ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
BAR REVIEWER ON LABOR LAW 2014 (2nd) Edition - By Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan

 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-2010 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 186419 : April 23, 2010] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188105 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MONICO DE CHAVEZ Y PERLAS, JUANITO MIƑON Y RODRIGUEZ, AND ASUNCION MERCADO Y MARCIANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186382 : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGO PANITERCE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183788 : April 05, 2010] KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 66 OF THE RTC OF MAKATI CITY, AND FANNIE TORRES-TY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 151215 : April 05, 2010] PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO C. MILAN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF "A. MILAN TRADING," AND LAURA M. MILAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161368 : April 05, 2010] MEDISERV, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER 13TH DIVISION) AND LANDHEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176634 : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO MIRANDA Y MICHAEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177740 : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 178063 [Formerly G.R. No. 149894] : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TIRSO SACE Y MONTOYA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182114 : April 05, 2010] GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC. AND RELY L. JALBUNA, PETITIONERS, VS. UNYON NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG GENESIS TRANSPORT (UMMGT), AND JUAN TAROY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183383 : April 05, 2010] ANABEL BENJAMIN AND RENATO CONSOLACION, PETITIONERS, VS. AMELLAR CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-06-2025 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2472-RTJ) : April 05, 2010] CECILIA GADRINAB SENARLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MAXIMO G.W. PADERANGA, RTC, BRANCH 38, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 157449 : April 06, 2010] NEMESIO GOCO, LYDIA G. FABIAN, NATALIA BROTONEL, FLORA GAYOSO, BLEMIE SORIANO, ELPIDIA NAVALES, SERGIO ROMASANTA, CATALINA NAMIS AND NANCY PAMATIGA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT, LYDIA G. FABIAN, ELPIDIA NAVALES AND NATALIA BROTONEL, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. HICOBLINO CATLY, LOURDES CATLY AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALAPAN CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175040 : April 06, 2010] FRANCIS RAY TALAM, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 4TH DIVISION, CEBU CITY, THE SOFTWARE FACTORY, INC. AND/OR TERESA GRAPILON, OFFICE MANAGER, AND WOLFGANG HERMLE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185849 : April 07, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JONJIE ESOY Y HUNGOY, ROLANDO CIANO Y SOLEDAD AND ROGER BOLALACAO Y DADIVAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 187005 : April 07, 2010] FERDINAND A. PANGILINAN, PETITIONER, VS. WELLMADE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183628 : April 07, 2010] DANIEL T. SO, PETITIONER, VS. FOOD FEST LAND, INC. RESPONDENT [G.R. NO. 183670] FOOD FEST LAND, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DANIEL T. SO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179781 : April 07, 2010] SPOUSES BASILIO AND NORMA HILAGA, PETITIONERS, VS. RURAL BANK OF ISULAN (COTABATO, INC., AS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177878 : April 07, 2010] SPO1 LEONITO ACUZAR, PETITIONER, VS. APRONIANO JOROLAN AND HON. EDUARDO A. APRESA, PEOPLE'S LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD (PLEB) CHAIRMAN, NEW CORELLA, DAVAO DEL NORTE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161838 : April 07, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY DANTE QUINDOZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ZONE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE BATAAN ECONOMIC ZONE, PETITIONER, VS. COALBRINE INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC. AND SHEILA F. NERI, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167766 : April 07, 2010] ENGR. CARLITO PENTECOSTES, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 187958, 187961 : and 187962, April 07, 2010] MAYOR ABRAHAM N. TOLENTINO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JOCELYN RICARDO, ARNEL TARUC, MARLENE CATAN, MARIA THERESA MENDOZA COSTA, FIDELA ROFOLS CASTILLO, DOMINADOR BASSI, ROBERTO MALABANAN HERNANDEZ, NERISSA MANZANO, LEONIDEZ MAGLABE HERNANDEZ, TAGUMPAY REYES, AND ELINO FAJARDO RESPONDENTS. [G.R. Nos. 187966, 187967, and 187968] VICE-MAYOR CELSO P. DE CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARNEL TARUC, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 189431 & 191120 : April 07, 2010] MAYOR QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARTEMIO BALAG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189793 : April 07, 2010] SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III AND MAYOR JESSE ROBREDO, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN JOSE A.R. MELO AND ITS COMMISSIONERS, RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH AND GREGORIO LARRAZABAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. MTJ-04-1558 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1594-MTJ) : April 07, 2010] RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST HON. MARILOU RUNES- TAMANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, METC PATEROS, METRO MANILA AND PRESIDING JUDGE, METC SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA,

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2338 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2440-P) : April 07, 2010] JONATHAN* A. REBONG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ELIZABETH R. TENGCO, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2409 : April 07, 2010] RUFINA CHUA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ELEANOR A. SORIO, CLERK OF COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 57, SAN JUAN CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2196 [Formerly A.M. No. 00-1052-RTJ] : April 07, 2010] MARIA PANCHO, DAVID GAYOTIN, LORETO GRAN AND MARINA GRAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56, HIMAMAYLAN, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186450 : April 08, 2010] NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD (NWRB), PETITIONER, VS. A. L. ANG NETWORK, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170289 : April 08, 2010] ROSIE QUIDET, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190582 : April 08, 2010] ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIR, DANTON REMOTO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184179 : April 12, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIAN PAJES Y OPONDA AND MIGUEL PAGHUNASAN Y URBANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180542 : April 12, 2010] HUBERT NUƑEZ, PETITIONER, VS. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS, INC., THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE, CESAR SYLIANTENG RESPONDENT,

