Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > February 2001 Decisions > G.R. No. 129977 February 1, 2001 - JOSELITO VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 129977. February 1, 2001.]

JOSELITO VILLEGAS and DOMINGA VILLEGAS, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and FORTUNE TOBACCO CORPORATION, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


QUISUMBING, J.:


This petition assails the decision dated November 15, 1996 1 of the Court of Appeals and its resolution promulgated on July 29, 1997 2 affirming the decision dated July 30, 1993 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 19.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The facts of the case, as found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Before September 6, 1973, Lot B-3-A, with an area of four (4) hectares situated at Dapdap, now San Fermin, Cauayan, Isabela was registered under TCT No. 68641 in the names of Ciriaco D. Andres and Henson Caigas. This land was also declared for real estate taxation under Tax Declaration No. C2-4442.

On September 6, 1973, Andres and Caigas, with the consent of their respective spouses, Anita Barrientos and Consolacion Tobias, sold the land to Fortune Tobacco Corporation (Fortune) for P60,000.00. Simultaneously, they executed a joint affidavit declaring that they had no tenants on said lot. An affidavit to the effect was a prerequisite for the registration of the sale under the LRC Circular No. 232. On the same date, the sale was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Isabela. TCT No. 68641 was cancelled and TCT No. T-68737 was issued in Fortune’s name.

On August 6, 1976, Andres and Caigas executed a Deed of Reconveyance of the same lot in favor of Filomena Domingo, the mother of Joselito Villegas, defendant in the case before the trial court. Although no title was mentioned in this deed, Domingo succeeded in registering this document in the Office of the Register of Deeds on August 6, 1976, causing the latter to issue TCT No. T-91864 in her name. It appears in this title that the same was a transfer from TCT No. T-68641. On April 13, 1981, Domingo declared the lot for real estate taxation under Tax Declaration No. 10-5633.

On December 4, 1976, the Office of the Register of Deeds of Isabela was burned together with all titles in the office. On December 17, 1976, the original of TCT No. T-91864 was administratively reconstituted by the Register of Deeds. On June 2, 1979, a Deed of Absolute Sale of a portion of 20,000 square meters of Lot B-3-A was executed by Filomena Domingo in favor of Villegas for a consideration of P1,000.00. This document was registered on June 3, 1981 and as a result TCT No. T-131807 was issued by the Register of Deeds to Villegas. On the same date, the technical description of Lot B-3-A-2 was registered and TCT No. T-131808 was issued in the name of Domingo. On January 22, 1991, this document was registered and TCT No. 154962 was issued to the defendant, Joselito Villegas. 4

On April 10, 1991, the trial court upon a petition filed by Fortune ordered the reconstitution of the original of TCT No. T-68737.

In the pre-trial, the parties admitted that Lot B-3-A covered by the plaintiff’s TCT No. T-68737 is identical to Lot B-3-A described in TCT No. T-91864 and Villegas’ titles were mere transfers from TCT No. T-91864. 5

After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered its assailed decision in favor of Fortune Tobacco, declaring it to be entitled to the property. Petitioners thus appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision, with a modification on the award of damages and attorney’s fees, disposing:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the award of damages and attorney’s fees are deleted. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. 6

Petitioners are now before us, asserting that the Court of Appeals committed the following errors:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN THE APPLICATION OF THE PRIOR TITLE RULE, AS BOTH PARTIES HAVE THEIR OWN REGISTERED TITLE. THE BETTER, OR BEST EVIDENCE RULE, OR THE EQUIPONDERANCE RULE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD BE APPLIED TO AVOID AND ABOMINABLE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE;

2. THE DEED OF SALE, OR TITLE ACQUIRED BY THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAD BEEN LEFT UN-ENFORCED, AND UN-ASERTED (SIC) FOR A SPAN OF EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS FROM ITS SO-CALLED ISSUANCE, FOR IT HAS STILL TO WAIT FOR ITS RE-CONSTITUTION IN 1991, AND SUBJECT TO THE ANNOTATION, OR RESERVATION ON ITS DORSAL SIDE, MAKES IT GUILTY OF LACHES AND WHATEVER RIGHT IT MAY HAVE THEREUNDER HAD BEEN LOST THRU LACHES, PRESCRIPTION OR INACTION;

3. THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT DEFINITELY IS A BUYER IN BAD FAITH; HE HAS NO BETTER RIGHT THAN ITS PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST, AND IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE DEFECTS AND INFIRMITIES THE TITLE HAS BEFORE ITS TRANSMITTAL TO IT. 7

In the main, we are to resolve (a) Who among the parties is entitled to the property, based on the validity of their respective titles? and (b) Has laches set in against private respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation?cralaw : red

It is petitioners’ contention that Fortune was a buyer in bad faith. They allege that Fortune should have investigated if the property had any occupants. If it had done so, it would have found petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest in possession thereof. Petitioners also allege that Andres and Caigas were not the owners of the property at the time it was sold to Fortune. Throughout their pleadings before this Court, petitioners claim that Fortune’s title is "fake and spurious," having proceeded from its "so-called reconstitution." Lastly, petitioners invoke the doctrine of laches against Fortune’s bid to recover the property.

Invoking the prior title rule, Fortune declares that it is the lawful owner of the property, as the certificate of title in its name was issued before issuance of another title to petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest, Filomena Domingo. Fortune claims that petitioners’ title is spurious. It also alleges that petitioners admitted the validity of Fortune’s title, and that petitioners’ continuous possession of the property cannot defeat said title. Fortune also asserts that it bought the property in good faith.

It must be noted at the outset that Fortune’s claim over the subject property is predicated upon the alleged prior issuance of its title in 1973, which was lost in a fire and reconstituted only in 1991. Hence, the soundness of Fortune’s claims is hinged upon the validity of its reconstituted title. It is thus imperative for us to look into whether or not Fortune’s title was properly reconstituted. This question was not raised as an issue by petitioners, and neither was the grant of Fortune’s reconstituted title assigned as an error in the petition. We have held however, that the Court is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case. 8

In the case at bar, Fortune’s title was judicially reconstituted by virtue of an order dated April 10, 1991, issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19 of Cauayan, Isabela, also the court a quo. It disposed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

This is a verified petition filed by the petitioner Fortune Tobacco Corporation for the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- 68737 issued in its name by the Register of Deeds of Isabela.

The petition was set for hearing on January 31, 1991. The notice of hearing was caused to be published for two (2) successive issues in the Official Gazette.

On the scheduled date of hearing, Johnson Fernandez, Assistant Manager of the petitioner and his counsel appeared. Nobody appeared to oppose the petition.

To prove the jurisdictional facts, the petitioner presented as exhibits the following:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Exh. A, The Amended Notice of Hearing;

Exh. B, the Affidavit of Publication of the notice of hearing in the Official Gazette;

Exh. C, the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-68737 issued in the name of the petitioner by the Register of Deeds of Isabela.

There being no opposition, the petitioner was ordered to present its evidence ex-parte.

From the evidence presented, it has been established that the petitioner is the registered owner of that certain parcel of land situated at Dadap, Cauayan, Isabela, described in and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-68737 issued in the name of the petitioner by the Register of Deeds of Isabela; that sometime in December, 1976, the office of the Register of Deeds was burned as a result of which the original of TCT No. T-68737 on file with the Registry of Deeds was burned as shown by the certification issued by the Registry of Deeds of Isabela (Exh. D); that as basis for the reconstitution of the original copy of the title, the petitioner has in its possession the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-68737.

Finding the petition to be well-founded;

WHEREFORE, the Register of Deeds of Isabela is hereby ordered to reconstitute the original copy of TCI No. T-68737 in the name of the petitioner on the basis of the owner’s duplicate copy thereof, upon payment of the corresponding legal fees.

