REPORT ON LEGAL

RESEARCH AND
WRITING

Page 1
 Let’s Get Started

REPORTER OF
THE DAY.
REX PHILIP F.
LUCIANO
JD-I Block C 1 Mercado and Mercado vs. Espiritu

2 Sia Suan and Gae Chiao vs. Ramon Alcantara

Page 2
 There are actually three
primary principles of good
writing

1 Unity
FUNDAMENTAL
PRINCIPLES OF
EFFECTIVE 2 Coherence
WRITING
3 Emphasis

Page 3
 COHERENCE REINFORCES UNITY &
COHERENCE IN SENTENCE
1 2 3
• COHERENCE - It is the • Such relationship
Logical Relationship of all • A sentence has
the parts of a sentence. It between sentences coherence when a
is also the quality of and between sentence with an
being logical and paragraphs is indefinite it is
consistent. This logical reconstructed so that
relationship can also be usually achieved by
its impersonal use
established between means of the results in a clear
sentences and between proper connectives.
paragraphs. reference.
Ta
sk

Team

Page 4
Mercado and
Mercado vs. Espiritu
G.R. NO. L-11872 December 1, 1917

Page 5
 IN THIS CASE

RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT:
PETITIONER / PLAINTIFFS:
JOSE ESPIRITU,
DOMINGO MERCADO Administrator of the
AND JOSEFA MEERCADO Estate of the Deceased
LUIS ESPIRITU

Page 6
1 April 9, 1913 counsel for Domingo and Josefa Mercado
brought suit in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan
against Luis Espiritu, who died afterwards.

2 Since Luis Espiritu died, the complaint was amended and

was filed against Jose Espiritu.

The plaintiffs alleged that they and their sisters Concepcion

3
and Paz Mercado were the children and sole heirs of
Margarita Espiritu, who is the sister of the deceased Luis
Espiritu.

Margarita Espiritu died in 1897, leaving a tract of land of 48

4 hectares in area as her paraphernal property, which is
located in the barrio of Panducot, municipality of Calumpit,
Bulacan. .
Page 7
5 1910, Luis Espiritu was accused to have induced and fraudulently
succeeded in getting the plaintiffs to sell their land for a sum of
P400 as opposed to its assessed value of P3,795.

6 The annulment of a deed of sale was sought by the

plaintiffs. A. They asserted that two of the four parties were
minors (Domingo and Josefa Mercado); B. Who presented
themselves to be of legal age upon signing the deed of sale
and before the Notary Public.

Page 8
What’s
Whether or not the deed of sale is
a valid contract when the minors
presented themselves that they
were of legal age

Page 9
Court’s Yes. The courts have laid down the rule that
the sale of a real estate, made by minors who
presented themselves to be of legal age, when
in fact they are not, is a valid contract.
Moreover, they will not be permitted to
excuse themselves from the fulfilment of the
obligations contracted by them, or to seek for
annulment.

Page 10
HOW EMPHASIS CAN BE ACHIEVED

as a quality or a principle in a
EMPHASIS
EMPHASIS

written composition, means

stressing or giving importance to
some ideas and subordinating
others.

Page 11
Sia Suan and Gae
Chiao vs. Ramon
Alcantara
G.R. NO. L-1720 March 4, 1950

Page 12
 IN THIS CASE

RESPONDENT / DEFENDANT:
PETITIONER / PLAINTIFFS:
RAMON ALCANTARA
SIA SUAN AND GAW
CHIAO

Page 13
1 Ramon Alcantara filed a complaint seeking the annulment
of a deed of sale due to his minority at the time of the sale.

The deed of sale was executed on August 13, 1931, by

2 Rufino Alcantara and his sons Damaso Alcantara and

Ramon Alcantara, conveying five parcels of land to Sia
Suan.

Ramon Alcantara was 17 years, 10 months, and 22 days old

3 at the time.

About one month after the sale, Ramon Alacantara

4 informed Sia Suan and her husband Gaw Chiao of his
minority and disavowed the contract.

Page 14
5 However, he later executed an affidavit ratifying the deed of
sale and received P500 from Gaw Chiao.

6 Sia Suan also sold one of the lots to Nicolaas Azores.

Ramon Alcantara filed an action in the Court of the First

7 Instance of Laguna for the annulment of the deed of sale as
regards his undivided share in two parcels of land.

The trial court absolved all the defendants, but the Court of
8 Appeals reversed the decision, ruling that the deed of sale
is not binding against Ramon Alcantara due to his minority
at the time of the sale.

The Court of Appeals ordered Sia Sua to pay Ramon

9 Alcantara the sum of P1,750, with legal interest, and to
reconvey to him an undivided one-fourth interest in one of
the lots.
Page 15
What’s
Is the deed of sale valid and
binding despite Ramon
Alcantara’s minority at the time of
the sale?

