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
 

   
March-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 152272 : March 05, 2012] JUANA COMPLEX I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ANDRES C. BAUTISTA, BRIGIDO DIMACULANGAN, DOLORES P. PRADO, IMELDA DE LA CRUZ, EDITHA C. DY, FLORENCIA M. MERCADO, LEOVINO C. DATARIO, AIDA A. ABAYON, NAPOLEON M. DIMAANO, ROSITA G. ESTIGOY AND NELSON A. LOYOLA, PETITIONERS, VS. FIL-ESTATE LAND, INC., FIL ESTATE ECOCENTRUM CORPORATION, LA PAZ HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WARBIRD SECURITY AGENCY, ENRIQUE RIVILLA, MICHAEL E. JETHMAL AND MICHAEL ALUNAN, RESPONDENTS. [G. R. NO. 152397] FIL-ESTATE LAND, INC., FIL ESTATE ECOCENTRUM CORPORATION, LA PAZ HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WARBIRD SECURITY AGENCY, ENRIQUE RIVILLA, MICHAEL E. JETHMAL AND MICHAEL ALUNAN, PETITIONERS, VS. JUANA COMPLEX I HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., ANDRES C. BAUTISTA, BRIGIDO DIMACULANGAN, DOLORES P. PRADO, IMELDA DE LA CRUZ, EDITHA C. DY, FLORENCIA M. MERCADO, LEOVINO C. DATARIO, AIDA A. ABAYON, NAPOLEON M. DIMAANO, ROSITA G. ESTIGOY AND NELSON A. LOYOLA, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N

  • [G.R. No. 171251 : March 05, 2012] LASCONA LAND CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194645 : March 06, 2012] CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. AURORA M. CLAVE, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 194665] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), PETITIONER, VS. AURORA M. CLAVE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179652 : March 06, 2012] PEOPLE’S BROADCASTING SERVICE (BOMBO RADYO PHILS., INC.), PETITIONER, VS. THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, DOLE REGION VII, AND JANDELEON JUEZAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 12-2-6-SC : March 06, 2012] RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF JUDGE IRMA ZITA V. MASAMAYOR,

  • [G.R. Nos. 162335 & 162605 : March 06, 2012] SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV, FROILAN M. MANOTOK, FERNANDO M. MANOTOK III, MA. MAMERTA M. MANOTOK, PATRICIA L. TIONGSON, PACITA L. GO, ROBERTO LAPERAL III, MICHAEL MARSHALL V. MANOTOK, MARYANN MANOTOK, FELISA MYLENE V. MANOTOK, IGNACIO V. MANOTOK, JR., MILAGROS V. MANOTOK, SEVERINO MANOTOK III, ROSA R. MANOTOK, MIGUEL A.B. SISON, GEORGE M. BOCANEGRA, MA. CRISTINA E. SISON, PHILIPP L. MANOTOK, JOSE CLEMENTE L. MANOTOK, RAMON SEVERINO L. MANOTOK, THELMA R. MANOTOK, JOSE MARIA MANOTOK, JESUS JUDE MANOTOK, JR. AND MA. THERESA L. MANOTOK, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY- IN-FACT, ROSA R. MANOTOK, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE, REPRESENTED BY TERESITA BARQUE HERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 160882 : March 07, 2012] FELICIDAD STA. MARIA VILLARAN, WILFREDO STA. MARIA VILLARAN, DEOGRACIAS STA. MARIA AND ROLANDO STA. MARIA, PETITIONERS, VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD AND LORENZO MARIANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 195239 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BEN RUBIO Y ACOSTA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188103 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JEROME PALER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182522 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. NOEL T. ADALLOM, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 170964 : March 07, 2012] ELSA MACANDOG MAGTIRA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184885 : March 07, 2012] ERNESTO G. YMBONG, PETITIONER, VS. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, VENERANDA SY AND DANTE LUZON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174792 : March 07, 2012] WILFREDO ARO, RONILO TIROL, JOSE PACALDO, PRIMITIVO CASQUEJO AND MARCIAL ABGO, PETITIONERS, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, FOURTH DIVISION AND BENTHEL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174173 : March 07, 2012] MA. MELISSA A. GALANG, PETITIONER, VS. JULIA MALASUGUI, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188670 : March 07, 2012] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY OIC-SECRETARY JOSE MARI B. PONCE, NOW BY SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165132 : March 07, 2012] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PETITIONER, VS. NELLIE R. APOLONIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190559 : March 07, 2012] BLUE SKY TRADING COMPANY, INC. AND/OR JOSE TANTIANSU AND LINDA TANTIANSU, PETITIONERS, VS. ARLENE P. BLAS AND JOSEPH D. SILVANO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183449 : March 12, 2012] ALFREDO JACA MONTAJES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC : March 13, 2012] IN RE: LETTERS OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA RE: G.R. NO. 178083 – FLIGHT ATTENDANTS AND STEWARDS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FASAP) V. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL), ET AL.

  • [A.m. No. 12-2-03-0 : March 13, 2012] RE: IN THE MATTER OF CLARIFICATION OF EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF ALL COURT AND SHERIFF’S FEES OF COOPERATIVES DULY REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9520 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE PHILIPPINE COOPERATIVE CODE OF 2008, PERPETUAL HELP COMMUNITY COOPERATIVE (PHCCI), PETITIONER,