  • [G.R. No. 183572 : April 13, 2010] YOLANDA M. MERCADO, CHARITO S. DE LEON, DIANA R. LACHICA, MARGARITO M. ALBA, JR., AND FELIX A. TONOG, PETITIONERS, VS. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-PARAƑAQUE CITY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152016 : April 13, 2010] NARCISO TUMIBAY,* RUPERTO TUMIBAY, ELENA TUMIBAY, EDUARDO TUMIBAY, CORAZON TUMIBAY, MANUELA SEVERINO VDA. DE PERIDA AND GREGORIA DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. YOLANDA T. SORO AND HONORIO SORO, SPS. JULITA T. STA. ANA AND FELICISIMO STA. ANA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165155 : April 13, 2010] REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADJUDICATOR, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, CECILIA MANIEGO, JOSE BAUTISTA, ELIZA PACHECO, JUANITO FAJARDO, MARIO PACHECO, MARIANO MANANGHAYA AS HEIR OF ANTONIO MANANGHAYA, MARCIANO NATIVIDAD, ROBERTO BERNARDO IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS HEIR OF PEDRO BERNARDO, EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD, AS HEIR OF ISMAEL NATIVIDAD, JEFFREY DIAZ AS HEIR OF JOVITA R. DIAZ, RODOLFO DIMAAPI, ALBERTO ENRIQUEZ, BENIGNO CABINGAO, MARIO GALVEZ, DELFIN SACDALAN, AS HEIR OF AVELINO SANTOS, PETITIONERS,[1] VS. COURT OF APPEALS, VERONICA R. GONZALES, DEOGRACIAS REYES, LEONARDO REYES, ISABELITA BALATBAT, MANUELA REYES, WILHELMINA ALMERO, ARTURO REYES, EPIFANIO REYES, GLORIA REYES, MARIO REYES, TERESITA BALATBAT, LYDIA BALATBAT, FERNANDO BALATBAT, VICENTE BALATBAT, GILBERTO REYES, RENE REYES, EMILIA DUNGO, BRENDA CANCIO, VICTOR REYES, AND EDGARDO REYES, REPRESENTED BY VERONICA R. GONZALES, FOR HERSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177114 : April 13, 2010] MANOLO A. PEƑAFLOR, PETITIONER, VS. OUTDOOR CLOTHING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, NATHANIEL T. SYFU, PRESIDENT, MEDYLENE M. DEMOGENA, FINANCE MANAGER, AND PAUL LEE, CHAIRMAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187605 : April 13, 2010] TECHNOL EIGHT PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DENNIS AMULAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187605 : April 13, 2010] TECHNOL EIGHT PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DENNIS AMULAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-08-2158 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2018-RTJ) : April 13, 2010] ALFREDO FAVOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CESAR O. UNTALAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 149, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186540 : April 14, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMELDO "PAMENTOLAN" OBINA, AMADO RAMIREZ, AND CARLITO "MASOC" BALAGBIS, ACCUSED; EMELDO "PAMENTOLAN" OBINA AND AMADO RAMIREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183879 : April 14, 2010] ROSITA SY, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187483 : April 14, 2010] ARNEL BALARBAR Y BIASORA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152234 : April 15, 2010] DIVERSIFIED SECURITY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ALICIA V. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152364 : April 15, 2010] ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ISAURO M. LAZARO; LEONCIO D. SANTOS; ADOLFO SANTOS; NENITA S. LACAR; ANGELINA S. SAGLES, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ALBERTO SANTOS, JR.; REGINA SANTOS AND FABIAN SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. MODESTA AGUSTIN, FILEMON AGUSTIN, VENANCIA AGUSTIN, MARCELINA AGUSTIN, PAUL A. DALALO, NOEL A. DALALO, GREGORIO AGUSTIN AND BIENVENIDO AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168796 : April 15, 2010] SILVINO A. LIGERALDE, PETITIONER, VS. MAY ASCENSION A. PATALINGHUG AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173365 : April 15, 2010] JULIO FLORES (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS; BENITO FLORES (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS; DOLORES FLORES AND VIRGINIA FLORES-DALERE, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, JIMENA TOMAS, PETITIONERS, VS. MARCIANO BAGAOISAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184971 : April 19, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MONET'S EXPORT AND MANUFACTURING CORP., VICENTE V. TAGLE, SR. AND MA. CONSUELO G. TAGLE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165133 : April 19, 2010] SPOUSES JOSELINA ALCANTARA AND ANTONIO ALCANTARA, AND SPOUSES JOSEFINO RUBI AND ANNIE DISTOR-RUBI, PETITIONERS, VS. BRIGIDA L. NIDO, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF REVELEN N. SRIVASTAVA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166829 : April 19, 2010] TFS, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170207 : April 19, 2010] VICENTE CAWIS (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SON, EMILIO CAWIS), PEDRO BACLANGEN, FELIZA DOMILIES, IVAN MANDI-IT A.K.A. IVAN MANDI-IT LUPADIT, DOMINGO CAWIS AND GERARD LIBATIQUE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ANTONIO CERILLES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DENR SECRETARY, HON. MANUEL GEROCHI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR, LANDS, MANAGEMENT BUREAU, AND MA. EDELIZA PERALTA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170241 : April 19, 2010] PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES DIONISIO GERONIMO AND CARIDAD GERONIMO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170483 : April 19, 2010] MANUEL C. BUNGCAYAO, SR., REPRESENTED IN THIS CASE BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ROMEL R. BUNGCAYAO, PETITIONER, VS. FORT ILOCANDIA PROPERTY HOLDINGS, AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170912 : April 19, 2010] ROBERT DINO, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA LUISA JUDAL-LOOT, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND VICENTE LOOT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172896 : April 19, 2010] ROƑO SEGURITAN Y JARA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175532 : April 19, 2010] ROMEO BASAY, JULIAN LITERAL AND JULIAN ABUEVA, PETITIONERS, VS. HACIENDA CONSOLACION , AND/OR BRUNO BOUFFARD III, JOSE RAMON BOUFFARD, MALOT BOUFFARD, SPOUSES CARMEN AND STEVE BUMANLAG, BERNIE BOUFFARD, ANALYN BOUFFARD, AND DONA BOUFFARD, AS OWNERS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179935 : April 19, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO ASIS Y LACSON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 149121 : April 20, 2010] NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. AUGUSTO BASA, JR., LUZ BASA AND EDUARDO S. BASA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 166620 : April 20, 2010] ATTY. SYLVIA BANDA, CONSORICIA O. PENSON, RADITO V. PADRIGANO, JEAN R. DE MESA, LEAH P. DELA CRUZ, ANDY V. MACASAQUIT, SENEN B. CORDOBA, ALBERT BRILLANTES, GLORIA BISDA, JOVITA V. CONCEPCION, TERESITA G. CARVAJAL, ROSANNA T. MALIWANAG, RICHARD ODERON, CECILIA ESTERNON, BENEDICTO CABRAL, MA. VICTORIA E. LAROCO, CESAR ANDRA, FELICISIMO GALACIO, ELSA R. CALMA, FILOMENA A. GALANG, JEAN PAUL MELEGRITO, CLARO G. SANTIAGO, JR., EDUARDO FRIAS, REYNALDO O. ANDAL, NEPHTALIE IMPERIO, RUEL BALAGTAS, VICTOR R. ORTIZ, FRANCISCO P. REYES, JR., ELISEO M. BALAGOT, JR., JOSE C. MONSALVE, JR., ARTURO ADSUARA, F.C. LADRERO, JR., NELSON PADUA, MARCELA C. SAYAO, ANGELITO MALAKAS, GLORIA RAMENTO, JULIANA SUPLEO, MANUEL MENDRIQUE, E. TAYLAN, CARMELA BOBIS, DANILO VARGAS, ROY-LEO C. PABLO, ALLAN VILLANUEVA, VICENTE R. VELASCO, JR., IMELDA ERENO, FLORIZA M. CATIIS, RANIEL R. BASCO, E. JALIJALI, MARIO C. CARAAN, DOLORES M. AVIADO, MICHAEL P. LAPLANA, GUILLERMO G. SORIANO, ALICE E. SOJO, ARTHUR G. NARNE, LETICIA SORIANO, FEDERICO RAMOS, JR., PETERSON CAAMPUED, RODELIO L. GOMEZ, ANTONIO D. GARCIA, JR., ANTONIO GALO, A. SANCHEZ, SOL E. TAMAYO, JOSEPHINE A.M. COCJIN, DAMIAN QUINTO, JR., EDLYN MARIANO, M.A. MALANUM, ALFREDO S. ESTRELLA, AND JESUS MEL SAYO, PETITIONERS, VS. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE INFORMATION AGENCY AND THE NATIONAL TREASURER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169974 : April 20, 2010] SUPERIOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. KUNNAN ENTERPRISES LTD. AND SPORTS CONCEPT & DISTRIBUTOR, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174160 : April 20, 2010] HACIENDA BIGAA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. EPIFANIO V. CHAVEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY SANTIAGO V. CHAVEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179470 : April 20, 2010] NISSAN NORTH EDSA OPERATING UNDER THE NAME MOTOR CARRIAGE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. UNITED PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE AGENCY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182835 : April 20, 2010] RUSTAN ANG Y PASCUA, PETITIONER, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND IRISH SAGUD, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187742 : April 20, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188471 : April 20, 2010] FRANCISCO ALONSO, SUBSTITUTED BY MERCEDES V. ALONSO, TOMAS V. ALONSO AND ASUNCION V. ALONSO, PETITIONERS, VS. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., RESPONDENT, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, PUBLIC RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191002 : April 20, 2010] ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC) AND PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL - ARROYO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 191032] JAIME N. SORIANO, PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC), RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 191057] PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC), RESPONDENT. [A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC] IN RE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 15, ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION TO APPOINTMENTS TO THE JUDICIARY, ESTELITO P. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, [G.R. No. 191149] JOHN G. PERALTA, PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC). RESPONDENT. PETER IRVING CORVERA; CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM; ALFONSO V. TAN, JR.; NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLE'S LAWYERS; MARLOU B. UBANO; INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES-DAVAO DEL SUR CHAPTER, REPRESENTED BY ITS IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, ATTY. ISRAELITO P. TORREON, AND THE LATTER IN HIS OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR; MITCHELL JOHN L. BOISER; BAGONG ALYANSANG BAYAN (BAYAN) CHAIRMAN DR. CAROLINA P. ARAULLO; BAYAN SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR.; CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCE-MENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE) CHAIRMAN FERDINAND GAITE; KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP (KADAMAY) SECRETARY GENERAL GLORIA ARELLANO; ALYANSA NG NAGKAKAISANG KABATAAN NG SAMBAYANAN PARA SA KAUNLARAN (ANAKBAYAN) CHAIRMAN KEN LEONARD RAMOS; TAYO ANG PAG-ASA CONVENOR ALVIN PETERS; LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS (LFS) CHAIRMAN JAMES MARK TERRY LACUANAN RIDON; NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (NUSP) CHAIRMAN EINSTEIN RECEDES; COLLEGE EDITORS GUILD OF THE PHILIPPINES (CEGP) CHAIRMAN VIJAE ALQUISOLA; AND STUDENT CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES (SCMP) CHAIRMAN MA. CRISTINA ANGELA GUEVARRA; WALDEN F. BELLO AND LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES; WOMEN TRIAL LAWYERS ORGANIZATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY YOLANDA QUISUMBING-JAVELLANA; BELLEZA ALOJADO DEMAISIP; TERESITA GANDIONCO-OLEDAN; MA. VERENA KASILAG-VILLANUEVA; MARILYN STA. ROMANA; LEONILA DE JESUS; AND GUINEVERE DE LEON; AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR.; INTERVENORS. [G.R. No. 191342] ATTY. AMADOR Z. TOLENTINO, JR., (IBP GOVERNOR-SOUTHERN LUZON), AND ATTY. ROLAND B. INTING (IBP GOVERNOR-EASTERN VISAYAS), PETITIONERS, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC), RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 191420] PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND HER EXCELLENCY GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 8382 : April 21, 2010] ALFREDO B. ROA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178902 : April 21, 2010] MANUEL O. FUENTES AND LETICIA L. FUENTES, PETITIONERS, VS. CONRADO G. ROCA, ANNABELLE R. JOSON, ROSE MARIE R. CRISTOBAL AND PILAR MALCAMPO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. L-2875 and L-3114 to L-3203 : April 22, 2010] MANILA YELLOWCAB ET AL., PETITIONER VS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187154 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN DALIPE Y PEREZ, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184760 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184542 : April 23, 2010] ALMA B. RUSSEL, PETITIONER, VS. TEOFISTA EBASAN AND AGAPITO AUSTRIA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184537 : April 23, 2010] QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA AND SPO2 FIEL E. GENIO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, 4TH DIVISION AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ : April 23, 2010] FRANCISCO P. OCAMPO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2049] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. RTJ-08-2141 (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 07-5-263- RTC/ RE: INITIAL REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY)] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, AND COURT STENOGRAPHER VICTORIA C. JAMORA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2093] SYLVIA SANTOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 133347 : April 23, 2010] ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, EUGENIO LOPEZ, JR., AUGUSTO ALMEDA-LOPEZ, AND OSCAR M. LOPEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO, EXEQUIEL B. GARCIA, MIGUEL V. GONZALES, AND SALVADOR (BUDDY) TAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158189 : April 23, 2010] ROBERTO B. KALALO, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ AND MARCELO L. AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158562 : April 23, 2010] RAMON R. YAP, PETITIONER, VS.COMMISION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160270 : April 23, 2010] SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. MERLINO E. RODRIGUEZ AND WIRA INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP., BOTH REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HILDA M. BACANI, AS THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162017 : April 23, 2010] CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., WILLIAM P. TIFFANY, E.C. CAVESTANY, AND E.M. CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. HERMIE G. AGAD AND CALTEX UNITED SUPERVISORS' ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163554 : April 23, 2010] DANNIE M. PANTOJA, PETITIONER, VS. SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165300 : April 23, 2010] ATTY. PEDRO M. FERRER, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES ALFREDO DIAZ AND IMELDA DIAZ, AND REINA COMANDANTE AND SPOUSES BIENVENIDO PANGAN AND ELIZABETH PANGAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167237 : April 23, 2010] ASSOCIATED ANGLO-AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION AND FLORANTE DY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CRISPIN C. LARON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, REGION 1, BRANCH 44, DAGUPAN CITY, SHERIFF VIRGILIO F. VILLAR, OFFICE OF THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF PASAY CITY, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN AND SPOUSES PAUL PELAEZ, JR. AND ROCELI MAMISAY PELAEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 8159 (formerly CBD 05-1452) : April 23, 2010] REYNARIA BARCENAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ANORLITO A. ALVERO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172036 : April 23, 2010] SPOUSES FAUSTINO AND JOSEFINA GARCIA, SPOUSES MELITON GALVEZ AND HELEN GALVEZ, AND CONSTANCIA ARCAIRA REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT JULIANA O. MOTAS, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, EMERLITA DE LA CRUZ, AND DIOGENES G. BARTOLOME, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171434 : April 23, 2010] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ALAN A. OLANDESCA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173905 : April 23, 2010] ANTHONY L. NG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189093 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS Y GARCIA, BRYAN BRINGAS Y GARCIA, JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO Y CRUZ, ERICKSON PAJARILLO Y BASER (DECEASED), AND EDEN SY CHUNG, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180917 : April 23, 2010] ATTY. VICENTE E. SALUMBIDES, JR., AND GLENDA ARAƑA, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN , RICARDO AGON, RAMON VILLASANTA, ELMER DIZON, SALVADOR ADUL, AND AGNES FABIAN, RESPONDENTS,

