Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > September 1998 Decisions > G.R. No. 119730 September 2, 1998 - RODOLFO NOCEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 119730. September 2, 1999.]

RODOLFO NOCEDA, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and AURORA ARBIZO DIRECTO, Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


GONZAGA-REYES, J.:


This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse the decision dated March 31, 1995 of the respondent Court of Appeals 1 in CA GR CV No. 38126, affirming with modification the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, of Iba, Zambales, 2 in an action by private respondent against petitioner for recovery of possession and ownership and rescission/annulment of donation.chanrobles law library : red

The facts of the case as summarized by the respondent Court are as follows: 3

"On June 1, 1981, plaintiff Aurora Directo, defendant Rodolfo Noceda, and Maria Arbizo, the daughter, grandson, and widow, respectively, of the late Celestino Arbizo, who died in 1956, extrajudicially settled a parcel of land, Lot 1121, located at Bitaog, San Isidro, Cabangan, Zambales, which was said to have an area of 66,530 square meters. Plaintiff Directo’s share was 11,426 square meters, defendant Noceda got 13,294 square meters, and the remaining 41,810 square meters went to Maria Arbizo (Exhibit G). On the same date, plaintiff Directo donated 625 square meters of her share to defendant Noceda, who is her nephew being the son of her deceased sister, Carolina (Exhibit D). However, on August 17, 1981, another extrajudicial settlement-partition of Lot 1121 was executed by plaintiff Directo, defendant Noceda, and Maria Arbizo. Three fifths of the said land went to Maria Arbizo while plaintiff Directo and defendant Noceda got only one-fifth each. In said extrajudicial settlement-partition as well as in the Tax Declaration 16-0032 over Lot 1121 in the name of the late Celestino Arbizo, the said parcel of land was said to have an area of only 29,845 square meters (Exhibit C). Sometime in 1981, defendant Noceda constructed his house on the land donated to him by plaintiff Directo. Plaintiff Directo fenced the portion allotted to her in the extrajudicial settlement, excluding the donated portion, and constructed thereon three huts. But in 1985, defendant Noceda removed the fence earlier constructed by plaintiff Directo, occupied the three huts (3) and fenced the entire land of plaintiff Directo without her consent. Plaintiff Directo demanded from defendant Noceda to vacate her land, but the latter refused. Hence, plaintiff Directo filed the present suit, a complaint for the recovery of possession and ownership and rescission/annulment of donation, against defendant Noceda before the lower court. During the trial, the lower court ordered that a relocation survey of Lot 1121 be conducted by Engr. Edilberto Quejada of the Bureau of Lands. After the survey of Lot 1121 in the presence of both parties, Engr. Edilberto Quejada reported that the area of Lot 1121 stated in the extrajudicial settlement-partition of August 17, 1981 was smaller than the actual area of Lot 1121 which is 127,298 square meters. Engr. Quejada subdivided Lot 1121, excluding the portions occupied by third persons, known as Lot 8, the salvage zone and the road lot, on the basis of the actual occupancy of Lot 1121 by the heirs of the late Celestino Arbizo and the extrajudicial settlement-partition of August 17, 1981. The portion denominated as Lot A, with an area of 12,957 square meters was the share of defendant Noceda; Lot C, with the same area as that of Lot A, was the share of plaintiff Directo, a portion of which was donated to defendant Noceda; and Lot B, with an area of 38,872 square meters, went to Maria Arbizo (Exhibit E)." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On November 6, 1991, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, of Iba, Zambales rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: 4

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Court hereby renders judgment:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Declaring the Extra-Judicial Settlement-Partition dated August 19, 1981, valid;

(b) Declaring the Deed of Donation dated June 1, 1981, revoked;

(c) Ordering the defendant to vacate and reconvey that donated portion of Lot 2, Lot 1121 subject of the Deed of Donation dated June 1, 1981 to the plaintiff or her heirs or assigns;

(d) Ordering the defendant to remove the house built inside the donated portion at the defendant’s expense or pay a monthly rental of P300.00 Philippine Currency;

(e) Ordering the defendant to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P5,000.00; and

(f) To pay the cost."cralaw virtua1aw library

Rodolfo Nocedo appealed to the respondent Court which affirmed the trial court as follows: 5

