DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS HON. SANDIGANBAYAN

GR. No. 189590 April 23, 2018

FACTS:

Petitioner Republic filed a petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties of

private respondents Romeo et. al. Petitioner Republic alleged that the private respondent
owned the same and it was unlawfully acquired during his incumbency at the Department of
Public Works and Highways.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ALFREDO DE BORJA

GR NO. 187448 January 9, 2017

FACTS:

The case is an appeal by certiorari assailing the resolution of the Sandiganbayan in

granting respondent De Borja’s demurrer to evidence.

Petitioner Republic filed a complaint for Accounting, Reconveyance, Forfeiture and

Recovery of Damages against respondent De Borja for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth
amassed during the Marcos regime. Geronimo Velasco is one of the defendants in another civil
case involving the Philippine National Oil Company of which he was the President and
Chairman. De Borja is Velasco’s nephew. PNOC would enter into charter agreements with
vessels and as per industry practice, they would pay “address commissions” to PNOC.
Allegedly, during Velasco’s tenure, no address commissions were remitted to PNOC. A
percentage of the address commissions no longer appeared in the charter agreements but they
were remitted instead to the account of Decision Research Management Company (DRMC),
which was the alleged conduit for the charter commissions.

Petitioner Republic claimed that it was respondent de Borja who was collecting the
address commissions in behalf of Velasco, basing its allegation on the testimony of one Verano.
Furthermore, de Borja was alleged to have acted as Velasco’s dummy or agent for the
corporation that he owned or controlled such as DRMC. After the petitioner’s submission of their
formal offer of evidence, respondent De Borja filed a Demurrer to Evidence stating that: 1)
Verano was instructed to deliver an envelope from Velasco to de Borja; 2) the envelope was
sealed and Verano did not have knowledge of the contents thereof; 3) there was no personal
delivery nor receipt of the envelope from Verano to de Borja. The Sandiganbayan granted De
Borja’s demurrer to evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the demurrer to evidence

HELD:

NO. A demurrer to evidence is a motion to dismiss on the ground of insufficiency of

evidence. It is a remedy available to the defendant to the effect that the evidence produced by
the plaintiff is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain an
issue. The question in a demurrer to evidence is whether the plaintiff, by his evidence in chief,
had been able to establish a prima facie case. In Felipe vs MGM Motor Trading Corp., it was
held that a review of the dismissal of the complaint naturally entailed a calibration of the
evidence on record to properly determine whether the material allegations of the complaint were
amply supported by evidence.

The Court also mentioned that what is crucial is the determination as to whether the
plaintiff’s evidence entitles it to the relief sought. It was ruled by the Court in this case that the
insinuations of the petitioner Republic were speculative and conjectural. There was nothing in
the testimony of Verano that alludes to the conclusion that de Borja was a dummy or conduit of
Velasco. The Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s observations that there was want of
knowledge with respect to the contents of the envelope allegedly delivered to de Borja as it was
sealed. As admitted by Verano, he could not have known what was inside the envelopes which
he allegedly delivered. The Court found that the evidence adduced by the petitioner Republic
was wholly insufficient to support the allegations of their complaint. Thus, petitioner Republic
failed to show any right to the relief sought.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS SPS GIMENEZ

GR. NO. 174673 January 11, 2016

FACTS:

The Republic instituted a complaint for Reconveyance, Accounting and Restitution of

Damages against the Spouses Gimenez before the Sandiganbayan. The Republic presented
documentary evidence and later on, manifested that it was no longer presenting evidence.
Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan gave the Republic thirty days within which to file their formal
offer of evidence. Nevertheless, the Republic failed to file their written formal offer of evidence
despite repeated extensions. As a result of this, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution stating
that the Republic has now waived the filing of its Formal Offer of Evidence.

The Spouses Gimenez then filed a Demurrer to Evidence on the ground that the plaintiff
Republic showed no right to relief as there was no evidence to support its cause of action. The
Republic submitted a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion to Admit the Formal Offer of
Evidence which the Sandiganbayan denied because the evidence lacked probative value.

ISSUE:

Whether the granting of the demurrer to evidence was proper

HELD:
 NO. As discussed in Oropesa vs Oropesa, the demurrer to evidence was defined as "an
objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary
produced is insufficient in point of law, whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the
issue." It has also been held that a demurrer to evidence authorizes a judgment on the merits of
the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his part if the plaintiff’s evidence
shows that he is not entitled to the relief sought. A demurrer to evidence may be issued when,
upon the facts and the law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. Where the plaintiff's
evidence together with such inferences and conclusions as may reasonably be drawn therefrom
does not warrant recovery against the defendant, a demurrer to evidence should be sustained.
A demurrer to evidence is likewise sustainable when, admitting every proven fact favorable to
the plaintiff and indulging in his favor all conclusions fairly and reasonably inferable therefrom,
the plaintiff has failed to make out one or more of the material elements of his case, or when
there is no evidence to support an allegation necessary to his claim. It should be sustained
where the plaintiff's evidence is prima facie insufficient for a recovery.

In this case, the Sandiganbayan’s treatment of the evidence was cursory. Its main
consideration in granting the demurrer to evidence was based on the failure of the petitioner to
file a formal offer of evidence. It brushed off the totality of evidence in this case. Hence, the
granting of the demurrer to evidence to the Spouses Gimenez was not proper.

EFFECT OF RELEASE, WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM CIVIL CASES