  • [G.R. No. 182341 : April 23, 2010] TRINIDAD GO, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, GONZALO GO, SR., PETITIONERS, VS. VICENTE VELEZ CHAVES,* RESPONDENT, ALICE CHAVES, RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR, MEGA-INTEGRATED AGRO LIVESTOCK FARMS, INC., RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR,

  • [G.R. No. 183337 : April 23, 2010] CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. GREGORIO MAGNAYE, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188104 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. BENANCIO MORTERA Y BELARMINO, APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-05-1935 (Formerly A.M. No. 04-10-599-RTC) : April 23, 2010] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FERMIN M. OFILAS AND MS. ARANZAZU V. BALTAZAR, CLERK OF COURT AND CLERK IV, RESPECTIVELY, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN MATEO, RIZAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2322 : April 23, 2010] DALMACIO Z. TOMBOC, COMPLAINANT, VS. SHERIFFS LIBORIO M. VELASCO, JR., MEDAR T. PADAO, AND STEPHEN R. BENGUA, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DIPOLOG CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2190 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2909-RTJ) : April 23, 2010] HADJA SOHURAH DIPATUAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191124 : April 27, 2010] LUIS A. ASISTIO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. THELMA CANLAS TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 129; HON. ARTHUR O. MALABAGUIO, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 52; ENRICO R. ECHIVERRI, BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS OF PRECINCT 1811A, BARANGAY 15, CALOOCAN CITY; AND THE CITY ELECTION OFFICER, CALOOCAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162230 : April 28, 2010] ISABELITA C. VINUYA, VICTORIA C. DELA PEƑA, HERMINIHILDA MANIMBO, LEONOR H. SUMAWANG, CANDELARIA L. SOLIMAN, MARIA L. QUILANTANG, MARIA L. MAGISA, NATALIA M. ALONZO, LOURDES M. NAVARO, FRANCISCA M. ATENCIO, ERLINDA MANALASTAS, TARCILA M. SAMPANG, ESTER M. PALACIO, MAXIMA R. DELA CRUZ, BELEN A. SAGUM, FELICIDAD TURLA, FLORENCIA M. DELA PEƑA, EUGENIA M. LALU, JULIANA G. MAGAT, CECILIA SANGUYO, ANA ALONZO, RUFINA P. MALLARI, ROSARIO M. ALARCON, RUFINA C. GULAPA, ZOILA B. MANALUS, CORAZON C. CALMA, MARTA A. GULAPA, TEODORA M. HERNANDEZ, FERMIN B. DELA PEƑA, MARIA DELA PAZ B. CULALA, ESPERANZA MANAPOL, JUANITA M. BRIONES, VERGINIA M. GUEVARRA, MAXIMA ANGULO, EMILIA SANGIL, TEOFILA R. PUNZALAN, JANUARIA G. GARCIA, PERLA B. BALINGIT, BELEN A. CULALA, PILAR Q. GALANG, ROSARIO C. BUCO, GAUDENCIA C. DELA PEƑA, RUFINA Q. CATACUTAN, FRANCIA A. BUCO, PASTORA C. GUEVARRA, VICTORIA M. DELA CRUZ, PETRONILA O. DELA CRUZ, ZENAIDA P. DELA CRUZ, CORAZON M. SUBA, EMERINCIANA A. VINUYA, LYDIA A. SANCHEZ, ROSALINA M. BUCO, PATRICIA A. BERNARDO, LUCILA H. PAYAWAL, MAGDALENA LIWAG, ESTER C. BALINGIT, JOVITA A. DAVID, EMILIA C. MANGILIT, VERGINIA M. BANGIT, GUILLERMA S. BALINGIT, TERECITA PANGILINAN, MAMERTA C. PUNO, CRISENCIANA C. GULAPA, SEFERINA S. TURLA, MAXIMA B. TURLA, LEONICIA G. GUEVARRA, ROSALINA M. CULALA, CATALINA Y. MANIO, MAMERTA T. SAGUM, CARIDAD L. TURLA, ET AL. IN THEIR CAPACITY AND AS MEMBERS OF THE "MALAYA LOLAS ORGANIZATION", PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DELIA DOMINGO- ALBERT, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, AND THE HONORABLE SOLICITOR GENERAL ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190529 : April 29, 2010] PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL GEORGE "FGBF GEORGE" DULDULAO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166461 : April 30, 2010] HEIRS OF LORENZO AND CARMEN VIDAD AND AGVID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., PETITIONERS, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169725 : April 30, 2010] RICARDO V. CASTILLO, PETITIONER, VS. UNIWIDE WAREHOUSE CLUB, INC. AND/OR JIMMY GOW, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170697 : April 30, 2010] HON. PRIMO C. MIRO, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE VISAYAS, PETITIONER, VS. CARPIO, J., CHAIRPERSON, BRION, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, AND PEREZ, JJ. REYNALDO M. DOSONO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2224 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2367-P] : April 30, 2010] ATTY. ALBERTO II BORBON REYES, COMPLAINANT, VS. CLERK OF COURT V RICHARD C. JAMORA, DEPUTY SHERIFF IV LUCITO ALEJO, AND CLERK III EULOGIO T. MONDIDO, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  •  





