioners failed to specifically deny the execution of the Credit Agreement, PN, and CSA under the auspices of the above-quoted rule. The mere statement in paragraph 4 of their Answer, i.e., that they "specifically deny" the pertinent allegations of the Complaint "for being self-serving and pure conclusions intended to suit plaintiffs purposes,"[44] does not constitute an effective specific denial as contemplated by law.[45] Verily, a denial is not specific simply because it is so qualified by the defendant. Stated otherwise, a general denial does not become specific by the use of the word "specifically."[46] Neither does it become so by the simple expedient of coupling the same with a broad conclusion of law that the allegations contested are "self-serving" or are intended "to suit plaintiffs purposes." | |||||
|
2015-06-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, it has been consistently ruled that when the owner's duplicate certificate of title has not been lost, but is in fact in the possession of another person, the reconstituted certificate is void, because the court that rendered the decision had no jurisdiction.[27] Reconstitution can validly be made only in case of loss of the original certificate.[28] Thus, the fact of loss of the duplicate certificate is jurisdictional.[29] | |||||