  • [G. R. No. 162322 : March 14, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. BANTIGUE POINT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169628 : March 14, 2012] MANUEL A. LUMAYOG, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES LEONARD PITCOCK AND CORAZON PITCOCK, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. 183367 : March 14, 2012] SECOND DIVISION AUSTRALIAN PROFESSIONAL REALTY, INC., JESUS GARCIA, AND LYDIA MARCIANO, PETITIONERS, VS. MUNICIPALITY OF PADRE GARCIA BATANGAS PROVINCE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184406 : March 14, 2012] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PERFECTO OBIAS, ET. AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175263 : March 14, 2012] MANUEL H. NIETO, JR., PETITIONER, VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC), ATTY. VERNETTE G. UMALI-PACO IN HER CAPACITY AS GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE SEC AND IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY, AND JOHN/JANE DOES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193861 : March 14, 2012] PAULITA “EDITH” SERRA,1 PETITIONER, VS. NELFA T. MUMAR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 195546 : March 14, 2012] GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ASIA UNITED BANK, CHRISTINE T. CHAN, FLORANTE DEL MUNDO, ENGRACIO M. ESCASINAS, JR., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CLERK OF COURT & EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, NORBERTO B. MAGSAJO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SHERIFF IV OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, AND RONALD A. ORTILE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 195561] GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ASIA UNITED BANK, ABRAHAM CO, ATTY. JOEL T. PELICANO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175924 : March 14, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ERLAND SABADLAB Y BAYQUEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193279 : March 14, 2012] ELEANOR DE LEON LLENADO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EDITHA VILLAFLORES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 155109 : March 14, 2012] C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, LABOR ARBITER ANTONIO M. VILLANUEVA, LABOR ARBITER ARTURO L. GAMOLO, SHERIFF OF NLRC RAB-XI-DAVAO CITY, NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), FELIXBERTO IRAG, JOSHUA BARREDO, ERNESTO CUARIO, EDGAR MONDAY, EDILBERTO DEMETRIA, HERMINIO ROBILLO, ROMULO LUNGAY, MATROIL DELOS SANTOS, BONERME MATURAN, RAUL CANTIGA, EDUARDO CAMPUSO, RUDY ANADON, GILBERTO GABRONINO, BONIFACIO SALVADOR, CIRILO MINO, ROBERTO ABONADO, WARLITO MONTE, PEDRO ESQUIERDO, ALFREDO TROPICO, DANILO MEJOS, HECTOR ESTUITA, BARTOLOME CASTILLANES, EDUARDO CAPUYAN, SATURNINO CAGAS, ALEJANDRO HARDER, EDUARDO LARENA, JAIME MONTEDERAMOS, ERMELANDO BASADRE, REYNALDO LIMPAJAN, ELPIDIO LIBRANZA, TEDDY SUELO, JOSE AMOYLIN, TRANQUILINO ORALLO, CARLOS BALDOS, MANOLITO SABELLANO, CARMELITO TOBIAS, PRIMITIVO GARCIA, JUANITO ALDEPOLLA, LUDIVICO ABAD, WENCISLAO INGHUG, RICARDO ALTO, EPIFANIO JARABAY, FELICIANO AMPER, ALEXANDER JUDILLA, ROBERTO ANDRADE, ALFREDO LESULA, JULIO ANINO, BENITO MAGPUSAO, PEDRO AQUINO, EDDIE MANSANADES, ROMEO ARANETA, ARGUILLAO MANTICA, CONSTANCIO ARNAIZ, ERNESTO HOTOY, JUSTINO ASCANO, RICARDO MATURAN, EDILBERTO YAMBAO, ANTONIO MELARGO, JESUS BERITAN, ARSENIO MELICOR, DIOSDADO BONGABONG, LAURO MONTENEGRO, CARLITO BURILLO, LEO MORA, PABLO BUTIL, ARMANDO GUCILA, JEREMIAH CAGARA, MARIO NAMOC, CARLITO CAL, GERWINO NATIVIDAD, ROLANDO CAPUYAN, EDGARDO ORDIZ, LEONARDO CASURRA, PATROCINIO ORTEGA, FILEMON CESAR, MARIO PATAN, ROMEO COMPRADO, JESUS PATOC, RAMON CONSTANTINO, ALBERTO PIELAGO, SAMUEL DELA LLANA, NICASIO PLAZA, ROSALDO DAGONDON, TITO GUADES, BONIFACIO DINAGUDOS, PROCOPIO RAMOS, JOSE EBORAN, ROSENDO SAJOL, FRANCISCO EMPUERTO, PATRICIO SALOMON, NESTOR ENDAYA, MARIO SALVALEON, ERNESTO ESTILO, BONIFACIO SIGUE, VICENTE FABROA, JAIME SUCUAHI, CELSO HUISO, ALEX TAUTO-AN, SATURNINO YAGON, CLAUDIO TIROL, SULPECIO GAGNI, JOSE TOLERO, FERVIE GALVEZ, ALFREDO TORALBA AND EDUARDO GENELSA, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 155135] NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), FELIXBERTO IRAG, JOSHUA BARREDO, ERNESTO CUARIO, EDGAR MONDAY, EDILBERTO DEMETRIA, HERMINIO ROBILLO, ROMULO LUNGAY, MATROIL DELOS SANTOS, BONERME MATURAN, RAUL CANTIGA, EDUARDO CAMPUSO, RUDY ANADON, GILBERTO GABRONINO, BONIFACIO SALVADOR, CIRILO MINO, ROBERTO ABONADO, WARLITO MONTE, PEDRO ESQUIERDO, ALFREDO TROPICO, DANILO MEJOS, HECTOR ESTUITA, BARTOLOME CASTILLANES, EDUARDO CAPUYAN, SATURNINO CAGAS, ALEJANDRO HARDER, EDUARDO LARENA, JAIME MONTEDERAMOS, ERMELANDO BASADRE, REYNALDO LIMPAJAN, ELPIDIO LIBRANZA, TEDDY SUELO, JOSE AMOYLIN, TRANQUILINO ORALLO, CARLOS BALDOS, MANOLITO SABELLANO, CARMELITO TOBIAS, PRIMITIVO GARCIA, JUANITO ALDEPOLLA, LUDIVICO ABAD, WENCISLAO INGHUG, RICARDO ALTO, EPIFANIO JARABAY, FELICIANO AMPER, ALEXANDER JUDILLA, ROBERTO ANDRADE, ALFREDO LESULA, JULIO ANINO, BENITO MAGPUSAO, PEDRO AQUINO, EDDIE MANSANADES, ROMEO ARANETA, ARGUILLAO MANTICA, CONSTANCIO ARNAIZ, ERNESTO HOTOY, JUSTINO ASCANO, RICARDO MATURAN, EDILBERTO YAMBAO, ANTONIO MELARGO, JESUS BERITAN, ARSENIO MELICOR, DIOSDADO BONGABONG, LAURO MONTENEGRO, CARLITO BURILLO, LEO MORA, PABLO BUTIL, ARMANDO GUCILA, JEREMIAH CAGARA, MARIO NAMOC, CARLITO CAL, GERWINO NATIVIDAD, ROLANDO CAPUYAN, JUANITO NISNISAN, AURELIO CARIN, PRIMO OPLIMO, ANGELITO CASTANEDA, EDGARDO ORDIZ, LEONARDO CASURRA, PATROCINIO ORTEGA, FILEMON CESAR, MARIO PATAN, ROMEO COMPRADO, JESUS PATOC, RAMON CONSTANTINO, MANUEL PIAPE, ROY CONSTANTINO, ALBERTO PIELAGO, SAMUEL DELA LLANA, NICASIO PLAZA, ROSALDO DAGONDON, TITO GUADES, BONIFACIO DINAGUDOS, PROCOPIO RAMOS, JOSE EBORAN, ROSENDO SAJOL, FRANCISCO EMPUERTO, PATRICIO SALOMON, NESTOR ENDAYA, MARIO SALVALEON, ERNESTO ESTILO, BONIFACIO SIGUE, VICENTE FABROA, JAIME SUCUAHI, CELSO HUISO, ALEX TAUTO-AN, SATURNINO YAGON, CLAUDIO TIROL, SULPECIO GAGNI, JOSE TOLERO, FERVIE GALVEZ, ALFREDO TORALBA AND EDUARDO GENELSA, PETITIONERS, VS. C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., EDITHA I. ALCANTARA, ATTY. NELIA A. CLAUDIO, CORNELIO E. CAGUIAT, JESUS S. DELA CRUZ, ROLANDO Z. ANDRES AND JOSE MA. MANUEL YRASUEGUI, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 179220] NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA ALSONS-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), AND ITS MEMBERS WHOSE NAMES ARE LISTED BELOW, PETITIONERS, VS. C. ALCANTARA & SONS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 151898 : March 14, 2012] RICARDO RIZAL, POTENCIANA RIZAL, SATURNINA RIZAL, ELENA RIZAL, AND BENJAMIN RIZAL, PETITIONERS, VS. LEONCIA NAREDO, ANASTACIO LIRIO, EDILBERTO CANTAVIEJA, GLORIA CANTAVIEJA, CELSO CANTAVIEJA, AND THE HEIRS OF MELANIE CANTAVIEJA, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N