SO ORDERED. (Emphasis supplied.) 9

Section 110 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 10 provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 110. Reconstitution of lost or destroyed original of Torrens title. — Original copies of certificates of title lost or destroyed in the offices of Register of Deeds as well as liens and encumbrances affecting the lands covered by such titles shall be reconstituted judicially in accordance with the procedure described in Republic Act No. 26 insofar as not inconsistent with this Decree. . . .

In turn, Sections 3, 10 and 9 of Republic Act No. 26 11 provide —

SECTION 3. Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

x       x       x


SECTION. 10. Nothing herein before provided shall prevent any registered owner or person in interest from filing the petition mentioned in section five of this Act directly with the proper Court of First Instance, based on sources enumerated in sections 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 3(b), and/or 4(a) of this Act: Provided, however, That the Court shall cause a notice of the petition, before hearing and granting the same, to be published in the manner stated in section nine hereof . . .

SECTION 9. . . . Thereupon, the court shall cause a notice of the petition to be published, at the expense of petitioner, twice in successive issues of the Official Gazette, and to be posted on the main entrance of the provincial building and of the municipal building of the municipality or city where the land lies, at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing, and after hearing, shall determine the petition and render such judgment as justice and equity may require. The notice shall specify, among other things, the number of the certificate of title, the name of the registered owner, the names of the interested parties appearing in the reconstituted certificate of title, the location of the property, and the date on which all persons having an interest in the property must appear and file such claim as they may have. The petitioner shall, at the hearing, submit proof of the publication and posting of the notice . . .

Juxtaposing the facts as disposed by Branch 19 vis-a-vis Sec. 110 on P.D. 1529 and Sections 3, 9 and 10 of R.A. 26, it is evident that the requirements for judicial reconstitution of certificates of title were not fully complied with. Although the order of reconstitution reveals that there was publication of the notice of the petition for reconstitution in the Official Gazette as required by law, there was, however, no mention of compliance with the requirement of posting of the notice of the petition in the provincial or municipal building of the city or municipality where the subject property is located. While proof of publication of the notice of the petition was submitted by Fortune, there was no proof of posting of the notice, presumably because no such posting was accomplished. The lack of compliance with these requirements for the judicial reconstitution of certificates of title deprived the court of jurisdiction over the petition. The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court to hear and decide a petition for reconstitution of title is conferred by R.A. 26. The Act prescribes a special procedure that must be followed in order that the court may act on the petition and grant the remedy sought. The specific requirements and procedure are as laid down in Sections 9 and 10 of R.A. 26. 12 The proceedings therein being in rem, the court acquires jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition for the reconstitution of the owner’s title upon compliance with the required posting of notices and publication in the Official Gazette. 13 These requirements and procedure are mandatory and must strictly be complied with, otherwise, the proceedings are utterly void, which is why the petitioner is required to submit proof of the publication and posting of the notice. 14 Non-compliance with the jurisdictional requirement of posting of the notice renders the order of reconstitution null and void. Consequently, the reconstituted title of Fortune is likewise void. Fortune cannot now invoke the prior title rule, as it in effect has no valid title to speak of.

But even if Fortune had validly acquired the subject property, it would still be barred from asserting title because of laches. The failure or neglect, for an unreasonable length of time to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier constitutes laches. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned it or declined to assert it. 15 While it is by express provision of law that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession, 16 it is likewise an enshrined rule that even a registered owner may be barred from recovering possession of property by virtue of laches. 17

The elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation that led to the complaint and for which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, having had knowledge or notice of the defendant’s conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held barred. 18

In the case at bar, there is no question on the presence of the first element. The object of Fortune’s complaint before the trial court was to recover possession of the property in question, which is presently in the hands of petitioners.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The second element of delay is also present in this case. Fortune’s suit for recovery of possession and damages was instituted only on May 29, 1991, fifteen years after the registration of Filomena Domingo’s title to the property in 1976. Domingo’s registration was constructive notice to the whole world, including Fortune of the existence of such adverse title. In applying the doctrine of laches, we have ruled that where a party allows the following number of years to lapse from the emergence of his cause of action to enforce his claim, such action would be barred by the equitable defense of laches: 36 years; 12 years; 50 years; 34 years; 37 years; 32 years; 20 years; 47 years; 11 years; 25 years; 40 years; 19 years; 27 years; 7 years; 44 years; 4 years; and 67 years. 19