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, ORDERING defendant Rodolfo Noceda to VACATE the portion known as Lot "C" of Lot 1121 per Exhibit E, which was allotted to plaintiff Aurora Arbizo Directo. Except for this modification, the Decision, dated November 6, 1991, of the RTC-Iba, Zambales, Branch 71, in Civil Case No. RTC-354-I, is hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects. Costs against defendant Rodolfo Noceda."cralaw virtua1aw library

Dissatisfied, petitioner filed the instant petition for review with the following assignment of errors: 6

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS LOT 1121 CONTAINS AN AREA IN EXCESS OF THAT STATED IN ITS TAX DECLARATION.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT LOT 1121 SHOULD BE PARTITIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRA-JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT DATED 17 AUGUST 1981.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ADJUDICATING AND ALLOTTING LOT "C" AS APPEARING IN THE SURVEY PLAN PREPARED BY GEODETIC ENGINEER EDILBERTO QUEJADA TO THE RESPONDENT.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PETITIONER USURPED AN AREA ADJUDICATED TO THE RESPONDENT.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN REVOKING THE DEED OF DONATION DATED 1 JUNE 1981.

The first issue raised refers to the actual area of the subject lot known as Lot 1121, which was registered under Tax Declaration No. 16-0032 under the name of the late Celestino Arbizo. Petitioner claims that Tax Declaration No. 16-0032 contains only an area of 29,845 sq. meter; thus the respondent Court exceeded its judicial authority when it sustained the lower court’s findings that the subject property actually contains an area of 127,289 square meters.

We find the argument unmeritorious. The records disclose that the trial court in an Order dated June 8, 1987 gave both parties to this case the chance to have the subject property re-surveyed by a licensed surveyor to determine the actual area of Lot 1121. 7 Plaintiff Aurora Directo filed a motion/compliance where she suggested that Geodetic Engineer Edilberto V. Quejada of the Bureau of Lands, Iba, Zambales be commissioned to undertake the survey 8 said motion was also sent to defendant’s counsel, Atty. Eufracio Pagunuran for Comment, 9 but Atty. Pagunuran however failed to file his Comment within the given period. Thus the trial court designated Engineer Quejada to undertake the survey of Lot 1121. 10 Petitioner Noceda through counsel belatedly filed his Comment without any opposition to the appointment of Engineer Quejada but proposed that the latter be tasked to solely (a) re-survey, determine and identify the metes and bounds of the lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 16-0032; (b) to identify the areas occupied by the parties therein; and (c) to conduct the re-survey with notice and in the presence of the parties therein and their respective counsels. 11 The Comment was not, however, acted upon by the trial court in view of its earlier Order directing Engineer Quejada to undertake the survey of the land. 12 Engr. Quejada conducted the survey with the conformity and in the presence of both parties, taking into consideration the extrajudicial partition dated August 17, 1981, deed of donation dated June 1, 1981 executed by plaintiff Aurora Directo in favor of defendant Rodolfo Noceda and the actual area occupied by the parties, 13 as well as the sketch plan 14 and the technical description of Lot 1121 taken from the Records Section of the Bureau of Lands, Manila. 15 The report and the survey plan submitted by Engr. Quejada were approved by the Trial Court in an Order dated December 7, 1987. 16 These circumstances show that the lower court ordered the re-survey of the lot to determine the actual area of Lot 1121 and such survey was done with the conformity and in the presence of both parties. The actual land area based on the survey plan which was conducted in the presence of both parties, showed a much bigger area than the area declared in the tax declaration but such differences are not uncommon as early tax declarations are, more often than not, based on approximation or estimation rather than on computation. 17 We hold that the respondent court did not err in sustaining the trial court’s findings that the actual area of Lot 1121 is 127,289 square meters.cralawnad

Petitioner also contends that said judicial determination improperly encroaches on the rights and claims of third persons who were never impleaded below; that the subject lot was also declared in the name of one Cecilia Obispo and a Free Patent over the said lot was also issued in her name and that there are several residential houses constructed and existing on Lot 8 of lot 1121, thus these possessors/occupants of Lot 8 should be joined as defendants for their non-inclusion would be fatal to respondent’s cause of action.

