Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > October 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 138979 October 9, 2000 - ERNESTO BUNYE v. LOURDES AQUINO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 138979. October 9, 2000.]

ERNESTO BUNYE, Petitioner, v. LOURDES AQUINO, CITA AQUINO and ROBERTO AQUINO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


GONZAGA-REYES, J.:


Assailed in this petition for review is the June 15, 1999 Decision of the Court of Appeals which modified its own decision promulgated on November 26, 1998 with regard to the size of the homelot awarded to respondents. 1

Respondents Lourdes, Cita and Roberto, all surnamed Aquino, are the children of the late Bartolome Aquino who was instituted in 1967 as a tenant over a 16,974.50 square meter lot located at Ilaya street, Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila belonging to Zoilo Bunye, the father of petitioner Ernesto Bunye. Sometime in 1970, Zoilo Bunye told Bartolome Aquino to stop cultivating 14,474.50 square meters of the land since the former was going to devote the same to commercial uses. No disturbance compensation was paid to Bartolome Aquino, but Zoilo Bunye permitted Bartolome Aquino to continue cultivating the remaining 2,500 square meters and promised him a homelot within the said area. Considering himself aggrieved, Bartolome Aquino repaired to the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) in order to seek judicial recognition of his tenancy status over the remaining 2,500 square meters. 2 The CAR rendered judgment recognizing Bartolome Aquino as a tenant over 2,500 square meters of the subject property with a fixed annual rental of P140.00. On November 5, 1976, the Court of Appeals affirmed the CAR’s decision. 3 Thus, Bartolome Aquino continued in the possession and cultivation of 2,500 square meters of Zoilo Bunye’s land and he constructed his family home on a 500 square meter area thereon.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On February 20, 1986, the then Minister of Agrarian Reform Conrado Estrella approved Ernesto Bunye’s petition for the conversion of the 2,500 square meters of land tenanted by respondents from agricultural land to residential and commercial land. Petitioner was able to eject respondents from 2,000 square meters of the converted land, leaving only 500 square meters in the possession of respondents. Since petitioner sought to eject respondents from even the 500 square meters of land they occupied, respondents filed a complaint with the Office of the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, insisting that they are entitled to the possession of the 500 square meters of land occupied as a homelot as part of the compensation for the deprivation of the 16,974.5 square meters of land originally tenanted by Bartolome Aquino. 4

On April 11, 1996, the Regional Adjudicator Fe Arche-Manalang held that no tenurial relations could exist between the parties as the land had ceased to be agricultural by virtue of its conversion in 1986, even before Bartolome Aquino’s death in 1988. Correspondingly, respondents cannot claim entitlement to possession of the homelot originally granted to their father since the right to the same is co-terminous with the existence of an agricultural leasehold relationship. Petitioner was ordered to pay respondents disturbance compensation for the latter’s dispossession from 2,500 square meters of tenanted land. The Regional Adjudicator also awarded a 75 square meter homelot to respondents but only as an alternative relief in the event that the disturbance compensation could not be computed. The factual findings and conclusions of the Regional Adjudicator are set out below —

Before delving into the merits of the first issue cited above, the following undisputed facts must be borne in mind:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Bartolome Aquino’s tenancy status over a 2,500 sq. m. portion of the property presently registered in the name of Z. E. Bunye and Sons Realty Estate Corporation under TCT No-S-77427 was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a decision rendered as early as November 5, 1976;

2. On February 20, 1986, the said 2,500 sq. m. was approved for conversion subject to the payment of disturbance compensation to the affected tenant;

3. As found in the ocular inspection and investigation report incorporated in the aforementioned Order of Conversion dated February 20, 1986, only about 500 sq. m. remained devoted to agricultural cultivation, the rest being utilized for residential use by the identified tenant Bartolome Aquino.

