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
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-2010 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.M. No. P-05-2064 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-7-449-RTC) : March 02, 2010] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONER, VS. CLERK OF COURT JOCELYN G. CABALLERO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, KIDAPAWAN CITY, NORTH COTABATO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185644 : March 02, 2010] HEIRS OF ESTELITA BURGOS-LIPAT, NAMELY: ALAN B. LIPAT AND ALFREDO B. LIPAT, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF EUGENIO D. TRINIDAD, NAMELY: ASUNCION R. TRINIDAD, VICTOR R. TRINIDAD, IMACULADA T. ALFONSO, CELESTINA T. NAGUIAT, FERNANDO R. TRINIDAD, MICHAEL R. TRINIDAD AND JOSEFINA T. NAGUIAT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182720 : March 02, 2010] G.G. SPORTSWEAR MFG. CORP., PETITIONER, VS. WORLD CLASS PROPERTIES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180866 : March 02, 2010] LEPANTO CERAMICS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. LEPANTO CERAMICS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176518 : March 02, 2010] THE PARENTS-TEACHERS ASSOCIATION (PTA) OF ST. MATHEW CHRISTIAN ACADEMY, GREGORIO INALVEZ, JR., ROWENA LAYUG, MALOU MALVAR, MARILOU BARAQUIO, GARY SINLAO, LUZVIMINDA OCAMPO,MARIFE FERNANDEZ, FERNANDO VICTORIO, ERNESTO AGANON AND RIZALINO MANGLICMOT, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, GREGORIO INALVEZ, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. THE METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST CO., RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC : March 02, 2010] RE: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DATED JANUARY 11, 2010 OF ACTING DIRECTOR ALEU A. AMANTE, PIAB-C, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

  • [G.R. No. 34021 : March 03, 2010] RICARDO PARDO Y PUJOL, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE MUNICIPALITY OF GUINOBATAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

  • [G.R. Nos. 175045-46 : March 03, 2010] ENGR. RICARDO L. SANTILLANO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187743 : March 03, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO BAUTISTA IROY, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186441 : March 03, 2010] SALVADOR FLORDELIZ Y ABENOJAR, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185843 : March 03, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RONIE DE GUZMAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184805 : March 03, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. VICTORIO PAGKALINAWAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179169 : March 03, 2010] LEONIS NAVIGATION CO., INC. AND WORLD MARINE PANAMA, S.A., PETITIONERS, VS. CATALINO U. VILLAMATER AND/OR THE HEIRS OF THE LATE CATALINO U. VILLAMATER, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY SONIA MAYUYU VILLAMATER; AND NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173181 : March 03, 2010] HUTAMA-RSEA/SUPERMAX PHILS., J.V., PETITIONER, VS. KCD BUILDERS CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT CELSO C. DIOKNO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172690 : March 03, 2010] HEIRS OF JOSE LIM, REPRESENTED BY ELENITO LIM, PETITIONERS, VS. JULIET VILLA LIM, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169504 : March 03, 2010] COFFEE PARTNERS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SAN FRANCISCO COFFEE & ROASTERY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 148225 : March 03, 2010] CARMEN DEL PRADO, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES ANTONIO L. CABALLERO AND LEONARDA CABALLERO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168266 : March 05, 2010] CARGILL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. INTRA STRATA ASSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181913 : March 05, 2010] DANIEL P. JAVELLANA, JR., PETITIONER, VS. ALBINO BELEN, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 182158] ALBINO BELEN, PETITIONER, VS. DANIEL P. JAVELLANA, JR. AND JAVELLANA FARMS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169202 : March 05, 2010] MARIA VIRGINIA V. REMO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190078 : March 05, 2010] SPOUSES NORMAN K. CERTEZA, JR. AND MA. ROSANILA V. CERTEZA, AND AMADA P. VILLAMAYOR AND HERMINIO VILLAMAYOR, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188900 : March 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO HABANA Y ORANTE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186359 : March 05, 2010] JESUS O. TYPOCO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; THE NEW MUNICIPAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF LABO, CAMARINES NORTE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ATTY. RAFFY OLANO; THE NEW PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CANVASSERS OF CAMARINES NORTE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, ATTY. ALLEN FRANCIS B. ABAYA; AND EDGARDO A. TALLADO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182434 : March 05, 2010] SULTAN YAHYA "JERRY" M. TOMAWIS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RASAD G. BALINDONG, AMNA A. PUMBAYA, JALILAH A. MANGOMPIA, AND RAMLA A. MUSOR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180595 : March 05, 2010] ARTHUR DEL ROSARIO AND ALEXANDER DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONERS, VS. HELLENOR D. DONATO, JR. AND RAFAEL V. GONZAGA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179792 : March 05, 2010] LNS INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES, PETITIONER, VS. ARMANDO C. PADUA, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178274 : March 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AURELIO MATUNHAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 169958 : March 05, 2010] DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY RAUL M. GONZALEZ, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONER AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CHAIRMAN ALIPIO F. FERNANDEZ, JR., AND IMMIGRATION ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONERS AND BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEMBERS ARTHEL B. CARONONGAN, TEODORO B. DELARMENTE, JOSE D.L. CABOCHAN, AND FRANKLIN Z. LITTUA, PETITIONERS, VS. MICHAEL ALFIO PENNISI, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168726 : March 05, 2010] PIO DELOS REYES (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY HEIRS FIDEL DELOS REYES, MAURO DELOS REYES AND IRENE BONGCO (DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY SURVIVING SPOUSE RODOLFO BONGCO, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE WALDO Q. FLORES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HONORABLE RENE C. VILLA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND REFORM (FORMERLY DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM), THE PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (PARO) OF DINALUPIHAN BATAAN, THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (MARO) OF HERMOSA AND ORANI, BATAAN, AND FORTUNATO QUIAMBAO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158627 : March 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MARITESS MARTINEZ Y DULAY, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 160756 : March 09, 2010] CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS' ASSOCIATIONS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO ROMULO, THE HON. ACTING SECRETARY OF FINANCE JUANITA D. AMATONG, AND THE HON. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE GUILLERMO PARAYNO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190382 : March 09, 2010] JOSEPH BERNARDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND AVELINO TOLEAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190067 : March 09, 2010] REPRESENTATIVE ALVIN S. SANDOVAL (LONE DISTRICT OF NAVOTAS-MALABON), PETITIONER, VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, JOSEPHINE VERONIQUE R. LACSON-NOEL, AND HON. SPEAKER PROSPERO NOGRALES,RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189279 : March 09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. NELSON PALMA Y HANGAD, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184600 : March 09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ANACITO DIMANAWA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183453 : March 09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. DANILO PACULBA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182460 : March 09, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JESSIE VILLEGAS MURCIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182403 : March 09, 2010] ATTY. RESTITUTO G. CUDIAMAT, ERLINDA P. CUDIAMAT[1] AND CORAZON D. CUDIAMAT, PETITIONERS, VS. BATANGAS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC., AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, NASUGBU, BATANGAS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181851 : March 09, 2010] CAPT. WILFREDO G. ROQUERO, PETITIONER, VS. THE CHANCELLOR OF UP-MANILA; THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL (ADT) OF UP-MANILA; ATTY. ZALDY B. DOCENA; EDEN PERDIDO; ISABELLA LARA, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE ADT; AND IMELDA O. ABUTAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181483 : March 09, 2010] BLAZER CAR MARKETING, INC., AND FREDDIE CHUA, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES TOMAS T. BULAUAN AND ANALYN A. BRIONES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 157594 : March 09, 2010] TOSHIBA INFORMATION EQUIPMENT (PHILS.), INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 154270 : March 09, 2010] TEOFISTO OÑO, PRECY O. NAMBATAC, VICTORIA O. MANUGAS AND POLOR O. CONSOLACION, PETITIONERS, VS. VICENTE N. LIM, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 154094 : March 09, 2010] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HERNANI A. BRAGANZA, PETITIONER, VS. PABLO BERENGUER, BELINDA BERENGUER, CARLO BERENGUER, ROSARIO BERENGUER-LANDERS, AND REMEDIOS BERENGUER-LINTAG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 142549 : March 09, 2010] FIDELA R. ANGELES, PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE ADMINISTRATOR, LAND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, AND SENATOR TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 126890 : March 09, 2010] UNITED PLANTERS SUGAR MILLING CO., INC. (UPSUMCO), PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK (PNB) AND ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST (APT), AS TRUSTEE OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2686 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2441-P) : March 10, 2010] PRISCILLA L. HERNANDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JULIANA Y. BENGSON, LEGAL RESEARCHER, RTC, BRANCH 104, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184058 : March 10, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MELISSA CHUA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183250 : March 10, 2010] WILLIAM UY CONSTRUCTION CORP. AND/OR TERESITA UY AND WILLIAM UY, PETITIONERS, VS. JORGE R. TRINIDAD, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176123 : March 10, 2010] JOSE CABARAL TIU, PETITIONER, VS. FIRST PLYWOOD CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 185265] JOSE CABARAL TIU, PETITIONER, VS. TIMBER EXPORTS, INC., ANGEL DOMINGO, COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORPORATION, PERFECTO MONDARTE, JR. AND CESAR DACAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 166730 : March 10, 2010] SPOUSES FERNANDO TORRES AND IRMA TORRES, PETITIONERS, VS. AMPARO MEDINA AND THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE RTC OF QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165273 : March 10, 2010] LEAH PALMA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. DANILO P. GALVEZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO CITY, BRANCH 24; AND PSYCHE ELENA AGUDO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164493 : March 10, 2010] JOCELYN M. SUAZO, PETITIONER, VS. ANGELITO SUAZO AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 159117 : March 10, 2010] HON. HECTOR B. BARILLO, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, MTC GUIHULNGAN, NEGROS ORIENTAL, PETITIONER, VS. HON. RALPH LANTION, HON. MEHOL K. SADAIN AND HON. FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE SECOND DIVISION, COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, MANILA; AND WALTER J. ARAGONES, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. No. MTJ-10-1752 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1353-MTJ)] WALTER J. ARAGONES, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. HECTOR B. BARILLO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GUIHULNGAN, NEGROS ORIENTAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 05-10-20-SC : March 10, 2010] IN RE: EXEMPTION OF THE NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION FROM PAYMENT OF FILING/ DOCKET FEES

