ELMER POLANCO TRIAL

ELMER POLANCO TRIAL

Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss, 8 which was denied by the trial court in an Order 9 dated December 4, 2000. Respondent prayed that petitioners be held liable for actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, litigation expenses and attorney's fees, and costs of the suit. While admitting that petitioners own the agricultural land she tilled, respondent claimed she was a lawful tenant thereof and had been in actual possession when petitioners maliciously filled so with soil and palay husk on July 1 and 2, 2000. Respondent Carmen Cruz, through her attorney-in-fact, Virgilio Cruz, filed a complaint for damages 7 against petitioners for allegedly destroying her palay crops. Also assailed is the MaResolution 5 denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. 542-M-2000, which dismissed respondent's Complaint 4 for failure to prosecute. 75079, setting aside the Order 3 of Branch 17 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos in Civil Case No. This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assails the AugDecision 2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CARMEN CRUZ, represented by her attorney-in-fact, VIRGILIO CRUZ, Respondent.

ZENAIDA POLANCO, CARLOS DE JESUS, AVELINO DE JESUS, BABY DE JESUS, LUZ DE JESUS, and DEMETRIO SANTOS, Petitioners, v.

Carmen Cruz Represented by her Attorney-in-fact, Virgilio Cruz Carmen Cruz Represented by her Attorney-in-fact, Virgilio Cruz:

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2009 > February 2009 Decisions >

Elmer polanco