We find no merit in this argument. The respondent Court correctly ratiocinated on this issue as follows: 18

"The fact that Cecilia Obispo has tax declarations in her name over Lot 1121 and several persons occupied a portion thereof did not make them indispensable parties in the present case. Defendant Noceda merely presented the tax declarations in the name of Cecilia Obispo without the alleged free patent in her name. Moreover, no evidence was presented showing that Cecilia Obispo possessed or claimed possession of Lot 1121. Tax receipts and declarations of ownership for tax purposes are not conclusive evidence of ownership of property (Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 224 SCRA 285).

It was not necessary that the occupants of a portion of Lot 1121, designated as Lot 8, be impleaded in the present case. Lot 8, though part of Lot 1121, was excluded by Engr. Quejada in determining the respective portions of Lot 1121 occupied by plaintiff Directo, defendant Noceda and Maria Arbizo pursuant to the extrajudicial settlement which they executed on August 17, 1981. The result of the present suit shall not in any way affect the occupants of Lot 8, since the issues involved in the present case are the usurpation by defendant Noceda of the land adjudicated to plaintiff Directo and the propriety of the cancellation of the deed of donation in favor of defendant Noceda due to his ingratitude to plaintiff Directo."cralaw virtua1aw library

Notably, defendant’s counsel requested for the appearance of Cecilia Obispo and despite notice to her to appear in court and bring with her the alleged free patent in her name, 19 she failed to appear and even failed to intervene to protect whatever interest and right she has over the subject lot. As to the other possessors of residential houses in Lot 8 of Lot 1121, they are not considered as indispensable parties to this case. A party is not indispensable to the suit if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is distinct and divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice to the parties in court. 20 Private respondent is not claiming the entire area of Lot 1121 but only a portion thereof which was adjudicated to her based on the August 17, 1981 extrajudicial settlement and which was denominated in the survey plan as Lot C of Lot 1121; thus there was no need to implead the occupants of Lot 8.

Petitioner further claims that the subject property could not be partitioned based on the extrajudicial settlement-partition dated August 17, 1981, since the distributive share of the heirs of the late Celestino Arbizo and the area of Lot 1121 stated therein were different from the extrajudicial settlement executed on June 1, 1981; that the discrepancies between the two deeds of partition with respect to the area of Lot 1121 and the respective share of the parties therein indicated that they never intended that any of the deeds to be the final determination of the portions of Lot 1121 allotted to them; that the extrajudicial settlement-partition of August 17, 1981 could not effectively subdivide Lot 1121 because it partitioned only 29,845 square meters, and not its actual area of 127,298 square meters.

We see no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the respondent Court as follows: 21

The discrepancies between the extrajudicial settlements executed by plaintiff Directo, defendant Noceda and Maria Arbizo on June 1, 1981 and August 17, 1981 only meant that the latter was intended to supersede the former. The signature of defendant Noceda in the extrajudicial settlement of August 17, 1981 would show his conformity to the new apportionment of Lot 1121 among the heirs of the late Celestino Arbizo. The fact that defendant Noceda occupied the portion allotted to him in the extrajudicial settlement, as well as the donated portion of the share of plaintiff Directo, presupposes his knowledge of the extent of boundaries of the portion of Lot 1121 allotted to him. Moreover, the statement in the extrajudicial settlement of August 17, 1981 with respect to the area of Lot 1121, which was 29,845 square meters, is not conclusive because it was found out, after the relocation survey was conducted on Lot 1121, that the parties therein occupied an area larger than what they were supposed to possess per the extrajudicial settlement- partition of August 17, 1981.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Although in the extrajudicial settlement dated August 17, 1981 the heirs of Celestino Arbizo partitioned only a 29,845 square meter lot to conform with the area declared under tax declaration 16-0032 yet the heirs were each actually occupying a bigger portion the total area of which exceeded 29,845 square meters. This was confirmed by Geodetic Engineer Quejada in his report submitted to the trial court where he stated among other things: 22

7. that upon computation of actual survey, it is informed (sic) that the area dated (sic) as per extrajudicial settlement-partition in the name of Celestino Arbizo was smaller than the computed lots of their actual occupancy as per survey on the ground;

8. The Lot A, Lot B, and Lot C as appearing on prepared plan for ready reference was subdivided, base (sic) on stated sharing as per EXTRA JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT-PARTITION base (sic) on actual occupancy.

