Session 6: Identify

the Facts
 Assignment —-
Triad 3 in 1
Mode: Restricted
Essay
Max: 3- 5
sentences/par
Deadline: July 13,
2018
Read the cases. [A] State
the legal issue [1 sentence].
Then, [B] write the
Statement of Facts: (1)
Procedural Facts [3-5
sentences]; and (2) Legally
Relevant Facts [3-5
sentences]
1. Republic of the Philippines vs. Sereno, G.R.
No. 237428 (June 19, 2018)

2. Romeo A. Almario vs. Atty. Dominica Llera-

Agno, A.C. No. 10689 (January 8, 2018)

3. International Academy of Management and

Economics vs. Litton and Company, Inc., G.R.
No. 191525 (December 13, 2017)
 Kinds of Facts
Legally relevant facts are those that the court
considered important in deciding the case. They are
outcome-determinative; they affect the court.
Procedurally significant facts describe at what
stage in the case an error may have occurred in the
lower court. They are stated in the appellate court.
The procedural posture of the case affects what
legally relevant fact are available in the appellate
court.
 Example: Jose v. Juan
The defendant, Jose, owns a small riparian tract (situated
on the bank of a river) on ABC River. In the summer of
2015 he began diverting 45,000 gallons of water a day
from a pump on his land to a nonriparian parcel a half mile
from the river because he claimed he needed the water for
his 50 cows. The plaintiff, Juan, who owned another
riparian tract downstream of ABC River sued Jose for
damages, claiming that any diversity of water from the
creek was impermissible. Although Juan could not prove
any actual damages, the RTC awarded him P100,000 in
nominal damages. The CA reversed the decision.
Diversion of water from the creek to a nonriparian tract
without some evidence of damage does not provide a
basis for recovery for nominal or any other damages.
 Which is the better statement of
facts?
• Answer A: The defendant, who owned a riparian
tract on ABC River, diverted 45,000 gallons of
water in the summer of 2015 to supply water to
his cows. The plaintiff, a downstream riparian
owner on the same river, sued the defendant for
damages claiming that any diversion of water
from the riparian tract was prohibited. The court
awarded him P100,000 in nominal damages
even though he was unable to prove actual
damages.
• Answer B: The defendant, who owned a
riparian tract on ABC River, diverted water from
the river to a nonriparian tract. The plaintiff, a
downstream riparian owner on the same river,
sued the defendant for diverting the water. The
plaintiff could not show actual damages, but the
court awarded him nominal damages.
 Which is the better statement of
facts?
• Answer B is better because it contains only those
facts the court used to decide the case and those
facts needed to explain what happened in the
trial court. It is simple and succinct.

Answer A is a slightly rewritten version of the facts

stated in the case. It included details that have
nothing to do with the legal rule or the significant
facts of the case. It omits the type of tract to which
the water was diverted. It should have stated that
the water was diverted from the river to a
nonriparian tract.
1. These factsLegally significant
affect the legal facts
outcome of the case.

2. Remove extraneous facts until only those necessary to

resolve the legal issue remains.

3. Include the emotional facts only when they are legally

significant or likely to persuade the court’s sympathy and
sense of justice.

4. Identify key background facts to make the factual situation

understandable and to put the legally significant facts in
context.

5. Organize the facts intelligibly, relate the facts in chronological

order.

6. Describe the facts accurately and objectively. Do not

evaluate, analyze, characterize, or argue. Just state the
facts.
 Which is a better statement of
facts?
Option A. Clara is an 80-year old widow living on a
meager SSS pension. She has a house on a small
land separated from the highway by property owned
by William, a wealthy banker, who bought the land
from Roy on speculation that the prices would rise.
Roy had long permitted Clara to use the dirt road
through the property, but William has refused
access out of dislike for Clara. Although there is
another road that Clara could use, it takes her 30
miles and 45 minutes out of her way.
Option B. Clara’s land is separated from the highway
by William’s land. Clara had a deal with Roy, the
previous owner, that she could use an old road through
the land for access to her five-hectare lot. William,
whose property of 35 hectares blocked Clara’s access
to her property, refused. There was no mention of
Clara’s easement in the agreement, and the easement
is not recorded.

There was another road the 80-year old Clara could

use, but that route took her a considerable distance out
of her way, which caused her discomfort. Both William
and Clara bought their land from Roy in 1975. She
bought five hectares and William bought the remaining
35 hectares.
Option C. Roy, who owned a 40-hectare land, sold
Clara five hectares of that land in 1973. Clara then
built her home on this land. They agreed orally that
Clara could use an old road through his property for
access to her home because her land was separated
from the highway by the remaining part of Roy’s land.

In 1975, Roy sold the 35-hectare land to William.

There was no reference to Clara’s use of the road in
William’s deed to the property, and there was no
recorded easement. William blocked the dirt road
across his property. Clara, who is 80, had access to
her house through a dirt road leading from another
highway. That route was her 30 miles and 45 minutes
out of her way.
 Which is the better statement of facts?
Option C is best because it is a neutral and accurate
description of the facts, stated in chronological order. It
includes the legally significant facts and just enough
background facts for the court to understand the problem.

Option A is biased. The income or motives of the parties

involved are not legally relevant. It omits legally significant
facts: the absence of a written agreement, a separate
recorded easement, or a reference to an easement in
William’s deed.

Option B describes separately the facts related to two closely

related issues. It is repetitious and disjointed. It uses vague
terms , land, deal, considerable distance instead of precise
terms, thus raising unnecessary questions and changing the
meaning of the statement. It draws a legal conclusion by
describing the road as an easement.