  • [G.R. No. 149552 : March 10, 2010] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ERNESTO CASIO, ROLANDO IGOT, MARIO FAMADOR, NELSON LIM, FELICISIMO BOOC, PROCOPIO OBREGON, JR., AND ANTONIO ANINIPOK, RESPONDENTS, AND VIRGILIO PINO, PAULINO CABREROS, MA. LUNA P. JUMAOAS, DOMINADOR BOOC, FIDEL VALLE, BARTOLOME AUMAN, REMEGIO CABANTAN, LORETO GONZAGA, EDILBERTO MENDOZA AND ANTONIO PANILAG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163532 : March 12, 2010] YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172623 : March 13, 2010] COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS SECRETARY HON. ARTURO L. TIU, PETITIONER, VS. CELSO M. PALER,[1] RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169493 : March 14, 2010] STA. CLARA SHIPPING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. EUGENIA T. SAN PABLO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R No. 188078 : March 15, 2010] VICTORINO B. ALDABA, CARLO JOLETTE S. FAJARDO, JULIO G. MORADA, AND MINERVA ALDABA MORADA, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181430 : March 09, 2010] FELIPE RONQUILLO Y GUILLERMO AND GILBERT TORRES Y NATALIA, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179230 : March 09, 2010] EUGENE L. LIM, PETITIONER, VS. BPI AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172144 : March 09, 2010] PEZA BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND LILIA B. DE LIMA, PETITIONERS, VS. GLORIA J. MERCADO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403 : March 09, 2010] ROLANDO E. SISON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168203 : March 09, 2010] NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION, PETITIONER, VS. VAL L. VILLANUEVA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160972 : March 09, 2010] LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. CNP INDUSTRIES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160545 : March 09, 2010] PRISMA CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ROGELIO S. PANTALEON, PETITIONERS, VS. ARTHUR F. MENCHAVEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160506 : March 09, 2010] JOEB M. ALIVIADO, ARTHUR CORPUZ, ERIC ALIVIADO, MONCHITO AMPELOQUIO, ABRAHAM BASMAYOR, JONATHAN MATEO, LORENZO PLATON, JOSE FERNANDO GUTIERREZ, ESTANISLAO BUENAVENTURA, LOPE SALONGA, FRANZ DAVID, NESTOR IGNACIO, JULIO REY, RUBEN MARQUEZ, JR., MAXIMINO PASCUAL, ERNESTO CALANAO, ROLANDO ROMASANTA, RHUEL AGOO, BONIFACIO ORTEGA, ARSENIO SORIANO, JR., ARNEL ENDAYA, ROBERTO ENRIQUEZ, NESTOR BAQUILA, EDGARDO QUIAMBAO, SANTOS BACALSO, SAMSON BASCO, ALADINO GREGORO, JR., EDWIN GARCIA, ARMANDO VILLAR, EMIL TAWAT, MARIO P. LIONGSON, CRESENTE J. GARCIA, FERNANDO MACABENTE, MELECIO CASAPAO, REYNALDO JACABAN, FERDINAND SALVO, ALSTANDO MONTOS, RAINER N. SALVADOR, RAMIL REYES, PEDRO G. ROY, LEONARDO P. TALLEDO, ENRIQUE F. TALLEDO, WILLIE ORTIZ, ERNESTO SOYOSA, ROMEO VASQUEZ, JOEL BILLONES, ALLAN BALTAZAR, NOLI GABUYO, EMMANUEL E. LABAN, RAMIR E. PIAT, RAUL DULAY, TADEO DURAN, JOSEPH BANICO, ALBERT LEYNES, ANTONIO DACUNA, RENATO DELA CRUZ, ROMEO VIERNES, JR., ELAIS BASEO, WILFREDO TORRES, MELCHOR CARDANO, MARIANO NARANIAN, JOHN SUMERGIDO, ROBERTO ROSALES, GERRY C. GATPO, GERMAN N. GUEVARRA, GILBERT Y. MIRANDA, RODOLFO C. TOLEDO, ARNOLD D. LASTONA, PHILIP M. LOZA, MARIO N. CULDAYON, ORLANDO P. JIMENEZ, FRED P. JIMENEZ, RESTITUTO C. PAMINTUAN, JR., ROLANDO J. DE ANDRES, ARTUZ BUSTENERA, ROBERTO B. CRUZ, ROSEDY O. YORDAN, DENNIS DACASIN, ALEJANDRINO ABATON, AND ORLANDO S. BALANGUE, PETITIONERS, VS. PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILS., INC., AND PROMM-GEM INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186228 : March 15, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTONIO LAUGA Y PINA ALIAS TERIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184722 : March 15, 2010] ALEX C. COOTAUCO, PETITIONER, VS. MMS PHIL. MARITIME SERVICES, INC., MS. MARY C. MAQUILAN AND/OR MMS CO. LTD., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183678 : March 15, 2010] RENE VENTENILLA PUSE, PETITIONER, VS. LIGAYA DELOS SANTOS-PUSE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183612 : March 15, 2010] POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. GOLDEN HORIZON REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 184260] NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, PETITIONER, VS. GOLDEN HORIZON REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183357 : March 15, 2010] HONORIO BERNARDO, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF EUSEBIO VILLEGAS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182061 : March 15, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. FERDINAND T. BALUNTONG, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181071 : March 15, 2010] LADISLAO ESPINOSA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181040 : March 15, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RAYMOND FABIAN Y NICOLAS AND ALLAN MACALONG Y BUCCAT, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [A.M. No. 2008-20-SC : March 15, 2010] RE: COMPLAINT OF MRS. CORAZON S. SALVADOR AGAINST SPOUSES NOEL AND AMELIA SERAFICO

  • [A.C. No. 4973 : March 15, 2010] SPOUSES MANUEL C. RAFOLS, JR. AND LOLITA B. RAFOLS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173510 : March 15, 2010] ERPASCUAL DIEGA Y PAJARES, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 174099] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ERPASCUAL DIEGA Y PAJARES, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 171092 : March 15, 2010] EDNA DIAGO LHUILLIER, PETITIONER, VS. BRITISH AIRWAYS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169548 : March 15, 2010] TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MANUEL A. DAVID, SR. AND MARTHA S. DAVID, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167750 : March 15, 2010] BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PETITIONER, VS. REYNALD R. SUAREZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164785 : March 15, 2010] ELISEO F. SORIANO, PETITIONER, VS. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA, IN HER CAPACITY AS CHAIRPERSON OF THE MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ, MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL, AND ROLDAN A. GAVINO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 165636] ELISEO F. SORIANO, PETITIONER, VS. MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, ZOSIMO G. ALEGRE, JACKIE AQUINO-GAVINO, NOEL R. DEL PRADO, EMMANUEL BORLAZA, JOSE E. ROMERO IV, AND FLORIMONDO C. ROUS, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE HEARING AND ADJUDICATION COMMITTEE OF THE MTRCB, JESSIE L. GALAPON, ANABEL M. DELA CRUZ, MANUEL M. HERNANDEZ, JOSE L. LOPEZ, CRISANTO SORIANO, BERNABE S. YARIA, JR., MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL, AND ROLDAN A. GAVINO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS COMPLAINANTS BEFORE THE MTRCB, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173854 : March 15, 2010] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 164016 : March 15, 2010] RENO FOODS, INC., AND/OR VICENTE KHU, PETITIONERS, VS. NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA (NLM) - KATIPUNAN ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBER, NENITA CAPOR, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6273 : March 15, 2010] ATTY. ILUMINADA M. VAFLOR-FABROA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. OSCAR PAGUINTO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 161137 : March 15, 2010] LYDIA L. ROA, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF SANTIAGO EBORA: JOSEFA EBORA PACARDO, PACITA EBORA PACARDO, BARTOLOME EBORA, RAYMUNDA EBORA, BERNARDINO DEJULO EBORA, MERCEDES EBORA PABUSLAN, ALEJANDRO EBORA, SABINA EBORA GALASINO AND POLICARPIO EBORA, WILSON GAW (CHIN CHIONG), SAMUEL SONNIE LIM, ALFONSO GOKING, ELEAZAR ED. ESPINO, D'ORO LAND REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, CONSTANCIO S. MANZANO, PRESCO C. KWONG AND ORO CAM ENTERPRISES, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 42181 : March 15, 2010] PEDRO V. MANZA ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. EDUARDO GUTIERREZ DAVID, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189122 : March 17, 2010] JOSE ANTONIO LEVISTE, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188706 : March 17, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. OSCAR M. DOCUMENTO, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185195 : March 17, 2010] VIOLETA BAHILIDAD, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 176717 : March 17, 2010] EVANGELINE C. COBARRUBIAS, PETITIONER, VS. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 157009 : March 17, 2010] SULPICIO LINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DOMINGO E. CURSO, LUCIA E. CURSO, MELECIO E. CURSO, SEGUNDO E. CURSO, VIRGILIO E. CURSO, DIOSDADA E. CURSO, AND CECILIA E. CURSO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 191002 : March 17, 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 ADVANCEMENT 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. 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.

  • [G.R. No. 162079 : March 18, 2010] YKR CORPORATION AND HEIRS OF LUIS A. YULO, PETITIONERS, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 35763 : March 18, 2010] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CANUTO TUZON, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 169900 : March 18, 2010] MARIO SIOCHI, PETITIONER, VS. ALFREDO GOZON, WINIFRED GOZON, GIL TABIJE, INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC., AND ELVIRA GOZON, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 169977] INTER-DIMENSIONAL REALTY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. MARIO SIOCHI, ELVIRA GOZON, ALFREDO GOZON, AND WINIFRED GOZON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185277 : March 18, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RODOLFO GALLO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181866 : March 18, 2010] EMMANUEL S. HUGO, LOURENTE V. CRUZ, DIOSDADO S. DOLORES, RAMON B. DE LOS REYES, ORLANDO B. FLORES, ROGELIO R. MARTIN, JOSE ROBERTO A. PAMINTUAN, MELVIN R. GOMEZ, REYNALDO P. SOLISA, EMMANUEL A. PALADO, JR., ANSELMO V. TALAGTAG, JR., ANTHONY C. RONQUILLO, ARTHUR G. CONCEPCION, ORLANDO MALAYBA, LEANDRO C. PAGURAYAN III, MARVIN L. GABRIEL, FERNANDO V. DIAZ, ALFREDO CHAN, JUAN G. OBIAS, JR., EMIL P. BELCHEZ, RODELIO H. LASTIMA, AND AUGUSTO LAGOS, PETITIONERS, VS. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178989 : March 18, 2010] EAGLE RIDGE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND EAGLE RIDGE EMPLOYEES UNION (EREU), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169975 : March 18, 2010] PAN PACIFIC SERVICE CONTRACTORS, INC. AND RICARDO F. DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONERS, VS. EQUITABLE PCI BANK (FORMERLY THE PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169726 : March 18, 2010] DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, REPRESENTED BY. SEC. EMILIA T. BONCODIN, PETITIONER, VS. OLIVIA D. LEONES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169336 : March 18, 2010] SPOUSES MELCHOR AND SATURNINA ALDE, PETITIONERS, VS. RONALD B. BERNAL, OLYMPIA B. BERNAL, JUANITO B. BERNAL, AND MYRNA D. BERNAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181258 : March 18, 2010] BEN-HUR NEPOMUCENO, PETITIONER, VS. ARHBENCEL ANN LOPEZ, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER ARACELI LOPEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 153266 : March 18, 2010] VICTORIA C. GUTIERREZ, JOEL R. PEREZ, ARACELI L. YAMBOT, CORAZON F. SORIANO, LORNA P. TAMOR, ROMEO S. CONSIGNADO, DIVINA R. SULIT, ESTRELITA F. IRESARE, ROSALINDA L. ALPAY, AUREA L. ILAGAN AND ALL THE OTHER CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, HONORABLE SECRETARY EMILIA T. BONCODIN AND DIRECTOR LUZ M. CANTOR, RESPONDENTS, UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, AMADO EUROPA, MERCEDITA REYES, CONCHITA ABARCAR, LUCIO ABERIN, BIENVENIDO BIONG, SOLOMON CELIZ, WILFREDO CORNEL, TOMAS FORIO, ROGELIO JUNTERIAL, JAIME PERALTA, PILAR RILLAS, WILFREDO SAGUN, JESUS SUGUITAN, LUIS TORRES, JOSE VERSOZA AND ALL THE OTHER CONCERNED INCUMBENT AND RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM V. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM CONSUELO A. TAGARO, REYNALDO S. CALLANO, AIDA A. MARTINEZ, PRISCILLA P. COSTES, RICELI C. MENDOZA, ARISTON CALVO, SAMSON L. MOLAO, MANUEL SABUTAN, VILMA GONZALES, RUTH C. MAPANAO, NELSON M. BELGIRA, JESUS ANTONIO G. DERIJE V. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO CONFEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT UNIONS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR (CIU) ESTHER I. ABADIANO AND OTHER FORTY ONE THOUSAND INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS INTERVENORS ELPIDIO F. FERRER, MARIKINA CITY FEDERATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT ELPIDIO F. FERRER, AND ALL OTHER INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS IN CENTRAL LUZON, NORTHERN LUZON, SOUTHERN TAGALOG, NATIONAL CENTRAL REGION, CARR AND MINDANAO REPRESENTED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT, ATTORNEYS DANTE ILAYA AND VIRGINIA SUAREZ-PINLAC AND ACTION AND SOLIDARITY FOR THE EMPOWERMENT OF TEACHERS (ASSERT), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AMABLE TUIBEIO, ET AL. HARRIS M. SINOLINDING, KALANTONGAN P. AKIL, DAUNDI B. BAKONG, TERESITA C. DE GUZMAN, QUEENIE A. HABIBUN, JOSE T. MAUN, VIVIENLE P. MARAGGUN, SAAVEDRA M. MANTIKAYAN, GIJIT C. PARON, IRWIN R. QUINAIN, DATUMANONG O. TAGITICAN AND HYDIE P. WONG, AND ALL OTHER CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE COTABATO FOUNDATION COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CFCST) V. COTABATO FOUNDATION COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT FRANCISCA C. CASTRO, DARIO C. VARGAS, MA. DEBBIE M. RESMA, RAMON P. CASIL, TERESITA C. BUSADRE, CRISTINA V. MANALO, SAUL SAN RAMON, ALEXIS R. REBURIANO, ROSALITO D. ROSA, DR. FERNANDO C. JAVIER, DR. ROSEMARIE M. YAGUIE, DR. GIL T. MAGBANUA, AND ALL OTHER CONCERNED PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS OF QUEZON CITY V. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT WILMA Q. NOBLEZA, ELEANOR M. CASTRO, JOSE B. BUSTILLO, JR., ABELARDO E. DE GUZMAN, EDWIN F. FABRIQUIER, ET AL. V. DBM SECRETARY ROMULO NERI AND DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT EVA VALDEZ FERIA, WILHELMINA BALDO, ROSE MARIE L. YCASA, GLORIA G. IGNACIO AND HJI. AKMAD A. ALSAD AND OTHER TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED INDIVIDUAL TEACHERS BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, MARY ANN GUERRERO, ET AL.. INTERVENORS. [G.R. NO. 159007] ESTRELLITA C. AMPONIN, JUDITH A. CUDAL, ROMEO A. PAGALAN, MARISSA F. PARIÑAS, AND RAYMOND F. FLORES, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, GUILERMO N. CARAGUE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN, RAUL C. FLORES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, AND EMMANUEL M. DALMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 159029] AUGUSTO R. NIEVES, BONIFACIO H. ATIVO, TARCELA P. DETERA, NILDA G. CIELO, ANTHONY M. BRAVO, MARIA LOURDES G. BARROZO, ANTONIO E. FUENTES, ALFREDO D. DONOR, RICO B. NAVA, SR., DOLORES C. HUIDEM AND ALL THE OTHER CONCERNED EMPLOYEES OF THE SORSOGON STATE COLLEGE, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND HONORABLE SECRETARY EMILIA T. BONCODIN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 170084] KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (KMB), EVELYN C. TIDON, RIPOL O. ABALOS, BEATRIZ L. HUBILLA, MA. CHERYL J. TAJONERA, LOLITA DE HERNANDEZ, FLORA M. MABAMBA, DELILAH G. BASSIG AND ALL CONCERNED INCUMBENT AND RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF THE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND HONORABLE SECRETARY ROMULO NERI***, RESPONDENTS. G.R. NO. 172713 NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. EPIFANIO P. RECANA, MERCEDES AMURAO, ERASMO APOSTOL, FLORENDO ASUNCION, FIORELLO JOSEFINA BALTAZAR, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 173119] INSURANCE COMMISSION OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTED BY INSURANCE COMMISSION EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (ICEWA), ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND/OR HONORABLE SECRETARY ROLANDO G. ANDAYA, JR.,. RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 176477] FIBER INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (FIDAEA), REMEDIOS V.J. ABGONA, CELERINA T. HILARIO, QUIRINO U. SANTOS, GRACE AURORA F. PASTORES, RHISA V. PEGENIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND/OR HONORABLE SECRETARY ROLANDO G. ANDAYA, JR.***, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 177990] BUREAU OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (BAIEA), LORY C. BANGALISAN, EDGARDO VINCULADO, LORENZO J. ABARCA, ROLANDO M. VASQUEZ, ALFREDO B. DUCUSIN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT AND/OR HONORABLE SECRETARY ROLANDO G. ANDAYA, JR.***, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. 06-4-02-SB] RE: REQUEST OF SANDIGANBAYAN FOR AUTHORITY TO USE THEIR SAVINGS TO PAY THEIR COLA DIFFERENTIAL FROM JULY 1, 1989 TO MARCH 16, 1999,

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2355 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 01-7-208- MTCC) : March 19, 2010] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARY ANN PADUGANAN-PENARANDA, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), CAGAYAN DE ORO, MISAMIS ORIENTAL; AND MS. JOCELYN MEDIANTE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-08-2559 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 08-2940-P) : March 19, 2010] RYAN S. PLAZA, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ARGAO, CEBU, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARCELINA R. AMAMIO, CLERK OF COURT, GENOVEVA R. VASQUEZ, LEGAL RESEARCHER AND FLORAMAY PATALINGHUG, COURT STENOGRAPHER, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, ARGAO, CEBU, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181247 : March 19, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RICHARD NAPALIT Y DE GUZMAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 172873 : March 19, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROLDAN MORALES Y MIDARASA, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 172357 : March 19, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. MARCELO BUSTAMANTE Y ZAPANTA, NEIL BALUYOT Y TABISORA, RICHARD DELOS TRINO Y SARCILLA, HERMINIO JOSE Y MONSON, EDWIN SORIANO Y DELA CRUZ AND ELMER SALVADOR Y JAVALE, APPELLANTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2226 (Formerly A.M. No. 10-1-24-RTC) : March 22, 2010] RE: CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE HON. MELITON G. EMUSLAN, FORMER JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN.

  • [A.M. No. P-08-2458 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2755-P) : March 22, 2010] CRISOSTOMO M. PLOPINIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LIZA ZABALA-CARIÑO, CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-04-1819 (Formerly A.M. No. 04-6-133-MTC) : March 22, 2010] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. MACARIO C. VILLANUEVA, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BONGABON, NUEVA ECIJA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186180 : March 22, 2010] MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION AND/OR CRUISE SHIPS CATERING AND SERVICES INTERNATIONAL N.V., PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION) AND ROMMEL B. CEDOL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174835 : March 22, 2010] ANITA REYES-MESUGAS, PETITIONER, VS. ALEJANDRO AQUINO REYES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175380 : March 22, 2010] GREGORIO ESPINOZA, IN HIS OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS SURVIVING SPOUSE, AND JO ANNE G. ESPINOZA, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, BEN SANGIL, PETITIONERS, VS. UNITED OVERSEAS BANK PHILS. (FORMERLY WESTMONT BANK), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174420 : March 22, 2010] MIGUELA SANTUYO, CORAZON ZACARIAS, EUGENIA CINCO, ELIZABETH PERALES, SUSANA BELEDIANO, RUFINA TABINAS, LETICIA L. DELA ROSA, NENITA LINESES, EDITHA DELA RAMA, MARIBEL M. OLIVAR, LOEVEL MALAPAD, FLORENDA M. GONZALO, ELEANOR O. BUEN, EULALIA ABAGAO, LORECA MOCORRO, DIANA MAGDUA, LUZ RAGAY, LYDIA MONTE, CORNELIA BALTAZAR AND DAISY MANGANTE, PETITIONERS, VS. REMERCO GARMENTS MANUFACTURING, INC. AND/OR VICTORIA REYES.[1] RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168289 : March 22, 2010] THE MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY, BULACAN, REPRESENTED BY THE HON. FELIX V. OPLE, MUNICIPAL MAYOR, AND FELIX V. OPLE, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SIMEON P. DUMDUM, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, CEBU CITY; HON. CLERK OF COURT & EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CEBU CITY; HON. CLERK OF COURT & EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BULACAN AND HIS DEPUTIES; AND EMILY ROSE GO KO LIM CHAO, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE KD SURPLUS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167563 : March 22, 2010] COLLEGE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND ATTY. MARIUS F. CARLOS, PH.D., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161074 : March 22, 2010] MANUEL T. DE GUIA, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF FE DAVIS MARAMBA, RENATO DAVIS, FLORDELIZA D. YEH, JOCELYN D. QUEBLATIN AND BETTY DAVIS, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 12, MALOLOS, BULACAN; SPOUSES TEOFILO R. MORTE, ANGELINA C. VILLARICO; SPOUSES RUPERTO AND MILAGROS VILLARICO; AND DEPUTY SHERIFF BENJAMIN C. HAO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 191084 : March 25, 2010] JOSELITO R. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ROBERTO M. PAGDANGANAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169207 : March 25, 2010] WPP MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JOHN STEEDMAN, MARK WEBSTER, AND NOMINADA LANSANG, PETITIONERS, VS. JOCELYN M. GALERA, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 169239] JOCELYN M. GALERA, PETITIONER, VS. WPP MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS, INC., JOHN STEEDMAN, MARK WEBSTER, AND NOMINADA LANSANG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168959 : March 25, 2010] NAPOLEON MAGNO, PETITIONER, VS. GONZALO FRANCISCO AND REGINA VDA. DE LAZARO, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N