The survey conducted on Lot 1121 was only a confirmation of the actual areas being occupied by the heirs taking into account the percentage proportion adjudicated to each heir on the basis of their August 17, 1981 extrajudicial settlement.

Petitioner further alleges that the said partition tries to vest in favor of a third person, Maria Arbizo, a right over the said property notwithstanding the absence of evidence establishing that she is an heir of the late Celestino Arbizo since Maria Arbizo was never impleaded as a party in this case and her interest over Lot 1121 was not established.

Such contention deserves scant consideration. We find no compelling basis to disturb the finding of the trial court on this factual issue, as follows: 23

In effect, the defendant denies the allegation of the plaintiff that Maria Arbizo was the third wife of Celestino Arbizo and Agripina is her half sister with a common father. On this point, the Court believes the version of the plaintiff. The Court observes that in the "Extra-Judicial Settlement-Partition" (Exhibit "C"), Maria Arbizo is named one of the co-heirs of the defendant, being the widow of his grandfather, Celestino Arbizo. The names of Anacleto and Agripina do not also appear in the Extra-judicial Settlement and Partition because according to the plaintiff, they had sold their shares to Maria Arbizo. And the defendant is one of the signatories to the said Deed of Extra-judicial Settlement-Partition acknowledged before Notary Public Artemio Maranon. Under the circumstances, the Court is convinced that the defendant knew that Maria Arbizo was the widow of Celestino Arbizo and he knew of the sale of the share of Anacleto Arbizo his share, as well as that of Agripina. When the defendant signed the Extra-Judicial Settlement, he was already an adult since when he testified in 1989, he gave his age as 50 years old. So that in 1981, he was already 41 years old. If he did not know all of these, the defendant would have not agreed to the sharing and signed this document and acknowledged it before the Notary Public. And who could have a better knowledge of the relationship of Agripina and Maria Arbizo to Celestino Arbizo than the latter’s daughter? Besides, at the time of the execution of the Extra-Judicial Settlement-Partition by the plaintiff and defendant, they were still in good terms. There was no reason for the plaintiff to favor Maria Arbizo and Agripina Arbizo over the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant had failed to support his allegation that when his grandfather died he had no wife and child.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We likewise find unmeritorious petitioner’s claim that there exist no factual and legal basis for the adjudication of Lot C of Lot 1121 to private respondent Aurora Directo. It bears stress that the relocation survey plan prepared by Geodetic Engineer Quejada was based on the extrajudicial settlement dated August 17, 1981, and the actual possession by the parties and the technical description of Lot 1121. It was established by the survey plan that based on the actual possession of the parties, and the extrajudicial settlement among the heirs the portion denominated as Lot C of Lot 1121 of the survey plan was being occupied by private respondent Aurora Directo and it was also shown that it is in Lot C where the 625 square meter area donated by private respondent Directo to petitioner is located. There is no obstacle to adjudicate Lot C to private respondent as her rightful share allotted to her in the extrajudicial settlement.

Petitioner argues that he did not usurp the property of respondent Directo since, to date, the metes and bounds of the parcel of land left by their predecessor in interest, Celestino Arbizo, are still undetermined since no final determination as to the exact areas properly pertaining to the parties herein; hence they are still considered as co-owners thereof.

We do not agree.

In this case the source of co-ownership among the heirs was intestate succession. Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs subject to the payment of debts of the deceased. 24 Partition, in general, is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong 25 The purpose of partition is to put an end to co-ownership. It seeks a severance of the individual interest of each co-owner, vesting in each a sole estate in specific property and giving to each one a right to enjoy his estate without supervision or interference from the other. 26 And one way of effecting a partition of the decedent’s estate is by the heirs themselves extrajudicially. The heirs of the late Celestino Arbizo namely Maria Arbizo, Aurora A. Directo (private respondent) and Rodolfo Noceda (petitioner) entered into an extrajudicial settlement of the estate on August 17, 1981 and agreed to adjudicate among themselves the property left by their predecessor-in-interest in the following manner:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