     
     

    [G.R. No. 152364 : April 15, 2010]   ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ISAURO M. LAZARO; LEONCIO D. SANTOS; ADOLFO SANTOS; NENITA S. LACAR; ANGELINA S. SAGLES, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ALBERTO SANTOS, JR.; REGINA SANTOS AND FABIAN SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. MODESTA AGUSTIN, FILEMON AGUSTIN, VENANCIA AGUSTIN, MARCELINA AGUSTIN, PAUL A. DALALO, NOEL A. DALALO, GREGORIO AGUSTIN AND BIENVENIDO AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.

     
    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 152364 : April 15, 2010]

    ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ISAURO M. LAZARO; LEONCIO D. SANTOS; ADOLFO SANTOS; NENITA S. LACAR; ANGELINA S. SAGLES, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ALBERTO SANTOS, JR.; REGINA SANTOS AND FABIAN SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. MODESTA AGUSTIN, FILEMON AGUSTIN, VENANCIA AGUSTIN, MARCELINA AGUSTIN, PAUL A. DALALO, NOEL A. DALALO, GREGORIO AGUSTIN AND BIENVENIDO AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.

    D E C I S I O N


    PERALTA, J.:

    Assailed in the present petition for review on certiorari is the Decision[1] dated February 21, 2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 63321. The CA had affirmed, with modification, the Decision[2] dated February 6, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 13, in Civil Case No. 11951-13, which also affirmed, with modification, the Decision[3] dated January 6, 2000 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Laoag City, Branch 1, in Civil Case No. 2834.

    The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:

    On November 4, 1998, herein petitioners filed against herein respondents a Complaint[4] for partition with the MTCC of Laoag City, alleging as follows:

    x x x x

    II

    That the plaintiffs and the defendants are the descendants of the late Simeon C. Santos, married to Trinidad Duldulao, who died intestate leaving a parcel of land situated in the Barrio of Natividad Nstra. Sra., Municipality of Laoag, designated as Lot No. 10675 of the Cadastral Survey of Laoag;

    III

    That Simeon C. Santos during his lifetime, married to Trinidad Duldulao, begot four (4) legitimate children, namely: Basilisa D. Santos, Alberto D. Santos, Leoncio D. Santos and Alejandra D. Santos. Basilisa D. Santos, [who] was married to Petronilo Agustin, is now deceased; Alberto Santos, married to Rizalina Guerrero, is now deceased, while Leoncio D. Santos, married to Dictinia Tabeta, and Alejandra D. Santos married to Isauro M. Lazaro, are still living;

    IV

    That in the desire of the children of Simeon C. Santos from whom the parcel of land originated as owner, his children, namely[:] Alberto, Leoncio and Alejandra, all surnamed Santos, consented that the parcel of land mentioned in paragraph II of this complaint be titled in the name of Basilisa, the latter being the eldest and so Original Certificate of Title No. 20742 in the name of Basilisa Santos was obtained although it was agreed among them that it did not and does not necessarily mean that Basilisa Santos is the sole and exclusive owner of this parcel of land, and as embodied in the Title obtained in the name of Basilisa Santos, the parcel of land is particularly described as follows:
    A parcel of land (Lot No. 10676 of the Cadastral survey of Laoag), with the improvements thereon, situated in the Barrio of Natividad Nstra. Sra., Municipality of Laoag. Bounded on the NE. by Lot No. 10677; on the SE. by Panganiban Street; on the SW. by Lot No. 10672; and on NW. by Lot No. 1065, containing an area of three hundred and one (301) square meters, more or less, covered by Tax Declaration No. 010-00224 for the year 1994 in the names of Modesta Agustin, et al. with a market value of P96,320.00 and an assessed value of P14,450.00.
    V