  • [G.R. Nos. 167055-56 : March 25, 2010] PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, PETITIONER, VS. SILANGAN INVESTORS AND MANAGERS, INC. AND SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 170673] PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, PETITIONER, VS. POLYGON INVESTORS AND MANAGERS, INCORPORATED AND SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172960 : March 26, 2010] MACTAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, MACTAN CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-07-1663 : March 26, 2010] ROLAND ERNEST MARIE JOSE SPELMANS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE GAYDIFREDO T. OCAMPO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, POLOMOLOK, SOUTH COTABATO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190779 : March 26, 2010] ATTY. REYNANTE B. ORCEO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190734 : March 26, 2010] BAI SANDRA S.A. SEMA, PETITIONER, VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186498 : March 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RONALDO DE GUZMAN Y DANZIL, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 180523 : March 26, 2010] DOÑA ROSANA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SY KA KIENG, PETITIONERS, VS. MOLAVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY TEOFISTA TINITIGAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 180471 : March 26, 2010] ALANGILAN REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, REPRESENTED BY ALBERTO ROMULO, AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND ARTHUR P. AUTEA, AS DEPUTY SECRETARY; AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180384 : March 26, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PRESENT: CORAZON M. VILLEGAS, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 180891] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF CATALINO V. NOEL AND PROCULA P. SY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176006 : March 26, 2010] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PINATUBO COMMERCIAL, REPRESENTED BY ALFREDO A. DY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 5768 : March 26, 2010] ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169449 : March 26, 2010] TERESITA G. NARVASA, PETITIONER, VS. BENJAMIN A. SANCHEZ, JR.,[1] RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 158104 : March 26, 2010] ANGELITA DE GUZMAN, PETITIONER, VS. EMILIO A. GONZALEZ III, THEN OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, ADORACION A. AGBADA, GRAFT INVESTIGATOR, AND COMMISSION ON AUDIT REGION II CAGAYAN, REPRESENTED BY ERLINDA F. LANGCAY, HON. LEO REYES, PRESIDING JUDGE OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF SANCHEZ MIRA, CAGAYAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 160825 : March 26, 2010] VOLTAIRE I. ROVIRA, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JOSE C. DELESTE, NAMELY JOSEFA L. DELESTE, JOSE RAY L. DELESTE, RAUL HECTOR L. DELESTE AND RUBEN ALEX L. DELESTE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 159381 : March 26, 2010] DANILO D. ANSALDO, PETITIONER, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186019 : March 29, 2010] WHITE DIAMOND TRADING CORPORATION AND/OR JERRY UY AND JESSIE UY, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NORLITO ESCOTO, MARY GRACE PASTORIL AND MARIA MYRNA OMELA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184809 : March 29, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANTHONY RANTE Y REYES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184193 : March 29, 2010] SEGUNDO G. DIMARANAN, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF SPOUSES HERMOGENES ARAYATA AND FLAVIANA ARAYATA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183926 : March 29, 2010] GENEROSA ALMEDA LATORRE, PETITIONER, VS. LUIS ESTEBAN LATORRE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183467 : March 29, 2010] EVELYN BARREDO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. FRANCISCO F. MACLANO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BUTUAN CITY, BR. 3, AND ATTY. RICARDO GONZALEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182276 : March 29, 2010] DIONISIO AW A.K.A. TONY GO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181831 : March 29, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. RODNIE ALMORFE Y SEDENTE AND RYAN ALMORFE Y ALLESTER, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168386 : March 29, 2010] LUCITA A. CANTOJA, PETITIONER, VS. HARRY S. LIM, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 153142 : March 29, 2010] CATALINA BALAIS-MABANAG, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ELEUTERIO MABANAG, PETITIONER, VS. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY, CONCEPCION D. ALCARAZ, AND RAMONA PATRICIA ALCARAZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162446 : March 29, 2010] ROMANITA CONCHA, BENITA COSICO, DOMINGO GARCIA, ROMEO DE CASTRO, PEDRO CONCHA, CONSTANTINO CONCHA, ROLANDO NAVARRO, ROSALINDA DE TORRES, CANDIDA DE TORRES, RODELO COSICO, TEODOLFO CAPUNO, ANTONIO DE TORRES, MAXIMA CONCHA, GABRIEL CONCHA, IRINEO CONCHA, AND BRAULIO DE TORRES, PETITIONERS, VS. PAULINO RUBIO, SOFIA RUBIO, AMBROCIA BARLETA, SEGUNDO CRISOSTOMO, MILAGROS GAYAPA, LASARO CONCHA, AND LORENSO NAVARRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189078 : March 30, 2010] MAYOR VIRGILIO P. VARIAS, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOSE "JOY" D. PENANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165951 : March 30, 2010] SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; RODOLFO N. BOMBITA, DANILO J. MEDRANO, DONALD F. MAGLEO, RONALD M. PASIMIO, JOSE R. PACHECO, ALFREDO TAN, JUSTICE Z. DEMERRE, SOFIA G. YAP, NICHOLAS DEL ROSARIO, RAMON R. ABASTA, LUIS S. MASTRILL, REYNALDO E. ALLADO, DANILO NERY, GRACIANO M. DEL ROSARIO, GEALDINO M. PARAM, LUCINA D. DE CASTRO, GLORIA MARAYAG, ROLANDO A. ARIÑO, BEDELL F. FERRANCULO, MA. BELLA A. PERALTA, DIONILO M. MARFIL, TERESITA E. ANGELES, ZENAIDA Q. CAÑETE, CHERRY KRISTIN C. BAUTISTA, CECILIA S. ABELLA, MARIE ABIGAIL TONGSON, MADEMIOSETTE PRINSIPE, RICARDO APOLINAR, BENJAMIN O. CASTAÑEDA, JR., LUIS DEL MORAL, JR., JOSE G. RICAFORTE, JR., PATRICIA LEE, ENRIQUE T. CASTELLVI, RENATO P. MALLARI, ESTRELLA LOPEZ, MOISES ANGELES, ROLANDO CUNDANGAN, CONRADO GALANG, CLARO I. NEPOMUCENO, FLORESITA GOCE, ALBERTO CABALLERO, LEONARDO SANGA, WINIFREDO MARTINEZ, MA. VICTORIA LABORTE, ROBERTO F. MADRID, EVELYN S. SERVIETO, MILAGROS MUJER, GIL CABAÑAS, LILIA CUAN, NORMA V. GO, IRMA M. MANAOIS, WILFREDO B. REYES, TESSIE MATEO, RESURECCION SANTOS, BIENVENIDO M. SILANGIL, GODOFREDO F. DE LEON, NORMAN R. REYES, ALFONSO S. MORALES, JR., MERCEDITA I. MAGSUMBOL, ROSARIO G. UMALI, VICENTA LOPEZ, PRISCILLA F. CRUZ, MA. CARMEN A. YAZON, MARIE EMILLE C. DELA CRUZ, DOROTEA YAP, RUCIA T. PO, ROMEO C. ROSARIO, RUBEN A. FELEBRICO, RUBY ROSA M. CARZA, ROBERTO S. DE GUZMAN, LEONORA T. COMIA, RAMON L. YU, ERLINDA T. CALUMAG, JANE CUA, FILINO G. MARQUEZ, JAIME C. CHAM, FELOMINO V. LEGARDA, JUANITO B. ARCEO, MANUEL B. MANZANO, ROBERTO T. TUALE, SAMUEL Z. ARCILLA, CLEMENTE N. AGCAMARAN, BENJAMINA D. MONCADA, ILDEFENSO F. TAGAYON, CARMELO INAMAC, MARICEL D. SALIRE, RICARDO M. BONDOC, ROLANDO M. HALLIG, ROMEO C. BONDOC, HENRY F. LEE LEONG, FRANCISCA S. ZABALA, RENE G. ALBANA, EDUARDO T. JUAN, MERLIN L. VILLASIS, EDWIN O. CACHO, NICOLAS S. DIAZ, EDUARDO M. LIMBAGA, JESUS P. TREYES, MAXIMO S. MUÑOZ, JR., MAYNARDO B. DYTUCO, AIDA J. PALAFOX, EVANGELINE S. YANZON, DARIO V. ABOGA, MODESTO V. BALTAZAR, ROBERTO L. MAPA, ISAURO A. ARELLANO, MAXIMO D. SUNER, NOMER A. VIDAL, EDUARDO V. ILAGAN, ROMEO D. MENDOZA, FLORO A. BUSTO, FREDDIE L. UYACO, JOE M. LICAYU, YODEL C. MORALES, ALEXANDER V. CABALLERO, HERMIN A. DOLORITO, EDWARD C. YOUNG, MA. TERESA R. LEGASPI, ELMER F. CIERVA, ROMEO MERCADO, HUMBERTO S. RANCO, CONCEPCION S. YADAO, CARLO C. DELA RIARTE, EDWIN R. ERMITA, RAYMUND NIETES, JENNIFER T. ABESAMIS, ARNULFO ALVARES, LUISITO J. ESTEBAN, CONCHITINA C. MESINA, PING CHAN C. YAO, LARIZA V. LLANES, LEONARDO S. AVELINO, JR., JAIME T. ESMERALDA, EDUARDO S. BUENVENTURA, JOSEFINA M. NIEVES, ERMENILDA P. IGNACIO, MA. VICTORIA G. CAPULONG, TERESA C. ANDRES, EVELYN C. DEL ROSARIO, AND CONSOLACION AUREA M. SAURA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188882 : March 30, 2010] PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION) AND BENIGNO MARTINEZ,RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181855 : March 30, 2010] FLORDELIZA EMILIO, PETITIONER, VS. BILMA RAPAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177983 : March 30, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DANTE JADAP, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 165878 : March 30, 2010] PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, PETITIONER, VS. H. E. HEACOCK, INC. AND SANDIGANBAYAN (1ST DIVISION), RESPONDENTS.

  •  




     
     

    [G.R. No. 169548 : March 15, 2010]   TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MANUEL A. DAVID, SR. AND MARTHA S. DAVID, RESPONDENTS.

     
    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 169548 : March 15, 2010]

    TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MANUEL A. DAVID, SR. AND MARTHA S. DAVID, RESPONDENTS.

    D E C I S I O N


    DEL CASTILLO, J.:

    The review of factual matters is not the province of this Court.[1] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and is not the proper forum for the ventilation and substantiation of factual issues.[2]

    This Petition for Review assails the July 20, 2004 Decision[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 67090 which affirmed with modification the March 7, 2000 Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 80. Also assailed is the August 31, 2005 Resolution[5] of the CA denying the motion for reconsideration.

    Factual Antecedents

    Manuel A. David, Sr. (Manuel) and Martha S. David (Martha) were married on March 25, 1957. In 1970, the spouses acquired a 602 square meter lot located at White Plains, Quezon City, which was registered in the name of "MARTHA S. DAVID, of legal age, Filipino, married to Manuel A. David" and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 156043 issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City.[6] In 1976, the spouses separated de facto, and no longer communicated with each other.[7]

    Sometime in March 1995, Manuel discovered that Martha had previously sold the property to Titan Construction Corporation (Titan) for P1,500,000.00 through a Deed of Sale[8] dated April 24, 1995, and that TCT No. 156043 had been cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 130129 in the name of Titan.

    Thus, on March 13, 1996, Manuel filed a Complaint[9] for Annulment of Contract and Recovenyance against Titan before the RTC of Quezon City. Manuel alleged that the sale executed by Martha in favor of Titan was without his knowledge and consent, and therefore void. He prayed that the Deed of Sale and TCT No. 130129 be invalidated, that the property be reconveyed to the spouses, and that a new title be issued in their names.

    In its Answer with Counterclaim,[10] Titan claimed that it was a buyer in good faith and for value because it relied on a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) [11] dated January 4, 1995 signed by Manuel which authorized Martha to dispose of the property on behalf of the spouses. Titan thus prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

    In his unverified Reply,[12] Manuel claimed that the SPA was spurious, and that the signature purporting to be his was a forgery; hence, Martha was wholly without authority to sell the property.

    Subsequently, Manuel filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint[13] which was granted by the trial court. Thus, on October 15, 1996, Manuel filed an Amended Complaint[14] impleading Martha as a co-defendant in the proceedings. However, despite personal service of summons[15] upon Martha, she failed to file an Answer. Thus, she was declared in default.[16] Trial then ensued.

    Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

    On March 7, 2000, the RTC issued a Decision which (i) invalidated both the Deed of Sale and TCT No. 130129; (ii) ordered Titan to reconvey the property to Martha and Manuel; (iii) directed the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to issue a new title in the names of Manuel and Martha; and (iv) ordered Titan to pay P200,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per appearance as attorney's fees, and P50,000.00 as costs of suit.

    The RTC found that:

    1)
    The property was conjugal in character since it was purchased by Manuel and Martha with conjugal funds during their marriage. The fact that TCT No. 156043 was registered in the name of "MARTHA S. DAVID x x x married to Manuel A. David" did not negate the property's conjugal nature.


    2)
    The SPA professing to authorize Martha to sell the property on behalf of the spouses was spurious, and did not bear Manuel's genuine signature. This was the subject of expert testimony, which Titan failed to rebut. In addition, despite the fact that the SPA was notarized, the genuineness and due execution of the SPA was placed in doubt since it did not contain Manuel's residence certificate, and was not presented for registration with the Quezon City Register of Deeds, in violation of Section 64 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.[17]


    3)
    The circumstances surrounding the transaction with Martha should have put Titan on notice of the SPA's dubious veracity. The RTC noted that aside from Martha's failure to register the SPA with the Register of Deeds, it was doubtful that an SPA would have even been necessary, since the SPA itself indicated that Martha and Manuel lived on the same street in Navotas.


    The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision reads:

    Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered:

    1.)
    Declaring the Deed of Sale dated April 24, 1995 as void ab initio and without force and effect.


    2.)
    Declaring null and void TCT No. 130129 issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of defendant Titan Construction Corporation.


    3.)
    Ordering defendant Titan Construction Corporation to reconvey the subject property to plaintiff and his spouse.


    4.)
    Ordering the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to make and issue a new title in the name of plaintiff Manuel David and his Spouse, Martha David.


    5.)
    Ordering defendant to pay P200,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per appearance as attorney's fees and P50,000.00 as costs of suit.

    SO ORDERED.[18]

    Ruling of the Court of Appeals

    In its Decision dated July 20, 2004, the CA affirmed the Decision of the trial court but deleted the award of attorney's fees and the amount of P50,000.00 as costs.

    The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

    WHEREFORE, with the MODIFICATION by deleting the award of attorney's fees in favor of plaintiff-appellee Manuel A. David, Sr. and the amount of P50,000.00 as costs, the Decision appealed from is AFFIRMED in all other respects, with costs against defendant-appellant Titan Construction Corporation.[19]

    Titan moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied on August 31, 2005.

    Hence, this petition.

    Issues

    Titan raises the following assignment of errors:

    1. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN DECLARING THE SUBJECT DEED OF SALE NULL AND VOID AND FAILED TO APPLY TO THIS CASE THE PERTINENT LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND REGISTRATION.

    2. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED IN RULING THAT TITAN WAS NOT A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH CONTRARY TO THE STANDARDS APPLIED BY THIS HONORABLE COURT IN CASES INVOLVING SIMILAR FACTS.

    3. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED BY DISCARDING THE NATURE OF A NOTARIZED SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY CONTRARY TO JURISPRUDENCE AND BY GIVING UNDUE WEIGHT TO THE ALLEGED EXPERT TESTIMONY VIS-À-VIS THE CONTESTED SIGNATURES AS THEY APPEAR TO THE NAKED EYE CONTRARY TO JURISPRUDENCE.

    4. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED BY FAILING TO DETECT BADGES OF CONNIVANCE BETWEEN RESPONDENTS.

    5. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED BY NOT RULING THAT ASSUMING THE SPA WAS NULL AND VOID, THE SAME IS IMMATERIAL SINCE THE RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS SOLELY THAT OF RESPONDENT MARTHA S. DAVID.

    6. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED BY NOT RULING THAT ASSUMING THE SALE WAS VOID, ON GROUNDS OF EQUITY MARTHA S. DAVID SHOULD REIMBURSE PETITIONER OF HIS PAYMENT WITH LEGAL INTEREST.[20]

    Petitioner's Arguments

    Titan is claiming that it was a buyer in good faith and for value, that the property was Martha's paraphernal property, that it properly relied on the SPA presented by Martha, and that the RTC erred in giving weight to the alleged expert testimony to the effect that Manuel's signature on the SPA was spurious. Titan also argues, for the first time, that the CA should have ordered Martha to reimburse the purchase price paid by Titan.

    Our Ruling

    The petition is without merit.

    The property is part of the spouses' conjugal partnership.

    The Civil Code of the Philippines,[21] the law in force at the time of the celebration of the marriage between Martha and Manuel in 1957, provides:

    Article 160. All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.

    Article 153 of the Civil Code also provides:

    Article 153. The following are conjugal partnership property:

    (1) That which is acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses;

    x x x x

    These provisions were carried over to the Family Code. In particular, Article 117 thereof provides:

    Art. 117. The following are conjugal partnership properties:

    (1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage at the expense of the common fund, whether the acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of the spouses;

    x x x x

    Article 116 of the Family Code is even more unequivocal in that "[a]ll property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is proved."

    We are not persuaded by Titan's arguments that the property was Martha's exclusive property because Manuel failed to present before the RTC any proof of his income in 1970, hence he could not have had the financial capacity to contribute to the purchase of the property in 1970; and that Manuel admitted that it was Martha who concluded the original purchase of the property. In consonance with our ruling in Spouses Castro v. Miat,[22] Manuel was not required to prove that the property was acquired with funds of the partnership. Rather, the presumption applies even when the manner in which the property was acquired does not appear.[23] Here, we find that Titan failed to overturn the presumption that the property, purchased during the spouses' marriage, was part of the conjugal partnership.

    In the absence of Manuel's consent, the Deed of Sale is void.

    Since the property was undoubtedly part of the conjugal partnership, the sale to Titan required the consent of both spouses. Article 165 of the Civil Code expressly provides that "the husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership". Likewise, Article 172 of the Civil Code ordains that "(t)he wife cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husband's consent, except in cases provided by law".

    Similarly, Article 124 of the Family Code requires that any disposition or encumbrance of conjugal property must have the written consent of the other spouse, otherwise, such disposition is void. Thus:

    Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.

    In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. These powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors.

    The Special Power of Attorney
    purportedly signed by Manuel
    is spurious and void.


    The RTC found that the signature of Manuel appearing on the SPA was not his genuine signature.

    As to the issue of the validity or invalidity of the subject Special Power of Attorney x x x the Court rules that the same is invalid. As aptly demonstrated by plaintiff's evidence particularly the testimony of expert witness Atty. Desiderio Pagui, which the defense failed to rebut and impeach, the subject Special Power of Attorney does not bear the genuine signature of plaintiff Manuel David thus rendering the same as without legal effect.

    Moreover, the genuineness and the due execution of the Special Power of Attorney was placed in more serious doubt as the same does not contain the Residence Certificate of the plaintiff and most importantly, was not presented for registration with the Quezon City Register of Deeds which is a clear violation of Sec. 64 of P.D. No. 1529.

    As regards defendant Titan Construction Corporation's assertion that plaintiff's failure to verify his Reply (wherein the validity of the Special Power of Attorney is put into question) is an implied admission of its genuineness and due execution, [this] appears at first blush a logical conclusion. However, the Court could not yield to such an argument considering that a rigid application of the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court will not be given premium when it would obstruct rather than serve the broader interest of justice.[24]

    Titan claims that the RTC gave undue weight to the testimony of Manuel's witness, and that expert testimony on handwriting is not conclusive.

    The contention lacks merit. The RTC's ruling was based not only on the testimony of Manuel's expert witness finding that there were significant differences between the standard handwriting of Manuel and the signature found on the SPA, but also on Manuel's categorical denial that he ever signed any document authorizing or ratifying the Deed of Sale to Titan.[25]

    We also note that on October 12, 2004, Titan filed before the CA a Manifestation with Motion for Re-Examination of Another Document/ Handwriting Expert[26] alleging that there is "an extreme necessity"[27] for a conduct of another examination of the SPA by a handwriting expert "as it will materially affect and alter the final outcome"[28] of the case. Interestingly, however, Titan filed on January 6, 2005 a Manifestation/Motion to Withdraw Earlier Motion for Re-Examination of PNP Laboratory Expert[29] this time praying that its motion for re-examination be withdrawn. Titan claimed that "after a circumspect evaluation, deemed it wise not to pursue anymore said request (re-examination) as there is a great possibility that the x x x [PNP and the NBI] might come out with two conflicting opinions and conclusions x x x that might cause some confusion to the minds of the Honorable Justices in resolving the issues x x x as well as the waste of material time and resources said motion may result".[30]

    In any event, we reiterate the well-entrenched rule that the factual findings of trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive and will generally not be reviewed on appeal.[31] We are mandated to accord great weight to the findings of the RTC, particularly as regards its assessment of the credibility of witnesses[32] since it is the trial court judge who is in a position to observe and examine the witnesses first hand.[33] Even after a careful and independent scrutiny of the records, we find no cogent reason to depart from the rulings of the courts below.[34]

    Furthermore, settled is the rule that only errors of law and not of fact are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This applies with even greater force here, since the factual findings by the CA are in full agreement with those of the trial court.[35]

    Indeed, we cannot help but wonder why Martha was never subpoenaed by Titan as a witness to testify on the character of the property, or the circumstances surrounding the transaction with Titan. Petitioner's claim that she could not be found is belied by the RTC records, which show that she personally received and signed for the summons at her address in Greenhills, San Juan. Titan neither filed a cross claim nor made any adverse allegation against Martha.

    On the Failure to Deny the
    Genuineness and Due Execution
    of the SPA


    Titan claimed that because Manuel failed to specifically deny the genuineness and due execution of the SPA in his Reply, he is deemed to have admitted the veracity of said document, in accordance with Rule 8, Sections 7 and 8,[36] of the Rules of Court.

    On this point, we fully concur with the findings of the CA that:

    It is true that the reply filed by Manuel alleging that the special power of attorney is a forgery was not made under oath. However, the complaint, which was verified by Manuel under oath, alleged that the sale of the subject property executed by his wife, Martha, in favor of Titan was without his knowledge, consent, and approval, express or implied; and that there is nothing on the face of the deed of sale that would show that he gave his consent thereto. In Toribio v. Bidin, it was held that where the verified complaint alleged that the plaintiff never sold, transferred or disposed their share in the inheritance left by their mother to others, the defendants were placed on adequate notice that they would be called upon during trial to prove the genuineness or due execution of the disputed deed of sale. While Section 8, Rule 8 is mandatory, it is a discovery procedure and must be reasonably construed to attain its purpose, and in a way as not to effect a denial of substantial justice. The interpretation should be one which assists the parties in obtaining a speedy, inexpensive, and most important, a just determination of the disputed issues.

    Moreover, during the pre-trial, Titan requested for stipulation that the special power of attorney was signed by Manuel authorizing his wife to sell the subject property, but Manuel refused to admit the genuineness of said special power of attorney and stated that he is presenting an expert witness to prove that his signature in the special power of attorney is a forgery. However, Titan did not register any objection x x x. Furthermore, Titan did not object to the presentation of Atty. Desiderio Pagui, who testified as an expert witness, on his Report finding that the signature on the special power of attorney was not affixed by Manuel based on his analysis of the questioned and standard signatures of the latter, and even cross-examined said witness. Neither did Titan object to the admission of said Report when it was offered in evidence by Manuel on the ground that he is barred from denying his signature on the special power of attorney. In fact, Titan admitted the existence of said Report and objected only to the purpose for which it was offered. In Central Surety & Insurance Company v. C.N. Hodges, it was held that where a party acted in complete disregard of or wholly overlooked Section 8, Rule 8 and did not object to the introduction and admission of evidence questioning the genuineness and due execution of a document, he must be deemed to have waived the benefits of said Rule. Consequently, Titan is deemed to have waived the mantle of protection given [it] by Section 8, Rule 8.[37]

    It is true that a notarial document is considered evidence of the facts expressed therein.[38] A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution[39] and only clear and convincing evidence will overcome such legal presumption.[40] However, such clear and convincing evidence is present here. While it is true that the SPA was notarized, it is no less true that there were defects in the notarization which mitigate against a finding that the SPA was either genuine or duly executed. Curiously, the details of Manuel's Community Tax Certificate are conspicuously absent, yet Martha's are complete. The absence of Manuel's data supports his claim that he did not execute the same and that his signature thereon is a forgery. Moreover, we have Manuel's positive testimony that he never signed the SPA, in addition to the expert testimony that the signature appearing on the SPA was not Manuel's true signature.

    Moreover, there were circumstances which mitigate against a finding that Titan was a buyer in good faith.

    First, TCT No. 156043 was registered in the name of "MARTHA S. DAVID, of legal age, Filipino, married to Manuel A. David" but the Deed of Sale failed to include Martha's civil status, and only described the vendor as "MARTHA S. DAVID, of legal age, Filipino citizen, with postal address at 247 Governor Pascual, Navotas, Rizal." And it is quite peculiar that an SPA would have even been necessary, considering that the SPA itself indicated that Martha and Manuel lived on the same street (379 and 247 Governor Pascual Street, respectively).

    Second, Titan's witness Valeriano Hernandez, the real estate agent who brokered the sale between Martha and Titan, testified that Jerry Yao (Yao), Titan's Vice President for Operations (and Titan's signatory to the Deed of Sale), specifically inquired why the name of Manuel did not appear on the Deed of Sale.[41] This indicates that Titan was aware that Manuel's consent may be necessary. In addition, Titan purportedly sent their representative to the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to verify TCT No. 156043, so Titan would have been aware that the SPA was never registered before the Register of Deeds.

    Third, Valeriano Hernandez also testified that during the first meeting between Martha and Yao, Martha informed Yao that the property was mortgaged to a casino for P500,000.00. Without even seeing the property, the original title, or the SPA, and without securing an acknowledgment receipt from Martha, Titan (through Yao) gave Martha P500,000.00 so she could redeem the property from the casino.[42] These are certainly not actions typical of a prudent buyer.

    Titan cannot belatedly claim that
    the RTC should have ordered Martha
    to reimburse the purchase price.


    Titan argues that the CA erred in not ruling that, even assuming the sale was void, on grounds of equity, Martha should reimburse petitioner its payment with legal interest. We note that this equity argument was raised for the first time before the CA, which disposed of it in this manner:

    Anent defendant-appellant's claim that the court a quo and this Court never considered the substantial amount of money paid by it to Martha David as consideration for the sale of the subject property, suffice it to say that said matter is being raised for the first time in the instant motion for reconsideration. If well-recognized jurisprudence precludes raising an issue only for the first time on appeal proper, with more reason should such issue be disallowed or disregarded when initially raised only in a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the appellate court.

    Nonetheless, record shows that only defendant-appellant was initially sued by plaintiff-appellee in his complaint for annulment of contract and reconveyance upon the allegation that the sale executed by his wife, Martha David, of their conjugal property in favor of defendant-appellant was without his knowledge and consent and, therefore, null and void. In its answer, defendant-appellant claimed that it bought the property in good faith and for value from Martha David and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and the payment of his counterclaim for attorney's fees, moral and exemplary damages. Subsequently, plaintiff-appellee filed a motion for leave to file amended complaint by impleading Martha David as a defendant, attaching the amended complaint thereto, copies of which were furnished defendant-appellant, through counsel. The amended complaint was admitted by the court a quo in an Order dated October 23, 1996. Martha David was declared in default for failure to file an answer. The record does not show [that] a cross-claim was filed by defendant-appellant against Martha David for the return of the amount of PhP1,500,000.00 it paid to the latter as consideration for the sale of the subject property. x x x Thus, to hold Martha David liable to defendant-appellant for the return of the consideration for the sale of the subject property, without any claim therefore being filed against her by the latter, would violate her right to due process. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of his defense. It is elementary that before a person can be deprived of his property, he should be first informed of the claim against him and the theory on which such claim is premised.[43] (Emphasis supplied)

    While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities,[44] it is equally true that elementary considerations of due process require that a party be duly apprised of a claim against him before judgment may be rendered. Thus, we cannot, in these proceedings, order the return of the amounts paid by Titan to Martha. However, Titan is not precluded by this Decision from instituting the appropriate action against Martha before the proper court.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The July 20, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 67090 which affirmed with modifications the March 7, 2000 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 80, and its August 31, 2005 Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, are AFFIRMED, without prejudice to the recovery by petitioner Titan Construction Corporation of the amounts it paid to Martha S. David in the appropriate action before the proper court.

    SO ORDERED.

    Carpio, (Chairperson), Brion, Abad, and Perez, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    [1] City of Naga v. Court of Appeals, 254 Phil. 12, 18 (1989).

    [2] Soriano III v. Yuzon, G.R. No. L-79520, August 10, 1988, 164 SCRA 227, 240-241.

    [3] Rollo, pp. 67-78; penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Santiago Javier Ranada.

    [4] Records, pp. 316-321; penned by Judge Agustin S. Dizon.

    [5] Rollo, pp. 20-23; penned by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III, Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. Associate Justice Santiago Javier Ranada wrote a Separate Opinion, id. at 24-28.

    [6] Records, p. 7; TSN, April 3, 1997, pp. 6-7.

    [7] TSN, April 3, 1997, p. 25.

    [8] Records, pp. 12-14.

    [9] Id. at 1-5.

    [10] Id. at 34-38.

    [11] Id. at 39-40.

    [12] Id. at 42-44.

    [13] Id. at 53-55.

    [14] Id. at 56-60.

    [15] Id. at 64-65.

    [16] Id. at 84.

    [17] Amending and Codifying The Laws Relative To Registration Of Property And For Other Purposes (1978). Section 64 provides:

    Section 64. Power of attorney. Any person may, by power of attorney, convey or otherwise deal with registered land and the same shall be registered with the Register of Deeds of the province or city where the land lies. Any instrument revoking such power of attorney shall be registered in like manner.


    [18] Records, p. 321.

    [19] Rollo, p. 78.

    [20] Id. at 40-41.

    [21] Republic Act No. 386, An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines (1949).

    [22] 445 Phil. 282 (2003).

    [23] Id. at 293.

    [24] Records, p. 319.

    [25] TSN, April 3, 1997, pp. 12-13.

    [26] CA rollo, pp. 151-154.

    [27] Id. at 151.

    [28] Id.

    [29] Id. at 156-157.

    [30] Id. at 156.

    [31] Abapo-Almario v. Court of Appeals, 383 Phil. 933, 940 (2000).

    [32] Ferrer v. People, G.R. No. 143487, February 22, 2006, 483 SCRA 31, 50.

    [33] People v. Umali, G.R. No. 84450, February 4, 1991, 193 SCRA 493, 501.

    [34] People v. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 184172, May 8, 2009

    [35] Blanco v. Quasha, 376 Phil. 480, 491 (1999).

    [36] Sec. 7. Action or defense based on document.

    Whenever an action or defense is based upon a written instrument or document, the substance of such instrument or document shall be set forth in the pleading, and the original or a copy thereof shall be attached to the pleading as an exhibit, which shall be deemed to be a part of the pleading, or said copy may with like effect be set forth in the pleading.


    Sec. 8. How to contest such documents.

    When an action or defense is founded upon a written instrument, copied in or attached to the corresponding pleading as provided in the preceding section, the genuineness and due execution of the instrument shall be deemed admitted unless the adverse party, under oath, specifically denies them, and sets forth what he claims to be the facts; but the requirement of an oath does not apply when the adverse party does not appear to be a party to the instrument or when compliance with an order for an inspection of the original instrument is refused.


    [37] Rollo, pp. 13-15.

    [38] Mendiola v. Court of Appeals, 193 Phil. 326, 335 (1981). Rule 132, Section 30 of the Rules of Court provides:

    Section 30. Proof of notarial documents. -- Every instrument duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument or document involved.

    [39] Gutierrez v. Mendoza-Plaza, G.R. No. 185477, December 4, 2009.

    [40] Domingo v. Robles, 493 Phil. 916, 921 (2005).

    [41] TSN, August 21, 1998, p. 7.

    [42] Id. at 3-6.

    [43] Rollo, pp. 21-22.

    [44] In Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 412 Phil. 603, 611-612 (2001), we held:

    It is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice. However, it does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just resolution. It must be emphasized that procedural rules should not be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.

    [G.R. No. 169548 : March 15, 2010]   TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MANUEL A. DAVID, SR. AND MARTHA S. DAVID, 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