To Rodolfo Noceda goes the northern one-fifth (1/5) portion containing an area of 5,989 sq. meters;

To Maria Arbizo goes the middle three-fifths (3/5) portion;

and . . . To Aurora Arbizo goes the southern one-fifth (1/5) portion. 27

In the survey plan submitted by Engineer Quejada, the portions indicated by red lines and numbered alphabetically were based on the percentage proportion in the extrajudicial settlement and the actual occupancy of each heir which resulted to these divisions as follows: 28

Lot A; the area is 2,957 sq.m. — goes to Rodolfo A. Noceda (1/5)

Lot B; 38,872 sq.m. Maria Arbizo (3/5)chanrobles law library : red

Lot C 12,957 sq.m. Aurora Arbizo (1/5)

Thus, the areas allotted to each heir are now specifically delineated in the survey plan. There is no co-ownership where portion owned is concretely determined and identifiable, though not technically described, or that said portions are still embraced in one and the same certificate of title does not make said portions less determinable or identifiable, or distinguishable, one from the other, nor that dominion over each portion less exclusive, in their respective owners. 29 A partition legally made confers upon each heir the exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to him. 30

We also find unmeritorious petitioner’s argument that since there was no effective and real partition of the subject lot there exists no basis for the charge of usurpation and hence there is also no basis for finding ingratitude against him. It was established that petitioner Noceda occupied not only the portion donated to him by private respondent Aurora Arbizo-Directo but he also fenced the whole area of Lot C which belongs to private respondent Directo, thus petitioner’s act of occupying the portion pertaining to private respondent Directo without the latter’s knowledge and consent is an act of usurpation which is an offense against the property of the donor and considered as an act of ingratitude of a donee against the donor. 31

The law does not require conviction of the donee; it is enough that the offense be proved in the action for revocation. 32

Finally, petitioner contends that granting revocation is proper, the right to enforce the same had already prescribed since as admitted by private respondent, petitioner usurped her property in the first week of September 1985 while the complaint for revocation was filed on September 16, 1986, thus more than one (1) year had passed from the alleged usurpation by petitioner of private respondent’s share in Lot 1121. We are not persuaded. The respondent Court rejected such argument in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Article 769 of the New Civil Code states that: "The action granted to the donor by reason of ingratitude cannot be renounced in advance. This action prescribes within one year to be counted from the time the donor had knowledge of the fact and it was possible for him to bring the action." As expressly stated, the donor must file the action to revoke his donation within one year from the time he had knowledge of the ingratitude of the donee. Also, it must be shown that it was possible for the donor to institute the said action within the same period. The concurrence of these two requisites must be shown by defendant Noceda in order to bar the present action. Defendant Noceda failed to do so. He reckoned the one year prescriptive period from the occurrence of the usurpation of the property of plaintiff Directo in the first week of September, 1985, and not from the time the latter had the knowledge of the usurpation. Moreover, defendant Noceda failed to prove that at the time plaintiff Directo acquired knowledge of his usurpation, it was possible for plaintiff Directo to institute an action for revocation of her donation." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The action to revoke by reason of ingratitude prescribes within one (1) year to be counted from the time (a) the donor had knowledge of the fact; (b) provided that it was possible for him to bring the action. It is incumbent upon petitioner to show proof of the concurrence of these two conditions in order that the one (1) year period for bringing the action be considered to have already prescribed. No competent proof was adduced by petitioner to prove his allegation. In Civil Cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence. 33 He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence. 34

Factual findings of the Court of Appeals, supported by substantial evidence on record are final and conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court; 35 for it is not the function of this Court to re-examine all over again the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties unless the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are not supported by the evidence on record or the judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts. 36 The jurisdiction of this court is thus limited to reviewing errors of law unless there is a showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the record or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion. 37 We find no such showing in this case.

We find that both the trial court and the respondent Court had carefully considered the questions of fact raised below and the respondent Court‘s conclusions are based on the evidence on record. No cogent reason exists for disturbing such findings. 38 We also note that petitioner in this petition merely rehashed the same issues and arguments raised in the respondent Court in whose decision we find no reversible error. Clearly, petitioner failed to present any substantial argument to justify a reversal of the assailed decision.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DENIED. Costs against Appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Purisima, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by Justice Jaime M. Lantin, concurred in by Justices Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez and Bernardo LL. Salas.