    That there is a residential house constructed on the lot described in paragraph IV of this complaint and in the construction of which plaintiff Alejandra Santos, then still single, spent the amount of P68,308.60, while Basilisa Santos and her children spent the amount of P3,495.00. Afterwards, Alejandra Santos got married to Isauro M. Lazaro who was employed in a private company and when he retired from the service, some additional constructions were made on the residential house and lot such as a bedroom, azotea, two (2) toilets, two (2) kitchens, a car garage, the money spent for these additional constructions came from the earnings of the spouses Alejandra Santos-Lazaro and Isauro M. Lazaro. The said residential house is now covered by Tax Declaration No. 010-00225 in the names of Basilio Agustin (should be Basilisa Agustin) and Alejandra Santos for the year 1994 with a market value of P93,920.00 and an assessed value of zero;

    VI

    That without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs, the title of the lot described in paragraph IV of the complaint was transferred into another title which is now Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-20695 in the names of Modesta Agustin, Filemon Agustin, Venancia Agustin, Marcelina Agustin, Monica Agustin, Gregorio Agustin and Bienvenido Agustin who are the children of the late Basilisa Santos-Agustin who are herein named as defendants with Monica Agustin now deceased represented by her children Paul A. Dalalo and Noel A. Dalalo as defendants;

    VII

    That during the lifetime of Basilisa Santos-Agustin, plaintiff Alejandra Santos-Lazaro informed the former, who are sisters, that the transfer of the title covering the lot described in paragraph IV of this complaint in the name of Basilisa Santos into the names of her children would erroneously imply that the lot is solely and exclusively owned by Basilisa Santos-Agustin's children, but Basilisa Santos-Agustin replied [to] plaintiff Alejandra Santos-Lazaro not to worry because an affidavit was already executed by her recognizing and specifying that her brothers Alberto Santos and Leoncio Santos, and her sister Alejandra Santos-Lazaro would each get one fourth (Ā¼) share of the lot;

    VIII

    That in a move to determine if the children and the heirs of Basilisa Santos-Agustin, namely: Modesta Agustin, Filemon Agustin, Venancia Agustin, Marcelina Agustin, Paul Dalalo and Noel Dalalo who are the successors of their mother the late Monica Agustin, Gregorio Agustin and Bienvenido Agustin would follow the line of thinking of their mother and grandmother of Paul A. Dalalo and Noel A. Dalalo on the shares of the lot and residential house erected on it, the plaintiffs initiated a partition in the barangay court where the lot is situated described in paragraph IV of this complaint, but that the children of Basilisa Santos-Agustin and her grandchildren Paul A. Dalalo and Noel A. Dalalo refused and opposed the partition claiming that they are the sole and exclusive owners of the lot being that the lot is now titled in their names, and hence there was no settlement as shown by the certification of the barangay court hereto attached as annex "A";

    IX

    That plaintiffs now invoke the intervention of the court to partition the lot in accordance with the law on intestate succession and to partition the residential house as specified below. x x x

    x x x x[5]

    Petitioners also prayed for the grant of attorney's fees, moral and exemplary damages, and costs of suit.

    Herein respondents filed their Answer with Counterclaim,[6] raising the following as their Special/Affirmative Defenses:

    1. The subject parcel of land is owned exclusively by the defendants as heirs of the late Basilisa Santos, wife of Petronilo Agustin, who was the original registered owner of the property evidenced by OCT No. 20742; the plaintiffs never became owners of said land. There was never any agreement between the ascendants of the plaintiffs and defendants, neither is there any agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants themselves that in the ownership, the plaintiffs have a share over the lot;

    2. The defendants are the ones paying for the real estate taxes of said land;

    3. Some of the plaintiffs were able to stay on the subject house because defendants' mother Basilisa Santos was the eldest sibling and she had to take care of her brother Leoncio and sister Alejandra when these siblings were not yet employed and Basilisa allowed them to reside in the house constructed within the lot; Alejandra Santos stayed in the house up to the present with the agreement that she will spend for the renovation of the house in lieu of monthly rentals that she has to pay when she already became financially able;

    4. Prior to 1962, subject property was mortgaged by Basilisa Santos Agustin to the Philippine National Bank and the property was foreclosed by PNB when the loan was not paid, hence, TCT No. (T-9522)-4495, under the name of the Philippine National Bank was issued (Annex "A"). Thereafter, Basilisa Santos-Agustin, purchased it from the PNB and TCT No. T-5662 was issued under her name (Annex "B"); the property was later on transferred to her direct descendants, the defendants herein as evidenced by TCT No. T-20695 (Annex "C");

    x x x x[7]

    Respondents then prayed that petitioners' complaint be dismissed. In their Counterclaim, respondents asked the court to direct petitioners to pay reasonable compensation for the latter's use of the disputed property, exemplary and moral damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.

    After the issues were joined and the pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued.

    On January 6, 2000, the MTCC rendered its Decision[8] dismissing the complaint and denying petitioners' prayer for partition.

    The MTCC ruled, among others, that no evidentiary value could be given to the affidavit allegedly executed by Basilisa, wherein she purportedly acknowledged her co-ownership of the subject property with her siblings Alberto, Leoncio and Alejandra, because the affiant was not presented on the witness stand, such that all the statements made in her affidavit were hearsay. Moreover, the MTCC held that two credible witnesses testified in plain, simple and straightforward manner that at the time the affidavit was supposed to have been signed and sworn to before the notary public, Basilisa was already bedridden and an invalid who could not even raise her hand to feed herself. In addition, the MTCC also gave credence to the testimony of the notary public, before whom the document was supposedly signed and sworn to, that the said affidavit was already complete and thumbmarked when the same was presented to him by a person who claimed to be Basilisa.