  • [G.R. No. 166216 : March 14, 2012] ROGELIO ABERCA, RODOLFO BENOSA, NESTOR BODINO, NOEL ETABAG, DANILO DELA FUENTE, BELEN DIAZ-FLORES, MANUEL MARIO GUZMAN, ALAN JASMINEZ, EDWIN LOPEZ, ALFREDO MANSOS, ALEX MARCELINO, ELIZABETH PROTACIO-MARCELINO, JOSEPH OLAYER, CARLOS PALMA, MARCO PALO, ROLANDO SALUTIN BENJAMIN SEGUNDO, ARTURO TABARA, EDWIN TULALIAN, AND REBECCA TULALIAN, PETITIONERS, VS. MAJ. GEN. FABIAN VER, COL. FIDEL SINGSON, COL. GERARDO B. LANTORIA, COL. ROLANDO ABADILLA, COL. GALILEO KINTANAR, LT. COL. PANFILO M. LACSON, MAJ. RODOLFO AGUINALDO, CAPT. DANILO PIZARRO, 1LT. PEDRO TANGO, 1LT. ROMEO RICARDO, 1LT. RAUL BACALSO, M/SGT. BIENVENIDO BALABA AND “JOHN DOES,” RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187521 : March 14, 2012] F.F. CRUZ & CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. HR CONSTRUCTION CORP., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187073 : March 14, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO CASTRO Y PERALTA AND RENERIO DELOS REYES Y BONUS, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193983 : March 14, 2012] VICTORY M. FERNANDEZ, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, FORMER GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF AKLAN FLORENCIO T. MIRAFLORES, INCUMBENT GOVERNOR CARLITO MARQUEZ, AND SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT RONALDO V. PUNO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 197124 : March 19, 2012] ALPA-PCM, INC., PETITIONER, VS. VINCENT BULASAO, JULIET BULASAO AND SUSANA BULASAO, HONORABLE JUDGE DANILO F. CAMACHO, AND THE DEPUTY SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176628 : March 19, 2012] PHILIPPINE TOURISM AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE GOLF DEVELOPMENT & EQUIPMENT, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178367 : March 19, 2012] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. CASTALLOY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ALINSU STEEL FOUNDRY CORPORATION, GLORIA C. NGO AND TOMAS C. NGO, JR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 197987 : March 19, 2012] MARITER MENDOZA, PETITIONER, VS. ADRIANO CASUMPANG, JENNIFER ADRIANE AND JOHN ANDRE, ALL SURNAMED CASUMPANG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-3019 : March 20, 2012] SHERYLL C. DELA CRUZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. PAMELA P. MALUNAO, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, BAYOMBONG, NUEVA VIZCAYA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC : March 20, 2012] RE: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DATED JANUARY 11, 2010 OF ACTING DIRECTOR ALEU A. AMANTE, PIAB-C, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN. [A.M. NO. 10-9-9-SC] RE: ORDER OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN REFERRING THE COMPLAINT OF ATTYS. OLIVER O. LOZANO AND EVANGELINE J. LOZANO-ENDRIANO AGAINST CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO [RET.].