2. Docketed as Civil Case No. RTC-354-I.

3. Rollo, pp. 33-35.

4. Records, pp. 209-210.

5. Rollo, p. 41.

6. Rollo, pp. 11-12.chanrobles law library : red

7. Records, p. 54.

8. Records, pp. 56-57.

9. Ibid, p. 59.

10. Ibid, p. 61.

11. Ibid, pp. 63-64.

12. Ibid, p. 66.

13. Ibid, p. 81, Exhibit "F" .

14. TSN, November 14, 1988, pp. 2-3.

15. Ibid, p. 4.

16. Ibid, p. 87.

17. Director of Lands v. Funtilar, 142 SCRA 57; Dolomite Mining Corporation v. Montalbo, 217 SCRA 687.

18. Rollo, pp. 36-37.

19. Records, p. 171.

20. Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. CA, 251 SCRA 70.

21. Rollo, pp. 37-38.

22. Exhibit "F", Records, p. 82.

23. Records, p. 206.

24. Article 1078 of the Civil Code.

25. Article 1079 of the Civil Code.

26. Villamor v. CA, 162 SCRA 574 citing Confesor v. Pelayo, 111 Phil. 416.

27. Records, p. 6, Exhibit "C" .

28. Rollo, p. 84, Exhibit "E" .

29. Dela Cruz v. Cruz, 32 SCRA 307.

30. Article 1091 of the Civil Code.

31. Art. 765. The donation may also be revoked at the instance of the donor, by reason of ingratitude in the following cases:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) If the donee should commit some offense against the person, the honor or the property of the donor, or of his wife or children under his parental authority;

(2) . . .

32. Tolentino, Volume II, 1992 edition, p. 575, citing 7 Colin & Capitant 638.

33. New Testament Church of God v. CA, 246 SCRA 266; Sapuan v. CA, 214 SCRA 701.

34. P.T. Cerna Corporation v. CA, 221 SCRA 19.

35. Meneses v. CA, 246 SCRA 162; Fortune Motors (Phils.) Corp. v. CA, 267 SCRA 653.

36. Navarro v. CA, 209 SCRA 613; Remalante v. Tibe, et.al., 158 SCRA 138; Pantranco North Express Inc. v. CA, 224 SCRA 477.

37. BA Finance Corporation v. CA, 229 SCRA 566; Lim v. CA, 158 SCRA 307; Samson v. CA, 141 SCRA 194.

38. [Heirs of Jose Olviga v. CA, 227 SCRA 330.chanrobles.com : virtual law library




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





September-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. RTJ-98-1406 September 1, 1998 - EVELYN DE AUSTRIA v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN

  • G.R. No. 129680 September 1, 1998 - CARRARA MARBLE PHIL. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. 136159 September 1, 1998 - MACRINA S. SAURA, ET AL. v. RAMON G. SAURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96428 September 2, 1998 - WILMA T. BARRAMEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118784 September 2, 1998 - CHRISTINA AYUSTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119730 September 2, 1998 - RODOLFO NOCEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 127022 & 127245 September 2, 1998 - FIRESTONE CERAMICS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130501 September 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 130550 September 2, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES PEÑAFLORIDA

  • G.R. No. 106916 September 3, 1998 - MASAGANA CONCRETE PRODUCTS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116568 September 3, 1998 - DELFIN GARCIA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125808 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE TAPALES

  • G.R. No. 129103 September 3, 1998 - CLAUDIO DELOS REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130525 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SACAPAÑO

  • G.R. No. 130964 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ACUNO

  • G.R. No. 131827 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GERLITO PELEN

  • G.R. Nos. 131830-34 September 3, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY MOSQUEDA

  • G.R. No. 125848 September 6, 1998 - EDMUNDO BENAVIDEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120011 September 7, 1998 - LINO A. SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122732 September 7, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR BAYRON

  • G.R. No. 127844 September 7, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH GALICGIC

  • G.R. No. 129521 September 7, 1998 - SEC, ET AL. v. MANUEL D. RECTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122725 September 8, 1998 - BIOGENERICS MARKETING, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124920 September 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ROSALES