The third element of laches also present in this case. There is nothing in the record which shows that petitioners had any inkling of Fortune’s intent to possess the subject property. While Fortune claims that it protested and demanded over several years that petitioners vacate the land and surrender its possession, there is nothing on record to support such contention; they remain self-serving, unsubstantiated claims. Petitioners controverted this assertion, stating that they only received such notice during the confrontation before the barangay captain of San Fermin, Cauayan, Isabela on May 12, 1991, which was a condition precedent to the filing of Fortune’s complaint before the trial court. This is the only prior notice to petitioners which is supported by the records. 20

As to the fourth element of laches, it goes without saying that petitioners will be prejudiced if Fortune’s complaint is accorded relief, or not held barred, as then petitioners would be deprived of the property on which their households stand. Needless to say, laches has set in against Fortune, precluding its right to recover the property in question.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on November 15, 1996 and its Resolution dated July 29, 1997, are REVERSED. The complaint of private respondent Fortune Tobacco Corporation is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against private Respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 15-20.

2. Id. at 29.

3. Id. at 103-113.

4. Id. at 16-17.

5. Id. at 107.

6. Id. at 20.

7. Id. at 10.

8. Barons Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 96, 108 (1998); Korean Airlines Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 717, 725 (1994); Vda. De Javellana v. Court of Appeals, 123 SCRA 799, 805 (1983).

9. Records, Folder of Exhibits for the Plaintiff, Exh. E.

10. Amending and Codifying the Laws Relative to Registration of Property and for Other Purposes.

11. An Act Providing a Special Procedure for the Reconstitution of Torrens Certificate of Title Lost or Destroyed.

12. Republic v. Court of Appeals, 218 SCRA 773, 778 (1993), citing Director of Lands v. Court of Appeals, Et Al., 102 SCRA 370 (1981), citing the case of Caltex, Et Al., v. CIR, Et Al., 23 SCRA 492 (1968).

13. Municipality of Legaspi v. A.L. Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., 26 SCRA 218, 222 (1968).

14. Supra, note 13 at 778.

15. Lim Tay v. Court of Appeals, 293 SCRA 634, 659 (1998).

16. Section 47, Presidential Decree No. 1529.

17. Vda. De Cabrera v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 339, 356 (1997).

18. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) v. Court of Appeals, 297 SCRA 287, 306 (1998).

19. Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 181, 197 (1996).

20. Records, p. 16.




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






February-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 108228 February 1, 2001 - MANUEL DEL CAMPO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117971 February 1, 2001 - ESTRELLITA S. J. VDA. DE VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124639 February 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO DE VILLA

  • G.R. No. 125483 February 1, 2001 - LUDO AND LUYM CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128448 February 1, 2001 - ALEJANDRO MIRASOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128636 February 1, 2001 - ZACARIAS BATINGAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129977 February 1, 2001 - JOSELITO VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137647 February 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 137751 February 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO LAUT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117857 February 2, 2001 - LUIS S. WONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 129401 February 2, 2001 - FELIPE SEVILLE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132529 February 2, 2001 - SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO v. SUSAN YEE CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 145415 February 2, 2001 - UNITY FISHING DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112550 February 5, 2001 - DICK L. GO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122664 February 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE BAYOD

  • G.R. No. 134402 February 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NARCISO BAYANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141634 February 5, 2001 - REMEDIOS R SANDEJAS, ET AL. v. ALEX A. LINA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1174 February 6, 2001 - SANLAKAS NG BARANGAY JULO v. TIBURCIO V. EMPAYNADO

