Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2005 > December 2005 Decisions > G.R. No. 159521 - Francisco L. Gonzales v. Erminda F. Gonzales. :




G.R. No. 159521 - Francisco L. Gonzales v. Erminda F. Gonzales.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. NO. 159521 December 16, 2005]

FRANCISCO L. GONZALES, Petitioner, v. ERMINDA F. GONZALES, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks the reversal of the Decision dated April 2, 2003 and Resolution dated August 8, 2003, both issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66041, entitled, "Erminda F. Gonzales, plaintiff-appellee v. Francisco L. Gonzales, defendant-appellant."

In March 1977, Francisco Gonzales, petitioner, and Erminda Gonzales, respondent, started living as husband and wife. After two (2) years, or on February 4, 1979, they got married. From this union, four (4) children were born, namely: Carlo Manuel, Maria Andres, Maria Angelica and Marco Manuel.

On October 29, 1992, respondent filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati City, for annulment of marriage with prayer for support pendente lite, docketed as Civil Case No. 32-31111. The complaint alleges that petitioner is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the obligations of marriage. He beats her for no justifiable reason, humiliates and embarrasses her, and denies her love, sexual comfort and loyalty. During the time they lived together, they acquired properties. She managed their pizza business and worked hard for its development. She prays for the declaration of the nullity of their marriage and for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains.

In his answer to the complaint, petitioner averred that it is respondent who is psychologically incapacitated. He denied that she was the one who managed the pizza business and claimed that he exclusively owns the properties "existing during their marriage."

In her reply, respondent alleged that "she controlled the entire generation of Fiesta Pizza representing 80% of the total management of the same and that all income from said business are conjugal in nature."

The public prosecutor, in compliance with the directive of the trial court, and pursuant Section 48 of the Family Code,1 certified that no collusion exists between the parties in asking for the declaration of the nullity of their marriage and that he would appear for the state to see to it that the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.

Each party submitted a list of the properties with their valuation, acquired during their union, thus:

Valuation of respondent

(Record, p. 110)

Valuation of petitioner

(Record, p. 111)

1. Acropolis property

2. Baguio City property

3. Nasugbu, Batangas property

4. Corinthian house and lot

5. Sagitarius condominium

6. Office

7. Greenmeadows lot

8. White Plains

9. Corinthian lot

None

P 10,000,000

5,000,000

18,000,000

2,500,000

30,000,000

10,000,000

7,000,000

12,000,000

P 6,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

23,000,000

2,000,000

24,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

None

Personal Property (Vehicles)

1. Galant '83 model

2. Toyota Corona '79 model

3. Coaster '77 model

4. Pajero '89 model

5. Corolla '92 model

6. L-300 '90 model

7. Mercedes Sedan '79 model

8. Pick-up '89 model

9. Mercedes wagon '80 model

10. Nissan Sentra '89 model

11. 8 Tamaraws

None

-

-

-

-

P 120,000

80,000

150,000

500,000

180,000

350,000

220,000

100,000

300,000

200,000

-

Evidence adduced during the trial show that petitioner used to beat respondent without justifiable reasons, humiliating and embarrassing her in the presence of people and even in front of their children. He has been afflicted with satyriasis, a personality disorder characterized by excessive and promiscuous sex hunger manifested by his indiscriminate womanizing. The trial court found that:

"The evidence adduced by plaintiff was overwhelming to prove that the defendant by his infliction of injuries on the plaintiff, his wife, and excessive and promiscuous hunger for sex, a personality disorder called satyriasis, was, at the time of the celebration of marriage, psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage although such incapacity became manifest only after its solemnization. The defendant's evidence, on the other hand, on the psychological incapacity of plaintiff did not have any evidentiary weight, the same being doubtful, unreliable, unclear and unconvincing."