  • A.C. No. 5118 September 9, 1998 - MARILOU SEBASTIAN v. DOROTHEO CALIS

  • A.M. No. P-98-1274 September 9, 1998 - ACELA P. LEONOR v. VILMA B. DELFIN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1477 September 9, 1998 - MAXIMINO BALAYO v. MAMERTO M. BUBAN

  • G.R. No. 119085 September 9, 1998 - RESTAURANTE LAS CONCHAS, ET AL. v. LYDIA LLEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120066 September 9, 1998 - OCTABELA ALBA Vda. De RAZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120465 September 9, 1998 - WILLIAM UY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121764 September 9, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL H. SESBREÑO

  • G.R. No. 124506 September 9, 1998 - ROMEL JAYME v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129939 September 9, 1998 - AMOR D. DELOSO, ET AL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133535 September 9, 1998 - LILIA B. ORGANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ- 94-923 & MTJ- 95-11-125-MCTC September 10, 1998 - ELENA E. JABAO v. MELCHOR E. BONILLA

  • G.R. No. 121982 September 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONILO CUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 125646 & 128663 September 10, 1998 - CITY OF PASIG v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129418 September 10, 1998 - RODRIGO G. HABANA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134222 September 10, 1998 - DON TINO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. JULIAN FLORENTINO

  • G.R. No. 139043 September 10, 1998 - ALVIN B. GARCIA v. ARTURO C. MOJICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103073 September 14, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108710 September 14, 1998 - ARMANDO T. DE ROSSI v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110672 & 111201 September 14, 1998 - RURAL BANK OF STA. MARIA, v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116109 September 14, 1998 - JACINTO OLAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121365 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACAPANTON SALIMBAGO

  • G.R. No. 126998 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL ELLOREG DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 127370 September 14, 1998 - PNB-REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128075 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ABLANEDA

  • G.R. No. 128325 September 14, 1998 - RODOLFO CAOILI , ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128734 September 14, 1998 - ANGEL L. BOLEYLEY v. CLARENCE J. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 128927 September 14, 1998 - REMEDIOS NOTA SAPIERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129286 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMIE BANTILAN

  • G.R. No. 129843 September 14, 1998 - BLUE DAIRY CORPORATION, ET AL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129882 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO TAN

  • G.R. No. 130947 September 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ROMAN

  • G.R. No. 132244 September 14, 1998 - GERARDO ANGAT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 134104 September 14, 1998 - NENITA R. ORCULLO v. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO

  • G.R. No. 118971 September 15, 1998 - RODOLFO R. VASQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129692 September 15, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUBAKAR ANG-NGUHO

  • G.R. No. 104944 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON SUPLITO

  • G.R. No. 115215 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELIZALDE FACO

  • G.R. No. 121719 September 16, 1998 - VICENTE MANINANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125931 September 16, 1998 - UNION MOTORS CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126047 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130067 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETA "ANNIE" MORENO

  • G.R. No. 130604 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELESTINO JUNTILLA

  • G.R. No. 131784 September 16, 1998 - FELIX L. GONZALES vs.THOMAS and PAULA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 133064 September 16, 1998 - JOSE C. MIRANDA, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133949-51 September 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN BUENDIA

  • G.R. No. 136203 September 16, 1998 - LOREÑO TERRY v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 138520 September 16, 1998 - BALAGTAS MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1483 September 17, 1998 - LAURO D. GACAYAN, ET AL. v. FERNANDO PAMINTUAN

  • A.M. No. P-93-989 September 21, 1998 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RODRIGO B. GALO

  • G.R. No. 96982 September 21, 1998 - EMILIANO A. RIZADA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103453 September 21, 1998 - LUIS CEREMONIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 106516 September 21, 1998 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120554 September 21, 1998 - SO PING BUN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124355 September 21, 1998 - CHING SEN BEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126118 September 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PROCOPIO TRESBALLES

  • G.R. No. 127315 September 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL "Lito" BALDEVIESO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132061 September 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO HIVELA

  • A.C. No. 5135 September 22, 1998 - ELSIE B. AROMIN, ET AL. v. VALENTIN O. BONCAVIL