  • A. M. No. P-99-1336 February 6, 2001 - ELEONOR T. F. MARBAS-VIZCARRA v. MA. DINA A. BERNARDO

  • A.M. No. P-99-1347 February 6, 2001 - PANCRACIO N. ESCAÑAN, ET AL. v. INOCENTES M. MONTEROLA II

  • A.M. No. P-00-1437 February 6, 2001 - JULIAN B. SAN JUAN, SR. v. ARIEL S. SANGALANG

  • G.R. No. 108618 February 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO PABILLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113627 February 6, 2001 - CORAZON C. SHIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126026 February 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAURICIO LOYOLA

  • G.R. No. 137619 February 6, 2001 - REYNALDO L. LAUREANO v. BORMAHECO, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140486 February 6, 2001 - PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY v. JESUS S. YUJUICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141855 February 6, 2001 - ZACARIAS COMETA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 144491 February 6, 2001 - JAIME T. TORRES v. HRET, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146528, 146549, 146579 & 146631 February 6, 2001 - JAIME N. SORIANO, ET AL. v. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA

  • G.R. No. 133823 February 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIL VELEZ RAYOS

  • G.R. No. 135200 February 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 136096 February 7, 2001 - NELIA ATILLO v. BUENAVENTURA BOMBAY

  • G.R. No. 136154 February 7, 2001 - DEL MONTE CORPORATION-USA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136894-96 February 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ASTERIO CORDERO

  • G.R. No. 141853 February 7, 2001 - TERESITA V. IDOLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 134368 February 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACIFICO RONDILLA

  • G.R. No. 109975 February 9, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDA MATIAS DAGDAG

  • G.R. No. 110003 February 9, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117434 February 9, 2001 - BENGUET EXPLORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132696-97 February 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON NAVARRO

  • G.R. No. 133922 February 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOLITO OPTANA

  • G.R. No. 141968 February 12, 2001 - INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK v. FRANCIS S. GUECO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128089 February 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR VELASCO

  • G.R. No. 134756 February 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 140065 February 13, 2001 - BENITO CALIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 117952-53 February 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 136257 February 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR YBAÑEZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1341 February 15, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. REINATO G. QUILALA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1568 February 15, 2001 - ROBERT Z. BARBERS, ET AL. v. PERFECTO A. S. LAGUIO

  • G.R. No. 117033 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL AVECILLA

  • G.R. No. 130522 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO PAGDAYAWON

  • G.R. No. 133132 February 15, 2001 - ALEXIS C. CANONIZADO, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER P. AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135066 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERLITO TUMANON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136394 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERSON NAAG

  • G.R. Nos. 137185-86 February 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR MACAYA

  • G.R. No. 139884 February 15, 2001 - OCTAVIO LORBES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140420 February 15, 2001 - SERGIO AMONOY v. JOSE GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1399 February 19, 2001 - PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. EFREN V. CACHERO

  • A.M. No. P-00-1436 February 19, 2001 - ELPIDIO P. DE LA VICTORIA, ET AL. v. HELEN B. MONGAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112978-81 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO T. MENDI

  • G.R. No. 115079 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ALBIOR

  • G.R. No. 118982 February 19, 2001 - LORETA BRAVO CERVANTES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118986-89 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI DICHOSON

  • G.R. No. 119118 February 19, 2001 - RUFINO VALENCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119361 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORAZON NAVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127111 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUDOVICO BLAZO

  • G.R. Nos. 128851-56 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUSSEL MURILLO

  • G.R. No. 132550 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON MARIÑO

  • G.R. Nos. 133586-603 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY QUEIGAN

  • G.R. No. 133917 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NASARIO MOLINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133919-20 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS AWING

  • G.R. No. 134727 February 19, 2001 - CESAR BARRERA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 138343 February 19, 2001 - GILDA C. LIM v. PATRICIA LIM-YU

  • G.R. No. 139834 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. 140615 February 19, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141244 February 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF PHIL. v. SALIPADA MUSTAPA