On February 12, 1997, the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered:

1) Declaring the marriage contracted by and between FRANCISCO L. GONZALEZ and ERMINDA F. FLORENTINO solemnized by Rev. Fr. Alberto Ampil, S.J. on February 4, 1979, at the Manila Hilton Chapel, Nuestra de Guia Parish, Ermita, Manila, NULL and VOID ab initio with all legal effects as provided for under applicable laws;

2) Awarding the custody of minors Maria Andrea and Marco Manuel to the plaintiff, and Carlo Manuel and Maria Angela with rights of visitation given to both parties under an arrangement mutually acceptable to both of them;

3) Ordering the parties to deliver the children's legitimes pursuant to Article 50, in relation to Article 51 of the Family Code;

4) Ordering the defendant to give monthly support to Maria Andrea and Marco Manuel in the amount of Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos within five (5) days of each corresponding month delivered at the residence of the plaintiff staring January 1997 and thereafter;

5) Ordering the dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains and dividing the conjugal properties between the plaintiff and the defendant as follows:

A. 1) Plaintiff's share of real properties:

1. Corinthian lot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P 12,000,000

2. Acropolis property - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6,000,000

3. Baguio property - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10,000,000

4. Nasugbu property - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5,000,000

5. Greenmeadows property - - - - - 12,500,000

6. Sagitarius condominium - - - - - - 2,250,000

P 47,750,000

2) Personal:

1. Pajero '89 model - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P 500,000

2. L-300 '90 model - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 350,000

3. Nissan Sentra '89 model - - - - - 200,000

P 1,050,000

B. 1) Defendant's share of real properties:

1. Corinthian house and lot - - - - P 20,500,000

2. Office - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27,000,000

P 47,500,000

2) Personal:

1. Galant '83 model - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P 120,000

2. Toyota Corona '79 model - - - - 80,000

3. Coaster '77 model - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 150,000

4. Corolla '92 model - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 180,000

5. Mercedes Sedan '79 model - - - 220,000

6. Pick-up '89 model - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100,000

7. Mercedes wagon '80 model' 300,000

P 1,150,000

8. Four (4) Tamaraws - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6) Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant in cash the amount of P2,196,125.

7) Ordering the defendant who has actual possession of the conjugal properties to deliver to plaintiff her share of the real and personal properties, including four (4) Tamaraws, above-described, and execute the necessary documents valid in law conveying the title and ownership of said properties in favor of the plaintiff."

Not satisfied with the manner their properties were divided, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. He did not contest that part of the decision which declared his marriage to respondent void ab initio.

In its Decision dated April 2, 2003, the Appellate Court affirmed the assailed Decision of the trial court.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in an Order dated July 23, 1997.

Hence, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari .

The sole issue for our resolution is whether the court of Appeals erred in ruling that the properties should be divided equally between the parties.

Let it be stressed that petitioner does not challenge the Appellate Court's Decision declaring his marriage with respondent void. Consequently, their property relation shall be governed by the provisions of Article 147 of the Family Code quoted as follows:

"ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household."

These provisions enumerate the two instances when the property relations between spouses shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. These are: (1) when a man and woman capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage; and (2) when a man and woman live together under a void marriage. Under this property regime of co-ownership, properties acquired by both parties during their union, in the absence of proof to the contrary, are presumed to have been obtained through the joint efforts of the parties and will be owned by them in equal shares.

Article 147 creates a presumption that properties acquired during the cohabitation of the parties have been acquired through their joint efforts, work or industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares. It further provides that a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

While it is true that all the properties were bought from the proceeds of the pizza business, petitioner himself testified that respondent was not a plain housewife and that she helped him in managing the business. In his handwritten letter to her dated September 6, 1989, he admitted that "You ve helped me for what we are now and I won't let it be destroyed."

It appeared that before they started living together, petitioner offered respondent to be his partner in his pizza business and to take over its operations. Respondent started managing the business in 1976. Her job was to: (1) take care of the daily operations of the business; (2) manage the personnel; and (3) meet people during inspection and supervision of outlets. She reported for work everyday, even on Saturdays and Sundays, without receiving any salary or allowance.

In Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the general rule is that only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.2 Factual findings of the Appellate Court are generally binding on, especially this Court, when in complete accord with the findings of the trial court,3 as in this case. This is because it is not our function to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again.4

WHEREFOR, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CV No. 66041, are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.