  • [G.R. No. 175781 : March 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCA TALARO,* GREGORIO TALARO,** NORBERTO (JUN) ADVIENTO, RENATO RAMOS, RODOLFO DUZON,*** RAYMUNDO ZAMORA** AND LOLITO AQUINO, ACCUSED. NORBERTO (JUN) ADVIENTO, RENATO RAMOS AND LOLITO AQUINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190293 : March 20, 2012] PHILIP SIGFRID A. FORTUN AND ALBERT LEE G. ANGELES, PETITIONERS, VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AND PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, EDUARDO ERMITA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), OR ANY OF THEIR UNITS, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP), OR ANY OF THEIR UNITS, JOHN DOES AND JANE DOES ACTING UNDER THEIR DIRECTION AND CONTROL, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 190294] DIDAGEN P. DILANGALEN, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO R. ERMITA IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NORBERTO GONZALES IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, RONALDO PUNO IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 190301] NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLES’ LAWYERS (NUPL) SECRETARY GENERAL NERI JAVIER COLMENARES, BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTATIVE SATUR C. OCAMPO, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTATIVE LIZA L. MAZA, ATTY. JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG, ATTY. EPHRAIM B. CORTEZ, ATTY. JOBERT ILARDE PAHILGA, ATTY. VOLTAIRE B. AFRICA, BAGONG ALYANSANG MAKABAYAN (BAYAN) SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR. AND ANTHONY IAN CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL VICTOR S. IBRADO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL JESUS A. VERZOSA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SECRETARY AGNES VST DEVANADERA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES EASTERN MINDANAO COMMAND CHIEF LIEUTENANT GENERAL RAYMUNDO B. FERRER, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 190302] JOSEPH NELSON Q. LOYOLA, PETITIONER, VS. HER EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, ARMED FORCES CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL VICTOR IBRADO, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP), DIRECTOR GENERAL JESUS VERZOSA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, RESPONDENTS. [ G.R. NO. 190307] JOVITO R. SALONGA, RAUL C. PANGALANGAN, H. HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL R. BUTUYAN, EMILIO CAPULONG, FLORIN T. HILBAY, ROMEL R. BAGARES, DEXTER DONNE B. DIZON, ALLAN JONES F. LARDIZABAL AND GILBERT T. ANDRES, SUING AS TAXPAYERS AND AS CONCERNED FILIPINO CITIZENS, PETITIONERS, VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, IN HIS (SIC) CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. EDUARDO ERMITA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AND HON. ROLANDO ANDAYA IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, GENERAL VICTOR IBRADO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF OF STAFF, DIRECTOR JESUS VERZOSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 190356] BAILENG S. MANTAWIL, DENGCO SABAN, ENGR. OCTOBER CHIO, AKBAYAN PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES WALDEN F. BELLO AND ANA THERESIA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN, THEODORE O. TE AND IBARRA M. GUTIERREZ III, PETITIONERS, VS. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE SECRETARY OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, AND THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 190380] CHRISTIAN MONSOD AND CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2686 (Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 06-2441-P) : March 21, 2012] PRISCILLA L. HERNANDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JULIANA Y. BENGSON, LEGAL RESEARCHER, RTC, BRANCH 104, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191913 : March 21, 2012] SPO2 LOLITO T. NACNAC, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184478 : March 21, 2012] JAIME S. PEREZ, BOTH IN HIS PERSONAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF, MARIKINA DEMOLITION OFFICE, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FORTUNITO L. MADRONA AND YOLANDA B. PANTE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 189161 & 189173 : March 21, 2012] JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, OMBUDSMAN; HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN; HON. SYLVIA A. SEVERO, GRAFT INVESTIGATOR AND PROSECUTION OFFICER I; HON. MARILOU B. ANCHETA-MEJICA, ACTING DIRECTOR, PIAB-D; HON. JOSE T. DE JESUS, JR., ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN, PAMO; ALL OF THE OMBUDSMAN; AND SSP EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171765, March 21, 2012] THE INCORPORATORS OF MINDANAO INSTITUTE INC. AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MINDANAO INSTITUTE INC., REPRESENTED BY ENGR. VICTORIOSO D. UDARBE, PETITIONERS, VS. THE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING THROUGH AGUSAN DISTRICT CONFERENCE UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST IN THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY REV. RODOLFO BASLOT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186030 : March 21, 2012] NORMA DELOS REYES VDA. DEL PRADO, EULOGIA R. DEL PRADO, NORMITA R. DEL PRADO AND RODELIA R. DEL PRADO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192180 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALIAS KINO LASCANO (AT LARGE) AND ALFREDO DELABAJAN ALIAS TABOYBOY, ACCUSED. ALFREDO DELABAJAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 196358 : March 21, 2012] JANDY J. AGOY, PETITIONER, VS. ARANETA CENTER, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185568 : March 21, 2012] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. PETRON CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190342 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CIPRIANO CARDENAS Y GOFRERICA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184719 : March 21, 2012] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JESUS S. YUJUICO, MARIETTA V. YUJUICO AND DR. NICOLAS VALISNO, SR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 184720] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY NASSER PANGANDAMAN, PETITIONER, VS. HEIRS OF JESUS YUJUICO, MARIETTA YUJUICO AND NICOLAS VALISNO, SR., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172712 : March 21, 2012] STRADCOM CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE HILARIO L. LAQUI AS ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 97 AND DTECH MANAGEMENT, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173155 : March 21, 2012] R.S. TOMAS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. RIZAL CEMENT COMPANY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173857 : March 21, 2012] LEONCIA MANUEL & MARINA S. MUDLONG, PETITIONERS, VS. LEONOR SARMIENTO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194445 : March 12, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF, VS. ROGER POSADAY URBANO AND EMILY POSADAY SARMIENTO, ACCUSED.

  • [G.R. No. 191703 : March 12, 2012] CRESENCIO BAÑO AND HEIRS OF THE DECEASED AMANCIO ASUMBRADO, NAMELY: ROSALINDA ASUMBRADO, VICENTE ASUMBRADO, ROEL ASUMBRADO, ANNALYN ASUMBRADO, ARNIEL ASUMBRADO, ALFIE ASUMBRADO AND RUBELYN ASUMBRADO, PETITIONERS, VS. BACHELOR EXPRESS, INC./ CERES LINER, INC. AND WENIFREDO SALVANA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173586 : March 14, 2012] MCA-MBF COUNTDOWN CARDS PHILIPPINES INC., AMABLE R. AGUILUZ V, AMABLE C. AGUILUZ IX, CIELO C. AGUILUZ, ALBERTO L. BUENVIAJE, VICENTE ACSAY AND MCA HOLDINGS AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. MBF CARD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND MBF DISCOUNT CARD LIMITED, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193279 : March 14, 2012] ELEANOR DE LEON LLENADO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EDITHA VILLAFLORES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C.No. 9154 (Formerly CBD No. 07-1965) : March 19, 2012] AURORA D. CERDAN, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. CARLO GOMEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 195191 : March 20, 2012] CONGRESSWOMAN LUCY MARIE TORRES-GOMEZ PETITIONER, VS. EUFROCINO C. CODILLA, JR. AND HON. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. CA-12-25-P : March 20, 2012] RE: COMPLAINT FILED BY (RET.) MCTC JUDGE RODOLFO B. GARCIA AGAINST 18TH DIVISION CLERK OF COURT ATTY. MAY FAITH L. TRUMATA-REBOTIACO, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU CITY.

  • [A.C. No. 7591 : March 20, 2012] CORAZON T. NEVADA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. RODOLFO D. CASUGA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 146754 : March 21, 2012] SPOUSES JESSE CACHOPERO AND BEMA CACHOPERO, PETITIONERS, VS. RACHEL CELESTIAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186499 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MELECIO DE LOS SANTOS, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185255 : March 14, 2012] NORKIS DISTRIBUTORS, INC. AND ALEX D. BUAT, PETITIONERS, VS. DELFIN S. DESCALLAR, RESPONDENT.

  •  




     
     

    chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS - ON-LINE

    [G.R. No. 151898 : March 14, 2012]   RICARDO RIZAL, POTENCIANA RIZAL, SATURNINA RIZAL, ELENA RIZAL, AND BENJAMIN RIZAL, PETITIONERS, VS. LEONCIA NAREDO, ANASTACIO LIRIO, EDILBERTO CANTAVIEJA, GLORIA CANTAVIEJA, CELSO CANTAVIEJA, AND THE HEIRS OF MELANIE CANTAVIEJA, RESPONDENTS.  D E C I S I O N

     

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 151898 : March 14, 2012]

    RICARDO RIZAL, POTENCIANA RIZAL, SATURNINA RIZAL, ELENA RIZAL, AND BENJAMIN RIZAL, PETITIONERS, VS. LEONCIA NAREDO, ANASTACIO LIRIO, EDILBERTO CANTAVIEJA, GLORIA CANTAVIEJA, CELSO CANTAVIEJA, AND THE HEIRS OF MELANIE CANTAVIEJA, RESPONDENTS.

