Sold to respondent against petitioner

From page 201 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. V, 2013 Ed. by Paras:

I have two questions:

1. What is meant by "sold by respondent De La Paz to respondents Veneracion against petitioner"?
2. What complaint is this?

See the above case here for the answers.

Of laptops and radios

In a previous post I talked about how Paras upgraded a typewriter to a computer notebook in one discussion.

Here's another attempt by Paras to update the technology in his book Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. V, 2013 Ed.

On page 129:

Here's how it appears on page 124 of the 2000 Edition:

Prosecutor alleging for the defendant

On page 316 of Regalado's  Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, Eleventh Edition we find this:

But what if the Prosecutor does allege in the information that the accused falls within the excepted situation?

Then he would have become the lawyer of the accused.

Dominantly or predominantly?

I think the 2013 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as proposed, will do a lot in speeding up our court processes. Let's see if I can cite specific examples in a future post.

While going over the Primer on the proposed rules  I stumbled over this passage on page 2:

It seems out of place even at first glance. Although dominantly and predominantly are synonymous, they have a subtle difference that could make the sentence stilted such as in this case.

So, when does one use dominantly over predominantly? Here's from Yahoo! Answers:

Ok, then, which word do we come across more which make it predominant over the other?

A Google search of the phrase "dominantly adversarial system" yields this:

The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd entries all refer to same primer. The second entry actually also uses "predominantly" which was truncated:

http://law.wisc.edu/alumni/gargoyle/archive/23_4/gargoyle_23_4_3.pdf

What about a search for "predominantly adversarial system"? Here's the result:

Variant or various?

Boado, on page 452 of her book Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2012 Edition, confuses variant with various:

Correct usage would be "Misdemeanour is a variant spelling of misdemeanor." See this entry in Freedictionary for more detailed discussion.

Independence Day typos

Today is the 115th Independence Day. My thoughts on the day is here.

There are no parades for our office to participate. Here are instead some typos to ruminate on.

Page 315 of Regalado's Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. II, 11th Ed.:

From Paras' Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. V, 2013 Ed.:

Page 129 -

Page 130 - Yes, is it a dog?

Page 169 -

Page 172 -

Complaint or information? One more time with Riano

In a previous post I pointed out how Riano thinks that a complaint is different from information because the former requires an oath while the other does not. But Regalado disagrees.

On the same page of his book Criminal Procedure, Riano seems to get confused between the two:

Confuser and confuser

On page 196 of Paras' Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, Vol. V, 2013 Edition we have this:

At first glance we think that three individuals - Sawadan, Elpidio, and Augusto - were in possession since 1908 of the land in dispute. Now the questions begin:

1. Who were these heirs of Sawadan?
2. How were they able to make a quitclaim for Augusto in favor of Elpidio?

The next paragraph makes us more flummoxed. Who was this grandmother who enabled Constante to sell the land?

Methinks that Paras intended to make the paraphrasing leave more doubts than answers to force us to go see the jurisprudence which can be found here.

Oath or no oath: Regalado vs Riano

On page 81 of his book Criminal Procedure, Riano believes that oath makes the difference between complaint and information:

But Regalado believes otherwise on page 228 of his book Remedial Law Compendium, 11th Edition:

In  Estudillo cited  by Riano it looks like the SC leaned towards him. Did Regalado miss this?

Or is there a difference between the information in Sec. 4 of Rule 110 and the information in Sec. 4 of Rule 112?

Personally, I go for Regalado's opinion.

Petitioner turns table on Court

From page 34 of Criminal Procedure (The Bar Lectures Series) 2011 Edition by Willard B. Riano:   

It looks like it is the petitioner who is declaring the Court as something.