    Petitioners filed an appeal with the RTC of Laoag City.

    On February 6, 2001 the RTC issued a Decision[9] affirming, with modification, the judgment of the MTCC. The RTC found that the house erected on the disputed lot was built and renovated by petitioners in good faith. As a consequence, the RTC held that petitioners were entitled to indemnity representing the costs of the construction and renovation of the said house. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision, thus, reads:

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby affirmed with the modification directing the appellees [herein respondents] to indemnify the appellants [herein petitioners] in the amount of P68,308.60 as proved by them.

    Considering the apparent error of the lower court in quoting the questioned lot as Lot No. 10675, the same is hereby corrected so as to reflect the correct lot number as Lot No. 10676 to conform to the evidence presented.

    SO ORDERED.[10]

    Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, petitioners filed a petition for review with the CA.

    On February 21, 2002, the CA issued its presently assailed Decision disposing as follows:

    WHEREFORE, the decision dated February 6, 2001 rendered in Civil Case No. 11951-13 is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATION that appellees [herein respondents] pay the amount of P68,308.60 in indemnity solely to appellant Alejandra Santos-Lazaro.

    SO ORDERED.[11]

    Hence, the instant petition based on the following grounds:

    I.
    THE SWORN STATEMENT OF BASILISA S. AGUSTIN IS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST WHICH ESTABLISHES THE CO-OWNERSHIP OF LOT NO. 10676 BY AND AMONG THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS AS HEIRS OF THE LATE SIMEON C. SANTOS.[12]
    II.
    THE CO-OWNERSHIP OF LOT NO. 10676 BY AND AMONG BASILISA S. AGUSTIN, ALBERTO D. SANTOS, ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO AND LEONCIO D. SANTOS DID NOT TERMINATE AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE LOT'S OWNERSHIP PRECIPITATED BY ACTS OF BASILISA S. AGUSTIN WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.[13]
    III.
    PETITIONER ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO IS A CO-OWNER OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON LOT NO. 10676 NOT MERELY A BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH WITH RESPECT THERETO AND AS SUCH, IS ENTITLED TO A PARTITION OF THE SUBJECT HOUSE.[14]


    In their first assigned error, petitioners contend that Basilisa's sworn statement which recognizes her siblings' share in the disputed property is a declaration against interest which is one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule. Petitioners argue that since the sworn statement was duly notarized, it should be admitted in court without further proof of its due execution and authenticity; that the testimonies of Basilisa's nurse and physician cannot qualify as clear and convincing evidence which could overthrow such notarized document; that the notary public cannot impugn the same document which he notarized for to do so would render notarized documents worthless and unreliable resulting in prejudice to the public.

    As to the second assigned error, petitioners aver that their co-ownership of the questioned property with Basilisa did not cease to exist when the Philippine National Bank (PNB) consolidated its ownership over the said parcel of land. Petitioners assert that they did not lose their share in the property co-owned when their share was mortgaged by Basilisa without their knowledge and consent; that the mortgage was limited only to the portion that may be allotted to Basilisa upon termination of their co-ownership; that PNB acquired ownership only of the share pertaining to Basilisa; that when Basilisa bought back the property from PNB, she simply re-acquired the portion pertaining to her and simply resumed co-ownership of the property with her siblings. Petitioners also contend that Basilisa's children did not acquire ownership of the subject lot by prescription, and that neither Basilisa nor respondents repudiated their co-ownership.

    Anent the third assignment of error, petitioners argue that Alejandra Lazaro, being a co-owner of the disputed parcel of land and not simply a builder in good faith, is entitled to a partition of the subject residential house.

    At the outset, it bears to point out that it is wrong for petitioners to argue that Basilisa's alleged sworn statement is a declaration against interest. It is not a declaration against interest. Instead, it is an admission against interest.

    Indeed, there is a vital distinction between admissions against interest and declarations against interest. Admissions against interest are those made by a party to a litigation or by one in privity with or identified in legal interest with such party, and are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness.[15] Declarations against interest are those made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a party to the suit, are secondary evidence, and constitute an exception to the hearsay rule. They are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness.[16] In the present case, since Basilisa is respondents' predecessor-in-interest and is, thus, in privity with the latter's legal interest, the former's sworn statement, if proven genuine and duly executed, should be considered as an admission against interest.

    A cursory reading of the subject sworn statement also reveals that it refers to a parcel of land denominated as Lot No. 10678 while the property being disputed is Lot No. 10676.[17] On this basis, it cannot be concluded with certainty that the property being referred to in the sworn statement is the same property claimed by petitioners.

    Having made the foregoing observations and discussions, the question that arises is whether the subject sworn statement, granting that it refers to the property being disputed in the present case, can be given full faith and credence in view of the issues raised regarding its genuineness and due execution.

    The Court rules in the negative.

    Settled is the rule that generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.[18] However, this presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[19]

    Moreover, not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication.[20] Thus, an affidavit does not automatically become a public document just because it contains a notarial jurat.[21] The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular.[22]

    However, a question involving the regularity of notarization as well as the due execution of the subject sworn statement of Basilisa would require an inquiry into the appreciation of evidence by the trial court. It is not the function of this Court to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. A question of fact would arise in such event. Settled is the rule that questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court and are not proper for its consideration.[23] The rationale behind this doctrine is that a review of the findings of fact of the trial courts and the appellate tribunal is not a function this Court normally undertakes.[24] The Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower courts are totally devoid of support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.[25] Although there are recognized exceptions[26] to this rule, none exists in the present case to justify a departure therefrom.