Against this backdrop, the only inevitable conclusions that can be drawn are: 1) at the time of the original tenant Bartolome Aquino’s death in 1988, the property in question ceased to be agricultural in nature and character by virtue of its conversion to non-agricultural use in 1986; 2) since no valid tenurial relations can continue to exist on land that is no longer agricultural it follows that no tenancy relationship can possibly devolve by way of succession upon the tenant’s surviving heirs with his death in 1988 as envisioned in Section 9 of RA 3844, as amended. As things now stand, Complainants cannot even demand the right to continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any homelot awarded to their late father as the same is co-terminous with the existence of a legitimate tenancy or agricultural leasehold relationship (Vide, Section 22 (3), RA 1199 as amended) which is not the situation obtaining in the case at bar. All they can hope for is to claim payment of disturbance compensation which was denied in 1986 to their father during his lifetime equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on the landholding during the last preceding calendar years (Vide, Section 36 (1) of RA 3844 as amended). Even assuming arguendo that the late tenant was promised a homelot consisting of 500 sq. m. in lieu of a disturbance compensation, such verbal agreement is unenforceable as it is not contained in a public document as required by law.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Viewed in the light of the foregoing discussion, the first and second issues can only be resolved adversely against the Complainants EXCEPT in the matter of payment of disturbance compensation to which they are fully entitled. However, by way of alternative relief since no production data is extant in the records upon which the said computation can be based, this Office in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, deems it appropriate to award to the Complainants in lieu thereof a homelot consisting of 75 sq. m. as originally offered by the Respondent in their initial exploratory talks on the possibility of an amicable settlement or compromise. 5

x       x       x


On June 10, 1998, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirmed the Regional Adjudicator’s decision. 6

Respondents elevated the matter before the Court of Appeals. Although the Court of Appeals modified the DARAB’s decision by providing that disturbance compensation should be paid for the entire 16,974.50 square meters of the subject property, it upheld the award of 75 square meters in favor of respondents in lieu of disturbance compensation. The appellate court explained in its November 26, 1998 decision that —

There is nothing in the records to show that Zoilo Bunye granted Bartolome Aquino a homelot of 500 sq. m. as claimed by the heirs of the latter. The evidence shows that Bunye converted 14,474.50 out of his 16,924.50 sq. m. landholding for commercial purposes and left 2,500 sq. m. to be cultivated by his tenant Bartolome Aquino promising him a homelot therein without specifying the area. The fact that Aquino set aside and occupied upon his own decision 500 sq. m. as his homelot does not entitle him to the same area as a matter of right, absent a specific grant from Bunye.

However, there seems to be no question that Bartolome Aquino did not receive disturbance compensation for the 14,974.50 sq. m. of which he was dispossessed; neither were his heirs paid any such compensation for the 2,500 sq. m. left which Ernesto Bunye also had converted into a commercial lot.

The DARAB did not err when it affirmed the decision of the Regional Adjudicator granting the petitioners disturbance compensation. However, the decision did not specify the area for which such compensation is to be paid. We believe that the compensation should be for the entire 16,974.50 sq. m. previously tenanted by Bartolome Aquino and later by his heirs, since it is admitted that the tenant was not paid such disturbance compensation when the land was converted into a commercial area.

We likewise agree with the DARAB when it set aside an area of 75 sq. m. as the homelot for the heirs of Aquino. The area is reasonable enough considering the purpose for which it is intended.

The Aquinos, however, want the privilege to be able to choose whether they will avail of the 75 sq. m. homelot or the disturbance compensation for the entire 16,974.50 to which they are entitled in the event that they are found not entitled to the 500 sq. m. homelot they claim. We think that this is reasonable and is not prohibited by any existing law.cralaw : red

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board is AFFIRMED with the clarification that the disturbance compensation payable shall be for the whole area of 16,974.50 sq. m. and with the modification that the petitioners shall be allowed to choose whether they opt for the payment of disturbance compensation or for a homelot of 75 sq. m..

No costs.

SO ORDERED. 7

However, acting upon a motion for reconsideration filed by respondents, the Court of Appeals modified its decision by increasing the size of the homelot to 500 square meters. In its assailed decision promulgated on June 15, 1999, the appellate court ratiocinated that —

x       x       x


The petitioners pointed out that at the time their father Bartolome Aquino gave up to his landowner the 14,974.50 sq. m. being worked by him which was converted to commercial use in 1970, their father was not paid any disturbance compensation, but was promised a homelot out of the 2,500 sq. m. left; that while it is true that the landowner had the right to choose which portion of the land tenanted should be used as a homelot, this right was not exercised by the landowner in this case and the choice was left to their father Bartolome Aquino which portion of the 2,500 sq. m. would be left as his homelot.

The petitioners further argue that since the tenancy of their father Bartolome Aquino over the land of respondent Bunye’s predecessor took place before the approval of Republic Act 3844 on August 8, 1963, his right to a homelot was governed by Republic Act 1199 which was passed on August 30, 1954, Section 22 of which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 22. Par. (3) The tenant shall have the right to demand for a homelot suitable for dwelling with an area of not more than 3 percent of the area of his landholding provided that it does not exceed one thousand square meters and that it shall be located at a convenient and suitable place within the land of the landholder to be designated by the latter where the tenant shall construct his dwelling and may raise vegetables, poultry, pigs and other animals and engage in minor industries, the products of which shall accrue to the tenant exclusively. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus, they contend that three (3) percent of 16,924.80 is 507.75 sq. m. so that the area of 500 sq. m. occupied by the late Bartolome Aquino as a homelot is just right for the total area of 16,924.80 sq. m. being tenanted by him when 14,974.80 was converted for commercial purposes.

We find petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration meritorious.

The Decision of this Court dated November 26, 1998 setting aside 75 square meters of the land in question as a homelot for the petitioners is therefore modified by increasing the area to five hundred (500) square meters.

SO ORDERED. 8

Petitioner is now before this Court disputing the legality of the appellate court’s decision to increase the size of the homelot awarded to respondents to 500 square meters. It is pointed out by petitioner that in both the April 11, 1996 DARAB decision and in the November 5, 1976 Court of Appeals decision (CA-G.R. No. 04377-CAR) the tenancy right of Bartolome Aquino was limited to 2,500 square meters of the subject land. Thus, the size of the homelot should have been determined based on 2,500 square meters, not 16,924.80 square meters. Petitioner prays that the June 15, 1999 decision of the Court of Appeals be annulled, and that we reinstate the original decision promulgated on November 26, 1998, except for that portion decreeing that the disturbance compensation be computed based on 16,974.50 square meters of tenanted land, a matter also disputed by petitioner. 9

On the other hand, respondents insist that they are entitled to 500 square meters for use as a homelot based on the alleged promise of Zoilo Bunye to their father Bartolome Aquino of a homelot out of the remaining 2,500 square meters, which promise was made when Bartolome Aquino was dispossessed of 14,474.50 square meters of the total area of 16,974.50 square meters of tenanted land. 10