    D E C I S I O N


    REYES, J.:

    Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated July 13, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 26109, affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 36, Calamba, Laguna which dismissed the Complaint,[2] docketed as Civil Case No. 1153-87-C[3] for “partition, recovery of shares with damages” of Lot No. 252 on res judicata.cralaw

    Factual Antecedents

    Herein petitioners Ricardo, Potenciana, Elena, Saturnina and Benjamin, all surnamed Rizal, commenced Civil Case No. 7836 against Matias Naredo (Matias), Valentin Naredo (Valentin) and Juana de Leon (Juana) before the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Laguna involving the accretion of two (2) hectares of land to Lot No. 454 of the Calamba Estate.  In a decision rendered on May 22, 1947, the CFI ruled in favor of the petitioners.  The CFI awarded the ownership of the two-hectare accretion to the petitioners and ordered the defendants therein to vacate the said land and to pay P500.00 a year from 1943 as reasonable rent for their occupancy thereof. Both the CA and the Supreme Court upheld the decision.

    To satisfy the money judgment in Civil Case No. 7836, the provincial sheriff of Laguna levied upon Lots Nos. 252 and 269 of the Calamba Estate, together with the house erected on Lot No. 252.  This Lot No. 252, which is the subject of the controversy, was registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-488 (RT-3377 No. 12206) in the name of the “Legal Heirs of Gervacia Cantillano,” of Parian, Calamba, Laguna.  Several third-party claims were filed, to wit: (a) by Leoncia Naredo (Leoncia) and Marcela Naredo (Marcela), who are also heirs of Gervacia Cantillano over Lot No. 252; (b) by Pedro Cantavieja, husband of Marcela over Lot No. 269; and (c) by Teodoro Armesto over the house of mixed materials standing on Lot No. 252.  After the petitioners posted the required bond, the provincial sheriff proceeded with the auction sale on April 7, 1951.  The petitioners were declared the highest bidders.  A final deed of sale was issued to them on April 15, 1952.

    On May 9, 1955, Marcela, Leoncia, Matias, Valentin, and Juana instituted Civil Case No. 9908 before the CFI Branch 1, Laguna, questioning the validity of the execution sale of Lots Nos. 252 and 269 and the house of mixed materials on Lot No. 252.  They claimed that these properties were exempt from execution.

    On December 8, 1955, the CFI declared valid the execution sale of Lots Nos. 252 and 269 of the Calamba Estate in favor of the petitioners, with a qualification that the petitioners only acquired whatever rights, title or interests Matias, Valentin and Juana had in Lot No. 252.  The sale of the house of mixed materials in Lot No. 252 was set aside considering that a waiver was executed by the petitioners in favor of Juana.  Although the CFI ordered that the petitioners be placed in possession of Lots Nos. 252 and 269 and Matias and Valentin be ejected therefrom, it did not evict Marcela and Leoncia from Lot No. 252 since they were not parties to Civil Case No. 7836.[4]

    After the aforesaid judgment in Civil Case No. 9908, the petitioners filed Civil Case No. 36-C against Marcela and Leoncia for partition, accounting and recovery of possession of Lot No. 252.  The parties then entered into a Compromise Agreement whereby the parties acknowledged that they owned Lot No. 252 in common, with 3/5 thereof as the interest of the petitioners and the other 2/5 belonging to therein defendants Marcela and Leoncia.  Said Compromise Agreement was approved by the CFI Branch VI, Laguna, in an Order dated December 1, 1971.[5]  The pertinent portions of the agreement read as follows:

    5. That the plaintiffs (herein petitioners) and the defendants (herein respondents) agree that said parcel of land (Lot 252) embraced in Transfer Certificate of Title 12206, and registered in the names of the Legal Heirs of Gervacia Cantillano, is now owned in common and in undivided shares of TWO-FIFTHS (2/5) for the defendants and THREE-FIFTHS (3/5) for the plaintiffs;

    6. That the plaintiffs and the defendants agree that the subject parcel of land be actually partitioned as they have so caused the survey and partition of the same per the hereto attached copy of the pertinent subdivision survey plan, marked as Annex “A” hereof and made integral part of this compromise agreement;

    7. That the plaintiffs and the defendants do hereby express their unqualified conformity to the said partition and they hereby accept to their full and entire satisfaction their respective determined shares in the subject parcel of land, and they agree to have their respective determined portions, Two-Fifths (2/5) for defendants and Three-Fifths (3/5) for plaintiffs, to be covered by independent and separate certificates of title in their respective names.

    8. That the plaintiffs agree to shoulder all the expenses incurred in the partition and to pay all expenses and fees which may be entailed in the issuance of the independent certificates of title in favor of the respective parties by the proper Registry of Deeds;[6]


    Ten years after or on August 11, 1981, Marcela and Leoncia, assisted by their husbands, instituted Civil Case No. 299-83-C assailing the Compromise Agreement.  They claimed that said agreement was a forgery and that their lawyer was not duly authorized for the purpose.  In an Order dated July 6, 1984, the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ failure to prosecute.

    Thereafter, on September 26, 1984, Marcela and Leoncia instituted Civil Case No. 792-84-C, for enforcement of judgment, partition and segregation of shares with damages over Lot No. 252.  On July 6, 1985, the trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription.  No appeal was taken therefrom.

    On September 21, 1987, the petitioners filed a Complaint before the RTC for the immediate segregation, partition and recovery of shares and ownership of Lot No. 252, with damages.  This was docketed as Civil Case No. 1153-87-C.  However, on April 3, 1990, on the basis of the pleadings and exhibits, the court a quo dismissed the complaint because of res judicata.  The trial court stated thus:

    “A perusal of this instant case and Civil Case No. 792-84-C, (Exh. ‘1’) will readily show that between these causes of actions, there are (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of subject matter; and (c) identity of cause of action.  As admitted by the parties, the judgment in Civil Case No. 792-84-C is now final and executory.  While there may appear a difference in the forms of action, the same is irrelevant for purposes of determining res judicata.  It is a firmly established rule that a different remedy sought or a diverse form of action does not prevent the estoppel of the former adjudication.

    x x x.”[7]


    Aggrieved, the petitioners appealed to the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 26109.  Unfortunately, the original records of the case were misplaced.  After earnest efforts were made for the reconstitution of the records of the case, the parties agreed to have the case submitted for decision based on the documents submitted.[8]

    In the now assailed decision,[9] the CA dismissed the appeal.  The CA found that the appellants’ brief neither contained the required page references to the records, as provided in Section 13 of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court; nor was it specified, both in the prayer and in the body of the complaint, the specific amounts of the petitioners’ claim for actual, moral, exemplary and compensatory damages, as enunciated in Manchester Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals.[10]

    As to the substantive issues raised in the complaint, the CA ruled that the action for partition has been barred by res judicata.  It also held that the petitioners no longer had any cause of action for partition because the co-ownership of the parties over Lot No. 252 had ceased to exist by the Order of the CFI Branch VI, Laguna on December 1, 1971.