Page 16
Court’s Yes. The SC ruled that Ramon Alcantara is not allowed
to annul such deed, because he already ratified it. The
letter written by him informing the appellants of his
minority constituted an effective disaffirmance of the
sale, and that although the choice to disaffirm will not
by itself avoid the contract until the courts adjudge the
agreement to be invalid, said notice shielded Ramon
Alcantara from laches and consequent estoppels.

Page 17
 REPORT
IN
LEGAL
RESEARCH AND
WRITING
PREPARED BY:
ELONAH JANE J. POLANCO
JD 1 - C
HELLO, I’M
ELONAH!
 CLASSROOM RULES
I WANT YOU TO BE:
G-OOD
W-ISE
A-
TTENTI
VE
P-
ARTICI
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROGELIO
Facts: RAMOS
At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening of May 3. 1981, while P/Lt. E.
Mediavillo and P/Sgt. A. Linga were on routine patrol they had observed
Malcon Olevere acting suspiciously. The police officers, stopped and frisked
the suspect and found in his possession dried marijuana leaves. Upon
investigation, suspect Olevere declared that he bought the recovered
marijuana leaves from one Rogelio Ramos The following day, a police team
proceeded to the residence of appellant Rogelio Ramos and arrested him.
During the custodial investigation, suspect Malcon Olevere executed a written
sworn statement implicating the accused-appellant Rogelio Ramos as the
source of the marijuana leaves. The accused, verbally admitted the
commission of the offense charged. He likewise admitted that he sold to
Malcon Olevere the marijuana leaves forP10.00. At the trial, the prosecution
presented three witnesses but not Malcon Olevere.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROGELIO
RAMOS
ISSUE
:
Whether or not the constitutional rights of the
accused, more particularly the right to meet the witness
against him face to face and to cross-examination him
has been violated.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
HELD: ROGELIO RAMOS
Yes. For the court to admit the sworn statement of
Malcon Olevere without giving the adverse party the
right to cross-examine him would easily facilitate
the fabrication of evidence and the perpetration of
fraud. The inadmissibility of this sort of evidence is
based, not only on the lack of opportunity on the
part of the adverse party to cross-examine the
affiant, but also on the commonly known fact that,
generally, an affidavit is not prepared by the affiant
himself but by another who uses his own language
inwriting the affiant's statements which may either
be omitted or misunderstood by the one writing
them.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
HELD: ROGELIO RAMOS
Yes. For the court to admit the sworn statement of
Malcon Olevere without giving the adverse party the
right to cross-examine him would easily facilitate
the fabrication of evidence and the perpetration of
fraud. The inadmissibility of this sort of evidence is
based, not only on the lack of opportunity on the
part of the adverse party to cross-examine the
affiant, but also on the commonly known fact that,
generally, an affidavit is not prepared by the affiant
himself but by another who uses his own language
inwriting the affiant's statements which may either
be omitted or misunderstood by the one writing
them.
 JUAREZ VS. TURON

FACTS:
Plaintiff, Nicolas Juarez, sought a divorce from his wife, Ramona
Turon, who had been convicted of adultery.
Nicolas Juarez and Ramona Turon were married on October 28, 1921.
Ramona Turon was convicted of adultery with Gregorio Ramos
in criminal case No. 32005.
Nicolas Juarez filed a complaint for divorce on February 10,
1927, alleging that he had no conjugal or private property and
seeking a divorce and judgment for costs.
 JUAREZ VS.
TURON
Issue:
Whether or not the action
for divorce was barred by the
statute of limitations.
 JUAREZ VS.
TURON
HELD
:
The action for divorce was barred by
the statute of limitations.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
- defines the maximum
time that parties have to
initiate legal proceedings
from the date of the alleged
offense.
After the expiry of this
statutory period, unless an
exceptional situation applies,
a claim is "time-barred,"
meaning one loses the legal
remedy to file a claim
 THANK YOU
LISTENING AND
HAPPY
LEARNING TO
EVERYONE!

-
BADIDAY
JUANARIA FRANCISCO V. LOPE TAYAO

50 PHIL.42. (G.R. No. L-226435)

MARCH 04, 1927
FACTS:
• Juanaria Francisco, the plaintiff, and Lope Tayao, the defendant,
contracted marriage in the City of Manila in 1912. They separated in
1917. The husband then removed to Zamboanga. There he was later
prosecuted for having committed adultery with a married woman named
Bernardina Medrano, wife of Ambrosio Torres, at whose instance the
criminal complaint was instituted. As a result of that proceeding, Lope
Tayao, together with his coaccused Bernardina Medrano, was sentenced
by the late Judge Ponciano Reyes to suffer three years, six months, and
twenty-one days imprisonment prision correccional, and to pay the costs.
ISSUE:
The action of Juanaria Francisco, the plaintiff, against Lope Tayao, the defendant, to have the bonds of
matrimony between them dissolved and sought for divorce.