We are unable to sustain the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals. There is nothing in the records to support respondents’ claim that Zoilo Bunye gave Bartolome Aquino 500 square meters of land to be used as a homelot. The Regional Adjudicator, the DARAB and the Court of Appeals (in its November 26, 1998 decision) all found that the respondents were entitled to 75 square meters of land, not because of the alleged promise by petitioner’s predecessor, but rather, in lieu of disturbance compensation for their dispossession of tenanted land. Yet, in an unexpected reversal of its original decision, the appellate court increased the area of the homelot to 500 square meters based merely on respondents’ insistence that Zoilo Bunye promised Bartolome Aquino a homelot within the 2,500 square meters of tenanted land. Respondents claim that since Zoilo Bunye did not designate what portion of the land should be used as a homelot, Bartolome Aquino had the right to decide the matter for himself. Clearly, by relying solely on respondents’ self-serving allegations, the assailed decision is not supported by substantial evidence — the requisite quantum of evidence in agrarian cases. 11 Moreover, the appellate court premised its decision to increase the size of the homelot to 500 square meters upon an erroneous application of Republic Act No. 1199, proceeding from respondents’ allegation that the tenancy relationship between Zoilo Bunye and Bartolome Aquino was established before the approval of Republic Act No. 3844 on August 8, 1963. It has already been established in the decision of the Regional Adjudicator, as affirmed by the DARAB, and in the November 26, 1998 decision of the Court of Appeals that the tenancy relation began sometime in 1967. We find no reason to overturn this factual finding. In addition, it was admitted by respondents in their complaint filed with the Office of the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator that it was only in 1967 that Zoilo Bunye verbally instituted Bartolome Aquino as a tenant upon his land. 12 Thus, contrary to the appellate court’s declaration, the applicable law is Republic Act No. 3844 which took effect on August 22, 1963, and not Republic Act No. 1199.

Even assuming that Zoilo Bunye did in fact promise and deliver 500 square meters of his land to Bartolome Aquino for use as a homelot, the right of the latter to enjoy the same ceased when the remaining 2,500 square meters of petitioner’s land was converted to residential and commercial land in 1986. Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, 13 provides —

SECTION 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) The landholding is declared by the department head upon recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes: Provided, That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years;

x       x       x


Neither petitioner nor respondent questioned the conversion decreed in 1986, which was a factual finding of both the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Court of Appeals; therefore, it should be presumed that the conversion was validly and legally done. Thus, even before Bartolome Aquino died in 1988, tenurial relations had already been extinguished, leaving respondents without any claim upon the homelot allegedly promised by Zoilo Bunye to their father.

In the event that tenanted land is converted pursuant to section 36 of Republic Act No. 3844, the only relief available to respondents is the payment of disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years. The award of 75 square meters of land originally granted by the Regional Adjudicator and subsequently affirmed by the DARAB was made in lieu of disturbance compensation for the dispossession of respondents of 2,500 square meters of land. Although the Court of Appeals in its November 26, 1998 Decision affirmed the grant of 75 square meters of land as reasonable, it simultaneously declared that respondents are entitled to disturbance compensation for the entire 16,974.50 square meters of land originally tenanted by Bartolome Aquino.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

On this point, we agree with petitioner that the appellate court committed a reversible error when it awarded disturbance compensation for 16,974.50 square meters. In 1970, Bartolome Aquino was dispossessed of 14,474.50 square meters when the land was converted to commercial use. Bartolome Aquino then filed a complaint with the CAR seeking to be recognized as a tenant over the remaining 2,500 square meters of the subject land. 14 He did not make a claim for disturbance compensation for the 14,474.50 square meters of land of which he was dispossessed. The CAR rendered judgment recognizing Bartolome Aquino as a tenant over 2,500 square meters of land, which decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. 04377), but neither the CAR nor the appellate court awarded any disturbance compensation. Notwithstanding, from 1976 until 1995 respondents never sought the payment of disturbance compensation for the 14,474.50 square meters of land. Under section 38 of Republic Act No. 3844, an action to enforce any cause of action under such law shall be barred if not commenced within three years after such cause of action accrued. 15 Unquestionably, respondents’ claim for disturbance compensation for the 14,474.50 square meters of land of which their father was dispossessed in 1970 has prescribed. Thus, respondents are only entitled to disturbance compensation for their dispossession of 2,500 square meters of land and we find that, in the absence of adequate data on the land’s harvests, the award of 75 square meters is a fair and adequate alternative relief.

WHEREFORE, the June 15, 1999 Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE. Accordingly, we REINSTATE the appellate court’s November 26, 1998 Decision with the modification that the disturbance compensation should only be paid for the dispossession of respondents from 2,500 square meters of petitioner’s land.