  • A.M. No. 99-8-126-MTC September 22, 1998 - ISSUANCE OF HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER OF JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG

  • G.R. Nos. 84813 & 84848 September 22, 1998 - DOMEL TRADING CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123901 September 22, 1998 - ENRIQUE A. BARROS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128001 September 22, 1998 - MINERVA FRANCO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131847 September 22, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARMELITO S. ABELLA

  • G.R. No. 133076 September 22, 1998 - MOISES S. SAMSON v. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135869 September 22, 1998 - RUSTICO H. ANTONIO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Administrative Case No. 1571 September 23, 1998 - PARALUMAN B. AFURONG v. ANGEL G. AQUINO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1340 September 23, 1998 - ZENAIDA MUSNI v. ERNESTO G. MORALES

  • G.R. No. 108129 September 23, 1998 - AEROSPACE CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110873 September 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118647 September 23, 1998 - CONSOLIDATED FOOD CORP., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130460 September 23, 1998 - HERMINIO A. SIASOCO, ET AL. v. JANUARIO N. NARVAJA

  • G.R. No. 135042 September 23, 1998 - ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. JESUS V. QUITAIN

  • G.R. No. 135716 September 23, 1998 - FERDINAND TRINIDAD v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114299 & 118862 September 24, 1998 - TRADERS ROYAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128874 September 24, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMSON B. BRAGAS

  • G.R. No. 116599 September 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PAGPAGUITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129304 September 27, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVA MA. VICTORIA CARIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. 135691 September 27, 1998 - EMMANUEL SINACA v. MIGUEL MULA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 105954-55 September 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO FAJARDO

  • G.R. No. 114323 September 28, 1998 - OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126152 September 28, 1998 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128806 September 28, 1998 - KAMS INTERNATIONAL INC, ET AL.. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130632 September 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NATY CHUA

  • G.R. No. 131621 September 28, 1998 - LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132324 September 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORLITO TAN, and JOSE TAN

  • G.R. No. 136294 September 28, 1998 - MARIA G. BALUYUT, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GUIAO, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4017 September 29, 1998 - GATCHALIAN PROMOTIONS TALENTS POOL v. PRIMO R. NALDOZA

  • A.C. No. 5141 September 29, 1998 - PRISCILA L. TOLEDO v. ERLINDA ABALOS

  • A.M. No. CA-99-30 September 29, 1998 - UNITED BF HOMEOWNERS v. ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-94-904 September 29, 1998 - JOSEPHINE C. MARTINEZ v. CESAR N. ZOLETA

  • G.R. No. 105374 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO (DAGIT) RABANG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 124736 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO GALLO

  • G.R. No. 125330 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO TAHOP

  • G.R. No. 128157 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL MANAHAN

  • G.R. No. 132878 September 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 137793 September 29, 1998 - NILO H. RAYMUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139281 September 29, 1998 - ROMUALDO SUAREZ v. ARSENIO SALAZAR

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1209 September 30, 1998 - FLAVIANO G. ARQUERO v. TERTULO A. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 105327 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO QUINAGORAN

  • G.R. No. 108135-36 September 30, 1998 - POTENCIANA M. EVANGELISTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111915 September 30, 1998 - HEIRS OF FERNANDO VINZONS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113070 September 30, 1998 - PAMPIO A. ABARINTOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113781 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. VERGILIO REYES

  • G.R. No. 120235 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 121324 September 30, 1998 - PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHIL INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122269 September 30, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, Et. Al.

  • G.R. Nos. 127173-74 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRENETO CERVETO

  • G.R. No. 127608 September 30, 1998 - GUADALUPE S. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128129 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TUNDAGUI GAYOMMA

  • G.R. No. 128862 September 30, 1998 - ESTRELLA REAL ESTATE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130425 September 30, 1998 - ANTONIO C. CAÑETE JR. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131166 September 30, 1998 - CALTEX (PHIL.) v. SULPICIO LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132480 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANDY RAQUIÑO

  • G.R. No. 135451 September 30, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO F. SERRANO, SR.

  • G.R. No. 135996 September 30, 1998 - EMILIANO R. "BOY" CARUNCHO III v. COMELEC, ET AL.