Motion for bill of particulars sample
![motion for bill of particulars sample motion for bill of particulars sample](https://www.pdffiller.com/preview/0/196/196534/large.png)
![motion for bill of particulars sample motion for bill of particulars sample](https://cdn.uslegal.com/uslegal-preview/FL/FL-01900BG/1.png)
Of the original owner's duplicate title to the Property currentlyĬovered by TCT No. Marie Antoinette Roa Francisco who was in actual and physical possession Roa deny that she did not have actual and physical possession of the property on 20 July 2012?ģ.3ĝoes plaintiff Zenaida D. Who had actual and physical possession of the house and lot located atħ3 Amorsolo Street, San Lorenzo Village, Makati City (the "Property") onģ.2ĝoes plaintiff Zenaida D. Roa deny that it was MarieĪntoinette Roa Francisco, Marie Celine Roa Francisco and/or Amelia Roa They required herein petitioner toģ.1ĝoes plaintiff Zenaida D. Particulars dated Apand later an "Amended Motion for Bill Thereafter, they filed a "Motion for Bill of Spouses Sy's motion for reconsideration was denied under Order ĭated March 26, 2014. Ultimately, Spouses Sy purchased the property fromįrancisco despite her fraudulent title. Registered the property in her name by presenting a spurious and forgedĭeed of sale. Were the registered owners of the property.
![motion for bill of particulars sample motion for bill of particulars sample](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/sampledemandforbillofparticulars-130213011853-phpapp01/95/sample-demand-for-bill-of-particulars-for-california-3-1024.jpg)
It noted that the complaint stated that petitioners Relied on Francisco's title and noted no suspicious circumstancesĪugust 7, 2013, the trial court denied Spouses Sy's motion to dismissįor lack of merit. Spouses Sy further claimed that they acted in good faith when they The complaintĪllegedly rested on conjectures and contained no specific averments of The ground of failure to state a cause of action. Instead of filing an answer, Spouses Sy filed a motion to dismiss on Accordingly, they ought to return the property to its legitimate owners (she and Amelia). Spouses Sy, therefore, are not buyers in goodįaith, hence, the sale of the property in their favor is void. Was the property's title number should have made Spouses Sy suspicious That the only handwritten entry in the Deed of Sale dated July 20, 2012, On the identity of the legitimate owner of the property. Have alerted Spouses Sy on the legality of Francisco's claimed title.Īs part of their due diligence, they should have made further inquiries During respondents' initial negotiation, petitionerĪnd Amelia were still the registered owners of the property. Spouses Sy took place and the date Francisco secured a certificate of Title considering the close proximity between the date the sale to Negotiating on the sale, the latter already knew of the existence of her At the time Francisco and Spouses Sy started While the sale of the same property to Spouses Sy was supposedly done įrancisco was able to secure a title in her name only on July 16, 2012, 006-2012000889 was further issued in the name of Spouses Sy. įrancisco subsequently sold the property to Spouses Sy for Last ten (10) years already prior to the supposed date of the sale. Volition since she had been suffering from Alzheimer's disease for the Other hand, her sister Amelia could not have signed the same on her own She left the Philippines on MarchĢ0, 2012 and returned only on August 24, 2012, as evidenced by herĪrrival and departure record issued by the Bureau of Immigration. at the time it was purportedly executed on July 6,Ģ012 and notarized on July 10, 2012.
![motion for bill of particulars sample motion for bill of particulars sample](https://www.pdffiller.com/preview/100/265/100265039/large.png)
It was impossible for her to have signed the deed of sale since she was The deed of sale was purportedlyĮxecuted between her and her sister Amelia, on the one hand,Īnd their niece Francisco, on the other. Relative that their title had been cancelled by the RD Makati,Īnd by virtue of a deed of sale, a new TCT No. Legitimate owners of a property located at 73 Amorsolo Street, San 133936, she and her sister Amelia Roa (Amelia) are the Petitioner averred that, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of To the Regional Trial Court (RTC) - Branch 66, Makati City. Sy (Spouses Sy),Īnd Register of Deeds of Makati City (RD Makati). (Francisco), Spouses Robinson K., and Mary Valerie S. Roa) filed the aforesaidĬomplaint against respondents Marie Antoinette R. On March 19, 2013, petitioner (Zenaida D. Resolution dated Novemwhich denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.