AFP Retirement V Republic

 

AFP RETIREMENT AND SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM V. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. NO. 188956, MARCH 20, 2013 Villarama, J:

D!"#$%&'

The rules provides those witness that are disqualified: Section 19 disqualifies those who are mentally incapacitated and children whose tender age or  immaturity renders them incapable of being witnesses. Section 20 provides for disqualification  based on conflicts of interest or on relationship. Section 21 provides for disqualifications based on privileged communications. Section 1 of !ule 1"2 may not be a rule on disqualification of  witnesses but it states the grounds when a witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called F(!")'

#etitioner was $created #etitioner $created under #residential #residential %ecree &#.%.' &#.%.' (o. ")1* as amended* amended* and was designed to establish a separate fund to guarantee continuous financial support to the +rmed ,orces of the #hilippines military retirement system as provided for in !epublic +ct (o. "-0.$ #etitioner filed an +pplication for !egistration of Title over three parcels of land located in est est /icutan* Taguig ity* before the !T of #asig ity. These These three parcels of land constitute a land grant by virtue of #residential #roclamation (o. 121* issued by former #resident ,idel . !amos on 3ay * 199.4 The application was filed by 3r. 5onorio S. +6cueta &3r. +6cueta'* the then 78ecutive ice #resident and hief perating fficer of the petitioner* who was duly authori6ed to do so  by the /oard of Trustees Trustees of the petitioner* as evidenced by a notari6ed Secretarys. Secretarys. +fter due  posting and publication of the requisite notices* and since no oppositor registered any oppositions after the petitioner met the ;urisdictional requirements* the court a quo issued an order of general default against the whole world* and the petitioner was allowed to present evidence e8 their qualifications.D78cept as provided in the ne8t succeeding section* all persons who can perceive* and perceiving* can ma=e =nown their perception to others* may be witnesses. Section Sectio n 19 disqualifi disqualifies es those who are mentally mentally incapacitated incapacitated and children whose tender  ag ageequalif orlifica im imma matu rity ty ed re rende nders them thlicts emts inca inofcapab pable le stoforbe bein ing g rel wi witn tnes esse ses. s.. Secti Sec onn 20 provi ovide des s for  fo for  r  dis disqua icatio tion nturi based bas on rsconflic conf intere interest on relati ations onship hip. Sectio Section tion 21 pr provid pro vides es disqualifications based on privileged communications. Section 1 of !ule 1"2 may not be a rule on disqualification of witnesses but it states the grounds when a witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called. + reading of the pertinent law and ;urisprudence would show that 3s. +ban is qualified to testify as a witness for the petitioner since she possesses the qualifications of being able to  perceive and being able to ma=e her perceptions =nown to others. ,urthermore* she possesses none of the disqualifications described above. ,urthermore* the SA and the court a quo did not question the erificationEertificationof the application* and neither did they question the authority of 3r. +6cueta to file the sub;ect application on behalf of the petitioner. ase records would reveal that the application was signed and filed by 3r. +6cueta in his capacity as the 78ecutive ice #resident and hief perating fficer of the petitioner* as authori6ed by petitioners /oard of 

 

Trust Trustees ees The author authority ity of 3r. 3r. +6cuet +6cuetaa to file file the sub;ect sub;ect applic applicati ation on was establ establish ished ed by a Secretarys ertificate ertificate attached to the said application. The asseveration that the sub;ect case was not prosecuted by a duly authori6ed representative of the petitioner is thus unfounded. @nterestingly enough* the respondent itself agrees with the petitioner that the dismissal of  the sub;ect application by the court a quo on the ground of failure to prosecute due to lac= of  authority of the sole witness of the petitioner is unfounded and without legal basis.