The petitioner wanted that the White Plains and Greenmeadows lots be classified as non-conjugal assets. The RTC agreed with respect to the While Plains property because it was purchased by petitioner before he started living with respondent. However, the RTC disagreed with respect to the Greenmeadows lot and declared that it is conjugal property because although it was purchased before they started living together, the payment of the purchase price was completed only after their marriage.

In dividing the properties between the parties, the RTC took the average of the petitioner's and respondent's valuation of a specific property. Thus, the RTC fixed the valuation of each property as follows:

1. Acropolis property - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. Baguio City property - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3. Nasugbu, Batangas property - - - - - - -

4. Corinthian house and lot - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5. Sagitarius condominium - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6. Office - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

7. Greenmeadows lot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

8. Corinthian lot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P 6,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

20,500,000

2,250,000

27,000,000

12,500,000

12,000,000

P 95,250,000

The valuation of the conjugal real properties as fixed by the Court was P95,250,000, excluding the White Plains property. Each spouse will get one-half of these properties, or P47,625,000.

Defendant will get the following:

1. Corinthian house and lot - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. Office - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P 20,500,000

27,000,000

P 47,500,000

Plaintiff will get the following:

1. Corinthian lot - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. Acropolis property - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3. Baguio property - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4. Nasugbu property - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5. Greenmeadows - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6. Sagitarius condominium - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P 12,000,000 6,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

12,500,000

2,250,000

P 47,750,000

With respect to the personal properties - vehicles - their total value was fixed at P2,200,000 by defendant. The husband or the wife will get said vehicles with total value of P1,100,000.

Plaintiff will get the following:

1. Pajero '89 model - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. L-300 '90 model - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3. Nissan Sentra '89 model - - - - - - - - -

P 500,000

350,000

200,000

P 1,050,000

Defendant will get the following:

1. Galant '83 model

2. Toyota Corona '79 model

3. Coaster '77 model

4. Corolla '92 model

5. Mercedes Sedan '79 model

6. Pick-up '89 model

7. Mercedes wagon '80 model

P 120,000

80,000

150,000

180,000

220,000

100,000

300,000

P 1,150,000


Endnotes:


1 Sec. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on behalf of the state to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.

2 Vicente v. Planters Development Bank, January 28, 2003, 396 SCRA 282; Almira v. Court of Appeals, March 20, 2003, 399 SCRA 351; Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, December 8, 2003, 417 SCRA 1960.

3 Lantin v. Court of Appeals, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 202; Sevilla v. Sevilla, April 30, 2003, 402 SCRA 501; Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra.

4 Potenciano v. Reynoso, April 22, 2003, 401 SCRA 391; Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, id.




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






December-2005 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 5647 - Josephine Caranay v. Atty. Ernesto P. Tabara.

  • ADM. CASE No. 5134 - Tirso Uytengsu III v. Atty. Joseph M. Baduel.

  • Adm. Case No. 6589 - Epifania Q. Bantolo v. Atty. Egmedio B. Castillon, Jr.

  • Adm. Case No. 6554 - Erlinda K. Ilusorio-Bildner v. Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr., et al.

  • A.C. No. 6656 Formerly CBD-98-591 - Bobie Rose V. Frias v. Atty. Carmencita Baustista Lozada.

  • A.M. No. 02-2-10-SC - Re: Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Courts in Iligan City (Re: Office Hours).

  • A.M. No. 04-9-512-RTC - Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branch 18, Tagaytay City.

  • A.M. No. 05-2-113-RTC - Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Antipolo City.

  • A.M. No. 05-10-299-MCTC - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases in MCTC Sara-Ajuy Lemery, Iloilo.

  • A.M. No. 2005-08-SC - Samuel R. Runez, Jr. v. Marybeth V. Jurado.

  • MTJ No. 05-1606 Formerly MTJ No. 05-2-33-MCTC - Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Henry B. Avelino.

  • ADM. MATTER No. P-02-1549 - Atty. Benjamin A. Ope a v. Fe Rizalina V. Luna, Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City, Branch 130.