SO ORDERED.

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

Endnotes:



1. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 48224 and assigned to the Seventh Division composed of Justices Salome A. Montoya, ponente and chairman, Eloy R. Bello; and Ruben T. Reyes.

2. Docketed as CAR Case No. 1056-R-73.

3. Docketed as CA-G.R. No. 04377-CAR.

4. Rollo, 47-54.

5. Ibid., 30-38.

6. DAR Records, 276-280.

7. Rollo, 39-44.

8. Ibid., 45-46.

9. Ibid., 19-29, 131-146.

10. Ibid., 124-125.

11. Sintos v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 223 (1995), citing Hernandez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 189 SCRA 758 (1990).

12. Rollo, 48.

13. Approved on September 10, 1971.

14. Memorandum of respondents, 8.

15. Sintos v. Court of Appeals, supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 108552 October 2, 2000 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109305 October 2, 2000 - INSURANCE SERVICES and COMMERCIAL TRADERS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121182 October 2, 2000 - VICTORIO ESPERAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121408 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO DECILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122733 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SASAN BARIQUIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123130 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR MIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129211 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129315 October 2, 2000 - OSIAS I. CORPORAL, SR., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138584 October 2, 2000 - MARIA VICTORIA CANO-GUTIERREZ v. HERMINIO A. GUTIERREZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1213 October 2, 2000 - FRANK LAWRENCE A. CARIÑO v. JONATHAN S. BITENG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1469 October 2, 2000 - JULIUS N. RABOCA v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1263 October 3, 2000 - EDUARDO MA. QUINTERO, ET AL. v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-00-1430 October 3, 2000 - ATTY. JOSEPHINE MUTIA-HAGAD v. IGNACIO DENILA

  • G.R. No. 106873 October 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119794 October 3, 2000 - TOMAS SEE TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125005 October 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO CABILES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126881 October 3, 2000 - HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130547 October 3, 2000 - LEAH ALESNA REYES, ET AL. v. SISTERS OF MERCY HOSPITAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138544 October 3, 2000 - SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. RODOLFO M. CUENCA

  • G.R. No. 140823 October 3, 2000 - MELVYN U. CALVAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. OCA-00-03 October 4, 2000 - LIWAYWAY G. BANIQUED v. EXEQUIEL C. ROJAS

  • A.M. No. P-99-1285 October 4, 2000 - TERESITA REYES-DOMINGO v. BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

  • G.R. No. 127405 October 4, 2000 - MARJORIE TOCAO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128559 & 130911 October 4, 2000 - SEC. OF EDUC., CULTURE AND SPORTS, ET AL VS. COURT OF APPEALS; ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129371 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132633 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GEMOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134480-82 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGTRAYO

  • G.R. No. 137798 October 4, 2000 - LUCIA R. SINGSON v. CALTEX (PHILS.)

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1296 October 5, 2000 - ALBERT R. SORDAN v. ROLANDO B. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. Nos. 115251-52 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN O. DEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111904 October 5, 2000 - AGRIPINO GESTOPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129532 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE HILOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130613 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131942 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO BAWANG

  • G.R. No. 133904 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO DELA CUESTA

  • G.R. Nos. 134143-47 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CATUBIG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 139592 October 5, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112792-93 October 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL TAGUBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119602 October 6, 2000 - WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133448-53 October 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136781, 136786 & 136795 October 6, 2000 - VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108615 October 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO VEDRA

  • G.R. No. 125468 October 9, 2000 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILS. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128110-11 October 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE UBALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128121 & 128993 October 9, 2000 - PHIL. CREOSOTING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138979 October 9, 2000 - ERNESTO BUNYE v. LOURDES AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140904 October 9, 2000 - RENE S. ONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-2-27-MTCC October 10, 2000 - EDELITO I. ALFONSO. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC)

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1247 October 10, 2000 - CHARLES N. UY v. NELIDA S. MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 128002 October 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO BONITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132168 October 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 133511 October 10, 2000 - WILLIAM G. PADOLINA, ET AL. v. OFELIA D. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680 & 138698 October 10, 2000 - BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) ET AL. v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109143 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO G. TALIMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109853 October 11, 2000 - PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. C A

  • G.R. No. 120897 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERO DAYUHA

  • G.R. No. 130177 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN BARRAMEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139020 October 11, 2000 - PAQUITO BUAYA v. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO.