    Petitioners rely heavily on the presumption of regularity accorded by law to notarized documents. While indeed, a notarized document enjoys this presumption, the fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents.[27] As earlier discussed, the presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.[28] The presumption cannot be made to apply to the present case because the regularity in the execution of the sworn statement was challenged in the proceedings below where its prima facie validity was overthrown by the highly questionable circumstances under which it was supposedly executed, as well as the testimonies of witnesses who testified on the improbability of execution of the sworn statement, as well as on the physical condition of the signatory, at the time the questioned document was supposedly executed. The trial and appellate courts were unanimous in giving credence to the testimonies of these witnesses. The Court has repeatedly held that it will not interfere with the trial court's determination of the credibility of witnesses, unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.[29] The reason for this is that the trial court was in a better position to do so, because it heard the witnesses testify before it and had every opportunity to observe their demeanor and deportment on the witness stand.[30]

    Considering the foregoing, the Court finds no reason to reverse the rulings of the MTCC, the RTC and the CA. Although the questioned sworn statement is a public document having in its favor the presumption of regularity, such presumption was adequately refuted by competent witnesses.

    The Court further agrees with the ruling of the RTC that:

    The testimony of [the notary public] Atty. Angel Respicio did not suffice to rebut the evidence of the appellees considering his admission that the affidavit was already thumbmarked when presented to him by one who claimed to be Basilisa Santos and whom, the witness said he did not know personally. Further, what makes the documents suspect is the fact that it was subscribed on the same date as the financial statement of Alejandra Santos.

    It may not be amiss to point out, at this juncture, that the principal function of a notary public is to authenticate documents.[31] When a notary public certifies to the due execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he gives the document the force of evidence.[32] Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to be given without further proof of their execution and delivery.[33] A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed before a notary public and appended to a private instrument.[34] Hence, a notary public must discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with accuracy and fidelity.[35] A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein.[36]

    In the instant case, the notary public should have exercised utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the person executing the said sworn statement. However, the notary public did not comply with this requirement. He simply relied on the affirmative answers of the person appearing before him attesting that she was Basilisa Santos; that the contents of the sworn statement are true; and that the thumbmark appearing on the said document was hers. However, this would not suffice. He could have further asked the person who appeared before him to produce any identification to prove that she was indeed Basilisa Santos, considering that the said person was not personally known to him, and that the thumbmark appearing on the document sought to be notarized was not affixed in his presence. But he did not. Thus, the lower courts did not commit any error in not giving evidentiary weight to the subject sworn statement.

    The second and third assigned errors proceed on the presumption that petitioners are co-owners of the disputed property. Since the Court has already ruled that the lower courts did not err in finding that petitioners failed to prove their claim that they were co-owners of the said property, there is no longer any need to discuss the other assigned errors.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The February 21, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63321 is AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

    Corona, (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Nachura, and Peralta, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    [1] Penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Sergio L. PestaƱo, concurring; rollo, pp. 62-72.

    [2] Records, pp. 301-305.

    [3] Id. at 266-269.

    [4] Id. at 1-7.

    [5] Id. at 2-4.

    [6] Id. at 20-23.

    [7] Id. at 21-22.

    [8] Rollo, pp. 53-56.

    [9] Id. at 57-61.

    [10] Id. at 61.

    [11] Id. at 72.

    [12] Id. at 21.

    [13] Id. at 26.

    [14] Id. at 29.

    [15] Unchuan v. Lozada, G.R. No. 172671, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 421, 435.

    [16] Id.

    [17] See Exhibit "C," records, p. 85.

    [18] De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127857, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 325, 334; Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125283, February 10, 2006, 482 SCRA 164, 174.

    [19] Potenciano v. Reynoso, 449 Phil. 396, 406 (2003).

    [20] CequeƱa v. Bolante, 386 Phil. 419, 427 (2000).

    [21] Id.

    [22] Dela Rama v. Papa, G.R. No. 142309, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 233, 244.

    [23] Cabang v. Basay, G.R. No. 180587, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 172, 186.

    [24] Id.

    [25] Id. at 186-187.

    [26] These recognized exceptions are: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record (Bernaldo v. The Ombudsman and the Department of Public Works and Highways, G.R. No. 156286, August 13, 2008, 562 SCRA 60); and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion (Superlines Transportation Co., Inc. v. Philippine National Coordinating Council, G.R. No. 169596, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA 432, 441, citing Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 428 SCRA 79, 85-86 [2004]; see also Grand Placement and General Services Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142358, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 189, 202, citing Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana, 458 SCRA 609, 624 [2005]; Castillo v. NLRC, 367 Phil. 603, 619 [1999] and Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CA, supra; Sampayan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 156360, January 14, 2005, 448 SCRA 220, 229, citing Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Court of Appeals,, supra, citing Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut Planters Bank, 400 Phil. 1349, 1356 [2000]; Nokom v. National Labor Relations Commission, 390 Phil. 1228, 1242-1243 [2000] and Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals, 349 Phil. 275, 282-283 [2000]; Aguirre v. Court of Appeals, 421 SCRA 310, 319 [2004]; C & S Fishfarm Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 442 Phil. 279, 288 [2002]).

    [27] San Juan v. Offril, G.R. No. 154609, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 439, 445-446.

    [28] China Banking Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155299, July 24, 2007, 528 SCRA 103, 110.

    [29] San Juan v. Offril, supra note 27.

    [30] Id. at 446-447.

    [31] Vda. de Bernardo v. Restauro, 452 Phil. 745, 751 (2003).

    [32] Id.

    [33] Id.

    [34] Id.

    [35] Id.

    [36] Bautista v. Bernabe, A.C. No. 6963, February 9, 2006, 482 SCRA 1, 6.

    [G.R. No. 152364 : April 15, 2010]   ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ISAURO M. LAZARO; LEONCIO D. SANTOS; ADOLFO SANTOS; NENITA S. LACAR; ANGELINA S. SAGLES, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ALBERTO SANTOS, JR.; REGINA SANTOS AND FABIAN SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. MODESTA AGUSTIN, FILEMON AGUSTIN, VENANCIA AGUSTIN, MARCELINA AGUSTIN, PAUL A. DALALO, NOEL A. DALALO, GREGORIO AGUSTIN AND BIENVENIDO AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

               

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED