RULE 24

Yusingco et al vs. Lian, 1971

FACTS: In the a previous cadastral case, Pelagio Yusingco filed a petition under Republic Act
No. 26 for the reconstitution of certificates of title, alleging, among others, that Alfonso
Yusingco having died, his children formed a partnership called Alfonso Yusingco Hermanos to
continue the business of their deceased father Alfonso Yusingco. The said petition was opposed
by Ong Hing Lian, as administrator of the estate of the late Ong Bonpin, alleging in effect that he
and his co-heirs are the lawful owners and possessors of the lots covered by the certificates of
title sought to be reconstituted as successors of Ong Bonpin. The Court of Appeals stated its
findings of facts thus: The spouses Ong and the spouses Yusingco acquired the lots sometime in
the year 1922 which were later originally registered in their name, each couple owned to the
extent of one-half undivided share of said lots. Subsequently, the lot was registered exclusively
in the name of Yusingco Hermanos. In 1927, Yu Biao, to whom the share of the spouses Ong
was transferred, mortgaged their undivided half to Yusingco Hermanos, the ones who acquired
the remaining half share of the spouses Ong after their death. As the mortgagor Yu Biao failed to
pay the mortgage, Yusingco Hermanos then foreclosed the mortgage in 1931, thereby acquiring
one-half of their undivided shares. The additional evidence presented by the oppositors consists
of the deposition of Atty. J.C. Corvera, who was the one who conducted the extrajudicial sale.

ISSUE: Whether there had been an extrajudicial sale held by Notary Public Hernando J.C.
Corvera covering the one-half undivided interests over lots

RULING: The Court is inclined to give crèche very notary public Hernando J.C. Corvera who
affirmed that all the legal requirements to conduct said extrajudicial sale were duly complied
with before an extrajudicial sale was held and before the execution of a final deed of sale in favor
of Carlos Palanca. In giving full weight to the testimony of the deponent Hernando J.C. Corvera,
the trial court observed that no sufficient justification existed to doubt the veracity of the
testimony or the facts as alleged by the deponent J.C. Corvera who was a member of the Bar and
a well-known figure, respected both in private and public circles. Indeed, the trial court was
perfectly right in considering and in giving full weight to this additional evidence presented by
the oppositors which consisted of the deposition of Hernando J.C. Corvera.
 RULE 25
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90478

FACTS: The case was commenced on July 21, 1987 by the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG) in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. The complaint which initiated
the action was denominated one "for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and
damages," and was avowedly filed pursuant to Executive Order No. 14 of President Corazon C.
Aquino. After having been served with summons, Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago, instead of filing
their answer, jointly filed a "Motion to Strike Out Some Portions of the Complaint and For Bill
of Particulars of Other Portions." The PCGG filed an opposition thereto, and the movants, a
reply to the opposition. Tantoco and Santiago then presented a "motion for leave to file
interrogatories under Rule 25 of the Rules of Court" of which the PCGG responded by filing a
motion. On March 18, 1988, in compliance with the Order of January 29, 1988, the PCGG filed
an Expanded Complaint of which the Sandiganbayan denied with a Resolution. Tantoco and
Santiago then filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim. On July 27, 1989 Tantoco and
Santiago filed with the Sandiganbayan a pleading denominated "Interrogatories to Plaintiff," and
on August 2, 1989, an "Amended Interrogatories to Plaintiff"' as well as a Motion for Production
and Inspection of Documents. The Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Interrogatories and
granted the motion for production and inspection of documents respectively. PCGG filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of August 25, 1989, it also filed an opposition to
the Amended Interrogatories. Tantoco and Santiago filed a reply and opposition. After hearing,
the Sandiganbayan promulgated two (2) Resolutions. Hence, this present petition.

ISSUES: Whether petitioner can object to the interrogatories served on it.

RULING: The State is, of course, immune from suit in the sense that it cannot, as a rule, be sued
without its consent. But it is axiomatic that in filing an action, it divests itself of its sovereign
character and sheds its immunity from suit, descending to the level of an ordinary litigant. The
PCGG cannot claim a superior or preferred status to the State, even while assuming to represent
or act for the State. The Court gives short shrift to the argument that some documents sought to
be produced and inspected had already been presented in Court and marked preliminarily as
PCGG's exhibits, the movants having in fact viewed, scrutinized and even offered objections
thereto and made comments thereon. Obviously, there is nothing secret or confidential about
these documents. No serious objection can therefore be presented to the desire of the private
respondents to have copies of those documents in order to study them some more or otherwise
use them during the trial for any purpose allowed by law.
 Spouses Afulugencia vs. Metro Bank, G.R. No. 185145

FACTS: Petitioners filed a Complaint for nullification of mortgage, foreclosure and auction sale
against Metrobank. After the pre-trial, petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of Subpoena
Duces Tecum Ad Testificandum to require Metrobank’s officers to appear and testify as the
petitioners’ initial witnesses during hearing for the presentation of their evidence-in-chief, and to
bring the documents relative to their loan with Metrobank, as well as those covering the
extrajudicial foreclosure and sale of petitioners’ 200-square meter land in Bulacan. Metrobank
argued that for lack of a proper notice of hearing, the Motion must be denied; pursuant to
Sections 1 and 6 of Rule 25 of the Rules, Metrobank’s officers – who are considered adverse
parties – may not be compelled to appear and testify in court for the petitioners since they were
not initially served with written interrogatories; that petitioners have not shown the materiality
and relevance of the documents sought to be produced in court; and that petitioners were merely
fishing for evidence.

In their reply to Metrobank’s Opposition, the lack of a proper notice of hearing was cured
by the filing of Metrobank’s Opposition; that leave of court is not necessary for the taking of
Metrobank’s officers’ depositions; and that the Rules do not prohibit a party from presenting the
adverse party as its own witness. RTC agreed with Metrobank in denying petitioners’ motion. In
denying the MR, RTC stressed the rule requiring prior service of written interrogatories to
adverse parties before any material and relevant facts in open court may be elicited from them
cannot be afforded any laxity in their favor. This decision was affirmed by CA.

ISSUE: Whether etitioners must first serve written interrogatories to the bank officers before
they can be subpoenaed.

RULING: As prescribed by Section 6, Rule 25, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the
witness stand is not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter. Failure
to comply maybe allowed by the court for good cause shown and to prevent a failure of justice.
One of the purposes of the said rule is to prevent fishing expeditions and needless delays; it is
there to maintain order and facilitate the conduct of trial. It will be presumed that a party who
does not serve written interrogatories on the adverse party beforehand will most likely be unable
to elicit facts useful to its case if it later opts to call the adverse party to the witness stand as its
witness. Moreover, petitioners seek to call Metrobank’s officers to the witness stand as their
initial and main witnesses, and to present documents in Metrobank’s possession as part of their
principal documentary evidence. This is improper. This is tantamount to building their whole
case from the evidence of their opponent. The burden of proof and evidence falls on petitioners,
not on Metrobank; if petitioners cannot prove their claim using their own evidence, then the
adverse party Metrobank may not be pressured to hang itself from its own defense.