  • A.M. No. 00-1395 October 12, 2000 - FRANCIA MERILO-BEDURAL v. OSCAR EDROSO

  • G.R. No. 97913 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO CARROZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106634 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NINOY MALBOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119832 October 12, 2000 - RAYMUNDO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122047 October 12, 2000 - SERAFIN SI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122451 October 12, 2000 - CAGAYAN ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127130 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. EBIAS

  • G.R. No. 127316 October 12, 2000 - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-1-48-RTC October 12, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC-BRANCH 20

  • G.R. No. 137378 October 12, 2000 - PHIL. ALUMINUM WHEELS v. FASGI ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 138596 October 12, 2000 - FIDELIS ARAMBULO v. HILARION LAQUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139524 October 12, 2000 - PHILIP C. SANTOS, ET AL. v. LADISLAO M. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135695-96 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS TUNDAG

  • G.R. No. 120077 October 13, 2000 - MANILA HOTEL CORP. ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120350 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE YAMBOT

  • G.R. No. 120546 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO OPERAÑA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 120787 October 13, 2000 - CARMELITA G. ABRAJANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123147 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH MANENG

  • G.R. No. 123176 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR RAFAEL

  • G.R. No. 128230 October 13, 2000 - ROCKWELL PERFECTO GOHU v. ALBERTO GOHU, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134628-30 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO ARVES

  • G.R. No. 137269 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MULLER BALDINO

  • G.R. No. 140825 October 13, 2000 - CIPRIANO CENTENO, ET AL. v. IGNACIA CENTENO

  • G.R. No. 115813 October 16, 2000 - EDUARDO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120367 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO BARRETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120697 October 16, 2000 - STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121971 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINARIO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129892 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BARRO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 130610 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 132071 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL DE GUZMAN

  • A.M. No. CA-99-30 October 16, 2000 - UNITED BF HOMEOWNERS v. ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1234 October 16, 2000 - JESUS G. CHAVEZ v. PANCRACIO N. ESCAÑAN

  • A.M. RTJ 00-1593 October 16, 2000 - JAIME MORTA, SR. v. JOSE S. SAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131518 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO R. ARELLANO

  • G.R. No. 134761 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUINALDO CATUIRAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136003-04 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO A. ADAJIO

  • G.R. No. 138113 October 17, 2000 - EMILIO BUGATTI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138516-17 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMA DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139465 October 17, 2000 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. RALPH C. LANTION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140453 October 17, 2000 - TRANSFARM & CO., INC. ET AL. v. DAEWOO CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC October 18, 2000 - JUDICIAL AUDIT REPORT

  • A.C. No. 5333 October 18, 2000 - ROSA YAP PARAS v. JUSTO DE JESUS PARAS

  • G.R. No. 114028 October 18, 2000 - SALVADOR SEBASTIAN, SR. v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116417 October 18, 2000 - ALBERTO MAGLASANG, JR. v. MERCEDES GOZO DADOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121994 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS.. v. ANGELES TEVES

  • G.R. No. 123545 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELO PALIJON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127846 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO G. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 127851 October 18, 2000 - CORONA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128134 October 18, 2000 - FE D. LAYSA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 128703 October 18, 2000 - TEODORO BAÑAS, ET AL. v. ASIA PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 129573 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO DIMAPILIS

  • G.R. No. 130590 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANILLO PONCE HERMOSO

