1/5/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 234812, November 25, 2019 ]
MASAKAZU UEMATSU,* PETITIONER, VS. ALMA N. BALINON,
RESPONDENT.
DECISION
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition Review on Certiorari[1] assailing the Decision[2] dated
May 23, 2017 of the of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 07775-MIN, which granted the
petition for certiorari filed therewith and concomitantly, annulled and set aside
Resolution[3] dated August 15, 2016 as well as the Orders dated September 6, 2016[4]
and September 28, 2016[5] of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court of Tagum City, (RTCTagum) in Civil Case No. 4233.
Likewise being challenged is the CA Resolution[6] of August 25, 2017, which denied
Masakazu Uematsu's (petitioner) motion for reconsideration.
The Antecedents
This case emanated from a Petition[7] for the issuance of a permanent protection order
(PPO) and plea for issuance of temporary protection order under Republic Act No. (RA)
9262 (PPO case) filed by Alma N. Balinon (respondent) against petitioner. Respondent
asserted that she filed the case due to the physical, emotional, mental, and sexual
abuses committed against her by petitioner, her common-law spouse who was a drug
dependent.
In the Decision[8] dated October 7, 2011 of the RTC-Tagum, the petition for the PPO
case filed by the respondent was granted and a PPO against petitioner was issued. RTCTagum gave credence to respondent's claim that she and her children would be in
constant threat or harm unless a PPO be issued against petitioner. The Decision in the
PPO case became final and executory, and a corresponding Entry of Judgment[9] was
issued on November 29, 2011.
On July 23, 2014, or almost three years after the finality of the PPO case, petitioner
filed a Complaint[10] with the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu (RTC-LapuLapu) for the dissolution of co-ownership, partnership, liquidation, and accounting
(Dissolution case) against respondent. In the complaint, petitioner prayed, among
others, for the winding up and accounting of his co-ownership with respondent, that the
latter be ordered to turnover all papers and effects pertaining to their co-ownership,
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65967
1/11