  • A. M. No. P-04-1918 - LBC Bank, thru its Legal Officer Atty. Dorylene S. B. Yara v. Juan C. Marquez, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Rosales, Pangasinan.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2031 - D.R. CATV Services, Inc., v. Jesus R. Ramos, Sheriff III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 41, Quezon City.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2055 - Office of the Court Administrator v. Parida W. Capalan, Utility Worker I.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2043 - SPO2 Jonathan M. Alcover Sr. v. Edgardo Y. Bacatan, Court Stenographer III, Branch 24, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2097 - Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2148-P - Mikrostar Industrial Corporation, et al. v. Fe Mabalot, Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City.

  • A.M. No. P-05-2098 - Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1333-P - Concerned Citizen v. Eleuterio C. Gabral Jr., Clerk of Court II, MCTC, Sta. Rita, Samar.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944 - Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2189-RTJ - State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote v. Judge Roberto L. Ayco.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1959 - Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1941-RTJ - Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 37.

  • G.R. No. 122463 - Rudolf Lietz, Inc., v. The Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 123807 - Pacific Mills Inc., et al. v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 123672 - Fernando Carrascoso Jr. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 127967 - Federated Realty Corporation v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 128213 - Avella Garcia v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 129130 - Far East Bank and Trust Company v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 129546 - Province of Rizal, et al. v. Executive Secretary, et al. d

  • G.R. No. 129807 - Davao Light and Power Co., Inc., v. Cristina Ope a, et al.

  • G.R. No. 132196 - Spouses Segundo Ramos and Felisa Valdez v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 131547 - Nicasio I. Alcantara, et al. v. Vicente C. Ponce, et al.

  • G.R. No. 133154 - Jowel Sales v. Cyril A. Sabino.

  • G.R. No. 137337 - Juan Padin, et al. v. Heirs of Vivencio Obias, et al.

  • G.R. No. 138348 - Municipality of Butig, Lanao del Sur v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 140230 - Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company.

  • G.R. No. 140305 - Platon and Librada Ceruila v. Rosilyn Delantar, et al.

  • G.R. No. 140984 and G.R. NO. 148970 - Emiliano D. Joven v. Federico S. Calilung, et al.

  • G.R. No. 141269 - Bergesen D.Y. Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Rizalino M. Estenzo.

  • G.R. No. 141277 - Reynaldo Dela Cruz, et al. v. Golar Maritime Services, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 141462 - Danzas Corporation, et al. v. Hon. Zeus C. Abrogar, Presiding Judge of Branch 150 of Makati City, et al.

  • G.R. No. 141613 - Senen B. Aguilar v. Virgilio B. Aguilar, et al.

  • G.R. No. 142541 - Cathay Pacific Airways v. Spouses Arnulfo and Evelyn Fuentebella.

  • G.R. No. 143217 - Amando S. San Juan, et al. v. Miguel L. Arambulo, Sr.

  • G.R. No. 143372 - Philippine Journalists Inc. (People's Journal), et al. v. Francis Thoenen.

  • G.R. No. 144895 - Rustico C. Nazi v. Gov. Antonio P. Calingin.

  • G.R. NO. 144652 - Arcadio B. Dandoy, et al. v. Zacarias Tongson, et al.

  • G.R. NO. 145379 - Damiana Into v. Mario Valle, et al.

  • G.R. NO. 145470 - Sps. Luis V. Cruz and Aida Cruz v. Sps. Alejandro Fernando, Sr., and Rita Fernando.

  • G.R. No. 145901 - Easycall Communications Phils., Inc., v. Edward King.

  • G.R. No. 146367 - Silverio Picar v. Shangri-La Hotel.

  • G.R. No. 146581 - Land bank of the Philippines, et al. v. The Honorable Bernardo V. Saludanes, et al.

  • G.R. No. 146635 - Marcelo Macalinao, et al. v. Eddie Medecielo Ong, et al.

  • G.R. No. 146708 - Joel B. Bortikey v. AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System.

  • G.R. No. 147081 - Planters Development Bank v. Francisco Garcia.

  • G.R. No. 147623 - Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services, Inc. (Now Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group, Inc.) v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 147738 - Phil-Ville Development and Housing Corporation, et al. v. Mercedes Javier, et al.

  • G.R. No. 148380 - Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. v. Commissioner Internal Revenue, et al.