  • G.R. No. 131144 October 18, 2000 - NOEL ADVINCULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131280 October 18, 2000 - PEPE CATACUTAN, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF NORMAN KADUSALE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135517 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMELITO BRONDIAL

  • G.R. No. 136393 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADIO ITDANG

  • G.R. No. 138842 October 18, 2000 - NATIVIDAD P. NAZARENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140942 October 18, 2000 - BENIGNO M. SALVADOR v. JORGE Z. ORTOLL

  • A.M. No. P-00-1432 October 19, 2000 - JOSE C. SARMIENTO v. ROMULO C. VICTORIA

  • G.R. No. 119002 October 19, 2000 - INTERNATIONAL EXPRESS TRAVEL & TOUR SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129380 October 19, 2000.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 133696 October 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR CALlWAN

  • G.R. No. 135337 October 19, 2000 - CITY OF OLONGAPO v. STALLHOLDERS OF THE EAST BAJAC-BAJAC PUBLIC MARKET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135527 October 19, 2000 - GEMINIANO DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO ARLOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135699-700 & 139103 October 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR CLADO

  • G.R. No. 135775 October 19, 2000 - EMERENCIANO ESPINOSA, ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136490 October 19, 2000 - BRENDA B. MARCOS v. WILSON G. MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 112924 October 20, 2000 - EDUARDO P. BALANAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120539 October 20, 2000 - LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. MONINA A. ZENOROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120931 October 20, 2000 - TAG FIBERS, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129651 October 20, 2000 - FRANK UY and UNIFISH PACKING CORPORATION v. BIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131141 October 20, 2000 - VICTORINA MOTUS PEÑAVERDE v. MARIANO PEÑAVERDE

  • G.R. No. 131541 October 20, 2000 - THERMOCHEM INC., ET AL. v. LEONORA NAVAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131806 October 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO CABIGTING

  • G.R. No. 132677 October 20, 2000 - ISABELA COLLEGES v. HEIRS OF NIEVES TOLENTINO-RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 136252 October 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO L. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 117949 October 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX BANTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121438 October 23, 2000 - FELIX UY CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128127 October 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO BRIONES

  • G.R. No. 125692 October 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GADFRE TIANSON

  • G.R. No. 132428 October 24, 2000 - GEORGE YAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136142 October 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO DATOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136456 October 24, 2000 - HEIRS OF RAMON DURANO, ET AL. v. ANGELES SEPULVEDA UY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138938 October 24, 2000 - CELESTINO VIVERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143325 October 24, 2000 - RAUL SANTOS v. JOSE P. MARIANO; ET AL.

  • A.M. Nos. MTJ-97-1132 & MTJ-97-1133 October 24, 2000 - MARIO CACAYOREN v. HILARION A. SULLER, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1396 October 24, 2000 - ROBERTO R. IGNACIO v. RODOLFO PAYUMO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1595 October 24, 2000 - LUZ CADAUAN, ET AL. v. ARTEMIO R. ALIVIA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-99-1484 (A) & RTJ 99-1484 October 24, 2000 - JOSELITO RALLOS, ET AL. v. IRENEO LEE GAKO JR.

  • G.R. No. 125542 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDO TALO

  • G.R. No. 126135 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO OCFEMIA

  • G.R. No. 128114 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER P. CANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134768 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. 143398 October 25, 2000 - RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134581 October 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN N. DEL ROSARIO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1330 October 27, 2000 - ELIZABETH ALEJANDRO, ET AL. v. SERGIO A. PLAN

  • G.R. No. 135551 October 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMPIE C. TARAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118608 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ULYSSES CAPINPIN

  • G.R. No. 126126 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALES SABADAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132783 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS C. LAGUERTA

  • G.R. No. 132784 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONILO VILLARBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136185 October 30, 2000 - EDUARDO P. LUCAS v. MAXIMO C. ROYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137557 October 30, 2000 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138826 October 30, 2000 - PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.