• As rightly stated by counsel for the appellant in his well prepared brief,
the present appeal raises only a question of law, which is whether or not,
under the facts, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of divorce in
accordance with the Philippine Divorce Law. The related question
resolutory of the appeal is whether or not the wife can secure a divorce
from the husband, where the latter has been convicted of adultery and not
of concubinage, although the acts for which the husband was convicted of
adultery may also constitute concubinage.
RULING:
• The court denied the plaintiff's request for divorce, ruling in favor of the
defendant, Lope Tayao.
• The decision was supported by the fact that the Divorce Law only allows
for divorce in cases of adultery or concubinage.
• Since the defendant was convicted of adultery, not concubinage, the court
could not add a third cause for divorce or amend the law.
• The judgment was affirmed without special pronouncement as to costs.
Grounds for Divorce in the Philippines

• The grounds for divorce are two: Adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on
the part of the husband.
• The law also requires that the divorce can only be claimed by the innocent spouse,
provided there has been no condonation or consent to the adultery or concubinage.
• The court explained that in the Philippines, the grounds for divorce are prescribed by
statute:
• The Philippine Divorce Law, Act No. 2710, is emphatically clear in this
respect. Section 1 of the law reads: "A petition for divorce can only be
filed for adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on the part of the
husband . . . ." Note well the adverb "only" and the conjunctive "or." The
same thought is again emphasized in section 3 of the Divorce Law which
provides that "The divorce may be claimed only by the innocent spouse,
provided there has been no condonation of or consent to the adultery
or concubinage
THE END…

REPORTER :
MELANIE MACARATE
JD-1 BLOCK C
TENCHAVEZ Vs. ESCANO
G.R. No. L-19671
FACTS:
• Vicenta Escaño, 27, exchanged marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez, 32, on February 24, 1948, before a
Catholic chaplain. The marriage was duly registered with the local civil registrar. However, the two were
unable to live together after the marriage and as of June 1948, they were already estranged. Vicenta left for
the United Stated in 1950. On the same year she filed a verified complaint for divorce against Tenchavez in
the State of Nevada on the ground of “Extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character.” A decree of divorce,
“final and absolute” was issued in open court by the said tribunal. She married an American, lived with him
in California, had several children with him and, on 1958, acquired American Citizenship.
• On 30 July 1955, Tenchavez filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and amended on 31
May 1956, against Vicenta F. Escaño, her parents, Mamerto and Mena Escaño whom he charged with
having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband, and alienating her affections, and
against the Roman Catholic Church, for having, through its Diocesan Tribunal, decreed the annulment of the
marriage, and asked for legal separation and one million pesos in damages. Vicenta’s parents denied that
they had in any way influenced their daughter’s acts, and counterclaimed for moral damages.
ISSUE/S
• 1. Whether or not the divorce sought by Vicenta Escaño is valid and
binding upon courts of the Philippines.
• 2. Whether or not the charges against Vicenta Escaño’s parents were
sufficient in form.
RULING:
• 1. No. Vicenta Escaño and Pastor Tenchavez’ marriage remain existent and
undissolved under the Philippine Law. Escaño’s divorce and second marriage cannot
be deemed valid under the Philippine Law to which Escaño was bound since in the
time the divorce decree was issued, Escaño, like her husband, was still a Filipino
citizen. The acts of the wife in not complying with her wifely duties, deserting her
husband without any justifiable cause, leaving for the United States in order to
secure a decree of absolute divorce, and finally getting married again are acts which
constitute a willful infliction of injury upon the husband’s feelings in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, thus entitling Tenchavez to a
decree of legal separation under our law on the basis of adultery.
• 2.No. Tenchavez’ charge against Vicenta’s parents are not supported by credible
evidence. The testimony of Tenchavez about the Escaño’s animosity toward him
strikes the court to be merely conjecture and exaggeration, and were belied by
Tenchavez’ own letters written before the suit had begun. An action for alienation of
affections against the parents of one consort does not lie in the absence of proof of
malice or unworthy motives on their part.
• Plaintiff Tenchavez, in falsely charging Vicenta's aged parents with racial or social
discrimination and with having exerted efforts and pressured her to seek annulment
and divorce, unquestionably caused them unrest and anxiety, entitling them to
recover damages.
 END ..

REPORTER:
MELANIE MACARATE
JD-1 BLOCK C