  • G.R. No.148420 - Andrea Tan, et al. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 150668 - Fortuny Garments, et al. v. Elena J. Castro.

  • G.R. No. 152335 - Romeo G. Lorenzo v. The People of the Philippines.

  • G.R. No. 152777 - Lolita R. Lacuesta v. Ateneo De Manila University, et al.

  • G.R. No. 155879 - Manila International Airport Authority v. The Hon. Henrick F. Gingoyon, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Pasay City, Branch 117, et al.

  • G.R. No. 153166 - Teresita L. Vertudes v. Julie Buenaflor, et al.

  • G.R. No. 156311 - Central Bank of the Philippines, v. Aurora P. Castro.

  • G.R. No. 156637 - Philam Asset Management Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

  • G.R. No. 156894 - Guillermo A. Cruz v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 157029 - Jimmy Kent Rambuyon, et al. v. Fiesta Brands, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 157451 - Leticia Valmonte Ortega v. Josefina C. Valmonte.

  • G.R. No. 157591 - Antonio Chua Jr., et al. v. Commissioner Titus Villanueva, et al.

  • G.R. No. 157605 - Sps. Enriqueta Rasdas and Tomas Rasdas, et al. v. Jaime Estenor.

  • G.R. No. 157701 - Spouses Danilo and Alberta Domingo, et al. v. Guillermo Reed.

  • G.R. No. 157985 - Zenaida Bugarin, et al. v. Cecilia B. Palisoc, et al.

  • G.R. No. 158195 - James L. King, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 158585 - Amon Trading Corporation, et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 158635 - Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Elias Colarina.

  • G.R. No. 158904 - Orlando Solis Ungsod v. People of the Philippines.

  • G.R. No. 159293 - Veterans Security Agency Inc., et al. v. Felipe Gonzalvo, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 159448 - Wah Yuen Restaurant v. Primo Jayona.

  • G.R. No. 159467 - Spouses Nora Saguid and Rolando P. Saguid v. Security Finance, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 159521 - Francisco L. Gonzales v. Erminda F. Gonzales.

  • G.R. No. 159606 - Marilyn Bunao v. Social Security System, et al.

  • G.R. No. 159614 - Republic of the Philippines v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 159750 - Jehan Shipping Corporation v. National Food Authority.

  • G.R. No. 160214 - Gaudencia Navarro Vda. De Taroma, et al. v. Sps. Felino N. Taroma, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161640 - Samson B. Bedruz, et al. v. The Honorable Sandigabayan, et al.

  • G.R. NOS. 160577-94 - Gregorio Singian, Jr. v. The Honorable Sandiganbayan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161756 - Victoria J. Ilano, et al. v. Hon. Dolores L. Espa ol, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162277 - Corazon Suyat, et al. v. Hon. Annie Gonzales-Tesoro, Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Baguio Extension Office, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162850 - Maxi Security and Detective Agency, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.

  • G.R. No. 163569 - Philippine Radiant Products, Inc., et al. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company.

  • G.R. NOS. 162335 & 162605 - Severino M. Manotok IV, et al. v. Heirs of Homer L. Barque, et al.

  • G.R. No. 163994 - Eastworld Motor Industries Corporation, et al. v. Skunac Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 163593 - Preferred Home Specialties Inc., et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 165811 - DAP Corporation, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. NOS. 166299-300 - Aurelio K. Litonjua Jr., v. Eduardo K. Litonjua, Sr., et al.

  • G.R. No. 166993 - DSM Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167025 - Herminio C. Principio v. The Hon. Oscar Barrientos, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 26.

  • G.R. No. 167136 - Durban Apartments Corporation, et al. v. Miguel Geraldito R. Catacutan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 166429 - Republic of the Philippines, et al. v. Hon. Henrick F. Gingoyon, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167385 - Jesus B. Lopez v. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Second Division, et al.

  • G.R. No. 167631 - Jenette Marie B. Crisologo v. Globe Telecom Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 167762 - Batangas State University v. Nestor Bonifacio.

  • G.R. NOS. 168194 - San Miguel Corporation v. Caroline C. del Rosario.