  • A.M. No. P-99-1323 February 20, 2001 - DAVID DE GUZMAN v. PAULO M. GATLABAYAN

  • G.R. No. 118334 February 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY CONSEJERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132482-83 February 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO TIO

  • G.R. No. 133026 February 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWARD ENDINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141093 February 20, 2001 - PRUDENTIAL BANK and TRUST COMPANY v. CLARITA T. REYES

  • G.R. No. 143377 February 20, 2001 - SHIPSIDE INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124297 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAYAO

  • G.R. No. 126117 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON ZUNIEGA

  • G.R. No. 127957 February 21, 2001 - COLLIN A. MORRIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130597 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELMER BOLIVAR

  • G.R. Nos. 132635 & 143872-75 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO VELASQUEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 135964-71 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MANALO

  • G.R. No. 136253 February 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE JOHN LUGOD

  • A.M. No. 10019-Ret. February 22, 2001 - RE: MS. MAYLENNE G. MANLAVI

  • G.R. No. 117734 February 22, 2001 - VICENTE G. DIVINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124704 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO CUADRO

  • G.R. No. 128629 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMELO LENANTUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129238 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REGALADO B. BURLAT

  • G.R. No. 131851 February 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BASADRE

  • G.R. Nos. 138859-60 February 22, 2001 - ALVAREZ ARO YUSOP v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-00-1426 February 23, 2001 - JOSE P. SOBERANO, JR. v. ADELIA P. NEBRES

  • G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115678 & 119723 February 23, 2001 - PHIL. BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126933 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILUMINADA DELMO VALLE

  • G.R. No. 132322 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTHONY ESTRELLA

  • G.R. No. 138017 February 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNULFO NATIVIDAD

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1255 February 26, 2001 - MELVIN L. ESPINO, ET AL. v. ISMAEL L. SALUBRE

  • G.R. No. 129933 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 130196 February 26, 2001 - LUCIA MAPA VDA. DE DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ADJUTO ABILLE

  • G.R. No. 134529 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO SABALAN

  • G.R. No. 136967 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO VISAYA

  • G.R. No. 137046 February 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CAPITLE

  • G.R. No. 141536 February 26, 2001 - GIL MIGUEL T. PUYAT v. RON ZABARTE

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1250 February 28, 2001 - RIMEO S. GUSTILO v. RICARDO S. REAL

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1312 February 28, 2001 - GERARDO UBANDO-PARAS v. OCTAVIO A. FERNANDEZ

  • A.M. No. P-99-1302 February 28, 2001 - PLACIDO B. VALLARTA v. YOLANDA LOPEZ Vda. de BATOON

  • G.R. Nos. 109491 & 121794 February 28, 2001 - ATRIUM MANAGEMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122858 February 28, 2001 - BIEN D. SEVALLE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123891 February 28, 2001 - PHIL. TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127227 February 28, 2001 - PAZ S. LIM v. VICTORIA K CHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128117 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR CAWAYAN

  • G.R. No. 128538 February 28, 2001 - SCC CHEMICALS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129184 February 28, 2001 - EMERGENCY LOAN PAWNSHOP INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 131136 February 28, 2001 - CONRADO L. DE RAMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133695 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MAURICIO

  • G.R. No. 134373 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASTANITO GANO

  • G.R. Nos. 135231-33 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLESIE VELASCO

  • G.R. No. 137480 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. 137566 February 28, 2001 - ROBERTO G. ROSALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137946 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REFORMADOR VIDAL

  • G.R. No. 138042 February 28, 2001 - MAMERTO R. PALON, ET AL. v. GIL S. NINO BRILLANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138146-91 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDY HINTO

  • G.R. No. 138805 February 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 140937 February 28, 2001 - EXUPERANCIO CANTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 142029 February 28, 2001 - ERLINDA FRANCISCO, ET AL. v. RICARDO FERRER JR, ET AL.