    Issues

    In the case at bar, the petitioners submit the following issues for this Court’s consideration, to wit:

    A.

    THE CA ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONERS' APPEAL BRIEF FAILED TO MAKE PAGE REFERENCES TO THE RECORD.

    B.

    THE CA ERRED IN APPLYING THE RULING IN THE MANCHESTER CASE REGARDING DOCKET FEES.

    C.

    THE CA ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION AND RES JUDICATA.

    D.

    THE RTC ERRED IN DISMISSING THE ENTIRE CASE.[11]


    Ruling and Discussions

    We find no merit in the petition.

    Failure to observe the requirements under
    Section 13(a), Rule 44 of the 1997 Rules of
    Court and to pay the correct docket fees is
    fatal to the appeal.


    The petitioners argue that the CA erred in dismissing their appeal for their failure to indicate the page references to the records of the case pursuant to Section 13(a), Rule 44[12] of the Rules of Court.   They invoke Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which states that “technical rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.”   They cite the case of Pacific Life Assurance Corporation v. Sison,[13] where it was held that an appeal should not be dismissed on mere technicality.

    It is settled that technical rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.  Their strict and rigid application should be relaxed when they hinder rather than promote substantial justice.  Cases should as much as possible be resolved on the merits, and not on mere technicalities.  The failure of the petitioners' appeal brief to contain page references to the records is a formal defect which may be considered as minor, if not negligible.[14]

    However, while this Court may be lenient in some instances on formal defects of pleadings filed with the court, it could not close its eyes when a litigant continuously ignores technical rules, to the point of wanton disregard of the rationale behind those rules.  In fact, this Court has consistently affirmed the importance of complying with the requirements in Section 13(a), Rule 44[15] of the Rules of Court in many of its decisions, particularly in Mendoza v. United Coconut Planters Bank, Inc.,[16] where the Court explicitly stated that:

    Rule 44 and 50 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure are designed for the proper and prompt disposition of cases before the Court of Appeals Rules of Procedure exist for a noble purpose, and to disregard such rules in the guise of liberal construction would be to defeat such purpose.  The Court of Appeals noted in its Resolution denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration that despite ample opportunity, petitioners never attempted to file an amended appellants’ brief correcting the deficiencies of their brief, but obstinately clung to their argument that their Appellants’ Brief substantially complied with the rules. Such obstinacy is incongruous with their plea for liberality in construing the rules on appeal.

    De Liano v. Court of Appeals held:

    “Some may argue that adherence to these formal requirements serves but a meaningless purpose, that these may be ignored with little risk in the smug certainty that liberality in the application of procedural rules can always be relied upon to remedy the infirmities.  This misses the point.  We are not martinets; in appropriate instances, we are prepared to listen to reason, and to give relief as the circumstances may warrant.  However, when the error relates to something so elementary as to be inexcusable, our discretion becomes nothing more than an exercise in frustration.  It comes as an unpleasant shock to us that the contents of an appellant’s brief should still be raised as an issue now.  There is nothing arcane or novel about the provisions of Section 13, Rule 44.  The rule governing the contents of appellants’ briefs has existed since the old Rules of Court, which took effect on July 1, 1940, as well as the Revised Rules of Court, which took effect on January 1, 1964, until they were superseded by the present 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.  The provisions were substantially preserved, with few revisions.”[17]


    Moreover, the petitioners also failed to pay the correct docket fees; in which case, jurisdiction did not vest in the trial court.  In Siapno v. Manalo,[18] this Court has made it abundantly clear that any complaint, petition, answer and other similar pleading, which does not specify both in its body and prayer the amount of damages being claimed, should not be accepted or admitted, or should be expunged from the records, as may be the case.[19]

    The petitioners alleged in their complaint in Civil Case No. 1153-87-C[20] that they suffered actual loss from the time they had been deprived of their share of 3/5 on Lot No. 252 by the respondents, as well as moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses.  However, the only claims they specified in their prayer were for the attorney's fees in the amount of P30,000.00 and P500.00 for every court appearance of the counsel.

    In Siapno,[21] the complaint alleged in its body the aggregate sum of P4,500,000 in moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees, but the prayer portion did not mention these claims, nor did it even pray for the payment of damages.  This Court held that such a complaint should be dismissed outright; or if already admitted, should be expunged from the records.  The Court explained that the rule – requiring the amount of damages claimed to be specified not only in the body of the pleading but also in its prayer portion – was intended to put an end to the then prevailing practice of lawyers where the damages prayed for were recited only in the body of the complaint, but not in the prayer, in order to evade payment of the correct filing fees.  As held by the Court in Manchester:[22]

    To put a stop to this irregularity, henceforth all complaints, petitions, answers and other similar pleadings should specify the amount of damages being prayed for not only in the body of the pleading but also in the prayer, and said damages shall be considered in the assessment of the filing fees in any case.  Any pleading that fails to comply with this requirement shall not be accepted nor admitted, or shall otherwise be expunged from the record.[23]


    In Sun Insurance Office Ltd. v. Judge Asuncion,[24] the Court laid down the following rules as regards the payment of filing fees:

    1. It is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action.  Where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

    2. The same rule applies to permissive counterclaims, third-party claims and similar pleadings, which shall not be considered filed until and unless the filing fee prescribed therefor is paid.  The court may also allow payment of said fee within a reasonable time but also in no case beyond its applicable prescriptive or reglementary period.

    3. Where the trial court acquires jurisdiction over a claim by the filing of the appropriate pleading and payment of the prescribed filing fee but, subsequently, the judgment awards a claim not specified in the pleading, or if specified the same has been left for determination by the court, the additional filing fee therefor shall constitute a lien on the judgment. It shall be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized deputy to enforce said lien and assess and collect the additional fee.[25]


    It cannot be gainsaid from the above guidelines that, with the exception of pauper litigants,[26] without the payment of the correct docket or filing fees within the reglementary period, jurisdiction over the subject-matter or nature of the action will not vest in the trial court.  In fact, a pauper litigant may still have to pay the docket fees later, by way of a lien on the monetary or property judgment that may accrue to him.  Clearly, the flexibility or liberality of the rules sought by the petitioners cannot apply in the instant case.

    Action is dismissible for res judicata
    and lack of cause of action. 


    The petitioners vehemently deny that the partition of Lot No. 252 has already been settled in Civil Case No. 36-C.  They insist that the mere determination of the proportionate shares of the parties, as well as their respective portions of the aforesaid lot in the Compromise Agreement is not enough.  They allege that Lot No. 252 is still covered by the old title, TCT No. 12206, in the name of the heirs of Gervacia Cantillano.  The finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 36-C did not cause Lot No. 252 to divide itself in accordance with the subdivision plan.  They assert that there must be an actual and exclusive possession of their respective portions in the plan and titles issued to each of them accordingly.[27]

    The petitioners’ contentions are untenable.

    Article 484 of the New Civil Code provides that there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.  Thus, on the one hand, a co-owner of an undivided parcel of land is an owner of the whole, and over the whole he exercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is truly abstract.  On the other hand, there is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically described.[28]

    Pursuant to Article 494 of the Civil Code, no co-owner is obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and his proper remedy is an action for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, which he may bring at anytime in so far as his share is concerned.  Article 1079 of the Civil Code defines partition as the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to whom it may belong.  It has been held that the fact that the agreement of partition lacks the technical description of the parties' respective portions or that the subject property was then still embraced by the same certificate of title could not legally prevent a partition, where the different portions allotted to each were determined and became separately identifiable.[29]

    The partition of Lot No. 252 was the result of the approved Compromise Agreement in Civil Case No. 36-C, which was immediately final and executory.  Absent any showing that said Compromise Agreement was vitiated by fraud, mistake or duress, the court cannot set aside a judgment based on compromise.[30]  It is axiomatic that a compromise agreement once approved by the court settles the rights of the parties and has the force of res judicata.  It cannot be disturbed except on the ground of vice of consent or forgery.[31]

    Of equal significance is the fact that the compromise judgment in Civil Case No. 36-C settled as well the question of which specific portions of Lot No. 252 accrued to the parties separately as their proportionate shares therein.  Through their subdivision survey plan, marked as Annex “A”[32] of the Compromise Agreement and made an integral part thereof, the parties segregated and separately assigned to themselves distinct portions of Lot No. 252.  The partition was immediately executory,[33] having been accomplished and completed on December 1, 1971 when judgment was rendered approving the same.  The CA was correct when it stated that no co-ownership exist when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically described.[34]

    It bears to note that the parties even acknowledged in Paragraph 7 of the Compromise Agreement that they had accepted their “respective determined shares in the subject parcel of land, and they agree to have their respective determined portions, Two-Fifths (2/5) for defendants and Three-Fifths (3/5) for plaintiffs, to be covered by independent and separate certificates of title in their respective names.”[35]

    The petitioners slept on their rights
    under the partition agreement.


    To recall, the petitioners obtained part ownership of Lot No. 252 as the highest bidders at the execution sale of Lots Nos. 252 and 269 in Civil Case No. 7836, whereas respondents Marcela and Leoncia as heirs of Gervacia Cantillano retained their 2/5 interest in Lot No. 252 since they were not impleaded in the said case.  As buyers of land, the petitioners had the right to pursue their share therein all the way to the issuance of their separate title and recovery of possession of their portion, beginning with the filing of Civil Case No. 36-C.

    Concerning the registration with the Registry of Deeds of a judgment of partition of land, Section 81 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 provides that after the entry of the final judgment of partition, a copy of such final judgment shall be filed and registered.  If the land is set off to the owner in severalty, each owner shall be entitled to have his certificate entered showing the share set off to him in severalty, and to receive an owner's duplicate thereof.[36]

    Accordingly, Paragraph 8 of the Compromise Agreement provided that the petitioners shall “shoulder all the expenses incurred in the partition and to pay all expenses and fees which may be incurred in the  issuance of the independent certificates of title in favor of the respective parties by the proper Registry of Deeds.”[37]  Unfortunately, the records do not disclose that the petitioners neither filed and registered with the Register of Deeds a certified copy of the final judgment of partition in Civil Case No. 36-C, nor did they perform or cause to be performed all further acts requisite for the cancellation of TCT No. 12206 and the issuance of the parties' separate titles over their assigned portions in Lot No. 252.  The only entry in TCT No. 12206,[38] prior to the recording on June 13, 1979 of the issuance to the petitioners of a second duplicate copy of TCT No. 12206, is the annotation in April 1952 of the execution sale of Lot No. 252 to the petitioners.

    Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides:

    Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. – A final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry.  After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action.  The revived judgment may also be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations.


    A final and executory judgment may be executed by the prevailing party as a matter of right by mere motion within five (5) years from the entry of judgment, failing which the judgment is reduced to a mere right of action which must be enforced by the institution of a complaint in a regular court within ten (10) years from finality of the judgment.[39] In the instant case, there is no showing that after the judgment in Civil Case No. 36-C, the petitioners filed a motion to execute the same during the first five (5) years after its finality, or within the succeeding five (5) years, by a civil action to revive the judgment, before it would have been barred by the statute of limitations.[40] An action for revival of judgment is governed by Articles 1144(3) and 1152 of the Civil Code, and Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.  Articles 1144(3) and 1152 of the Code state:

    Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:

    x x x x

    (3) Upon a judgment

    Art. 1152. The period for prescription of actions to demand the fulfillment of obligations declared by a judgment commences from the time the judgment became final.


    When the petitioners filed Civil Case No. 1153-87-C on September 21, 1987, it was not purportedly to revive the judgment in Civil Case No. 36-C. It was apparently an action for “Partition, Recovery of Shares with Damages,” but nonetheless citing as basis of the Compromise Agreement in Civil Case No. 36-C.  The petitioners wanted to accomplish through an entirely new action what was already adjudicated in Civil Case No. 36-C, rendered 17 years earlier, but which they inexplicably failed to enforce.  The petitioners do not allege that they tried to execute the compromise judgment in Civil Case No. 36-C either by motion or by action to revive judgment within the prescriptive period.  Absent any proof that the respondents resorted to dilatory schemes and maneuvers to prevent the execution of the Compromise Agreement,[41] and contrary to the petitioners’ gratuitous assertion in paragraph VIII of their complaint in Civil Case No. 1153-87-C, we fail to see how the mere filing by the respondents of Civil Case No. 299-83-C on August 11, 1981 could have in any way prevented or impeded the petitioners from executing the judgment in Civil Case No. 36-C.

    We thus sustain the respondents' affirmative defenses of res judicata and lack of cause of action, and uphold the appellate and trial courts' rejection of the petitioners' ostensible attempt to revive the already stale judgment in Civil Case No. 36-C through an entirely new action for partition.  The Court agrees with the CA when it explained:

      1. The judgment that effected res judicata is not so much the dismissal of the case due to prescription in Civil Case No. 792-84-C.  What more appropriately leads to res judicata to this case is the final Compromise Judgment in Civil Case No. 36-C.  All the elements of res judicata are present, a final decision on the merits, between the same parties, on the same subject matter and cause of action. x x x.

      2. The present complaint states no cause of action.  There is no doubt that appellants’ prayer for partition is anchored on their supposed co-ownership of Lot No. 252 plus the added fact that it is still covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 12206.  However, appellants must have lost track of the fact that at the time the present action was commenced, partition was no longer an available remedy in their favor simply because their pretended co-ownership had already ceased to exist.  Their 3/5 shares had already been segregated and determined in the subdivision plan mentioned in the Compromise Judgment and have, in fact, accepted their share to their satisfaction.  In De la Cruz vs. Cruz, 32 SCRA 307 [1970], the Supreme Court, through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, said that co-ownership no longer exists over the whole parcel of land where the portions owned by the parties are already determined and identifiable.  That said respective portions are not technically described, or that said portions are still embraced in one and the same certificate of title, does not make said portions less determinable, or identifiable, or distinguishable, one from the other, nor that dominion over its portions rest exclusively in their respective owners.[42]


    Nonetheless, it must be made clear that nothing in this decision shall be understood to mean that the petitioners have lost their title or interest in the subject property.  The final (“definite”) deed of sale executed by the sheriff in favor of the petitioners pursuant to the execution sale in Civil Case No. 7836, which was duly registered in TCT No. 12206 on April 15, 1952, constituted an effective conveyance to the petitioners of the property sold therein and entitled them to possession thereof,[43] although in the subsequent decision in 1955 in Civil Case No. 9908, the respondents’ 2/5 interest in the property was recognized, thereby amending the extent of the petitioners’ title.  The said judgment has not been registered, and neither was the compromise judgment of partition in Civil Case No. 36-C dated December 1, 1971, which established the parties’ respective specific portions in Lot No. 252.  Thus, as a prerequisite to the issuance of a new title in the name of the petitioners over their 3/5 allocated portion, we believe that Section 81[44] of P.D. No. 1529 does not bar the belated registration of the compromise judgment in Civil Case No. 36-C.cralaw

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.  The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 13, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 26109 is AFFIRMED.

    SO ORDERED.

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

    Endnotes:


    [1] Penned by Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., with Justices Martin S. Villarama (now a member of this Court) and Sergio L. Pestaño, concurring; rollo, pp. 53-66.

    [2] Id. at 34-39.

    [3] Id. at 48-50.

    [4] Id. at 77-79.

    [5] Id. at 81-83.

    [6] Id. at 82.

    [7] Id. at 58-59.

    [8] Id. at 55.

    [9] Supra note 1.

    [10] 233 Phil. 579 (1987).

    [11] Rollo, p. 19.

    [12] Rule 44, Section 13. Contents of appellant’s brief. – The appellant’s brief shall contain, in the order herein indicated, the following:

    (a) A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the arguments and page references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with references to the pages where they are cited;

    [13] 359 Phil. 332 (1998).

    [14] Tan v. Planters Products, Inc., G.R. No. 172239, March 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 287, 301.

    [15] Supra note 12.

    [16] G.R. No. 165575, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 333.

    [17] Id. at 348-349, citing Lumbre v. CA, G.R. No. 160717, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 419, 431 and 434; Sps. Del Rosario v. CA, 311 Phil. 630 (1995; De Liano v. CA, 421 Phil. 1033, 1046-1047 (2001).

    [18] 505 Phil. 430 (2005).

    [19] Id. at 440.

    [20] Rollo, pp. 34-39.

    [21] Supra note 18.

    [22] Supra note 10.

    [23] Id. at 585.

    [24] 252 Phil. 280 (1989).

    [25] Id. at 291-292.

    [26] Section 16, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court states that “the legal fees shall be a lien on the monetary or property judgment in favor of the pauper-litigant.”

    [27] Del Blanco v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 240 Phil. 55, 67 (1987). (Citation omitted)

    [28] Spouses Si v. Court of Appeals, 396 Phil. 819, 828 (2000). (Citation omitted)

    [29] De la Cruz v. Cruz, et al., 143 Phil. 230, 234 (1970).

    [30] Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 357 Phil. 174, 184 (1998), citing De Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 222 Phil. 236, 242 (1985).

    [31] CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article 2037 and 2038; Magbanua v. Uy, 497 Phil. 511, 519 (2005); Cebu International Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 374 Phil. 844, 858 (1999).

    [32] Rollo, p. 82.

    [33] Pamintuan, et al. v. Muñoz, et al., 131 Phil. 213, 216 (1968); The Pasay City Government, et al., v. CFI of Manila, Branch X, et al., 217 Phil. 153 (1984).

    [34] Supra note 29.

    [35] Rollo, p. 82.

    [36] Section 81. Judgment of partition./span> – In proceedings for partition of registered land, after the entry of the final judgment of partition, a copy of such final judgment, certified by the clerk of court rendering the same, shall be filed and registered; thereupon, if the land is set off to the owner in severalty, each owner shall be entitled to have his certificate entered showing the share set off to him in severalty, and to receive an owner's duplicate thereof.

    [37] Id.

    [38] Rollo, pp. 85-87.

    [39] Villeza v. German Management and Services, Inc., G.R. No. 182937, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 425, 431.

    [40] Umali v. Judge Coquia, 244 Phil. 159, 164, citing Demetriou v. Lesaca, 63 Phil. 112 (1936); Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-43179, June 27, 1985, 137 SCRA 220, 227; Luzon Security Company v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 157 SCRA 652 (1987).

    [41] 221 Phil. 685, 695 (1985).

    [42] Rollo, pp. 64-65.

    [43] Gonzalez v. Calimbas and Poblete, 51 Phil. 355, 358 (1927).

    [44] Supra note 36.

    [G.R. No. 151898 : March 14, 2012]   RICARDO RIZAL, POTENCIANA RIZAL, SATURNINA RIZAL, ELENA RIZAL, AND BENJAMIN RIZAL, PETITIONERS, VS. LEONCIA NAREDO, ANASTACIO LIRIO, EDILBERTO CANTAVIEJA, GLORIA CANTAVIEJA, CELSO CANTAVIEJA, AND THE HEIRS OF MELANIE CANTAVIEJA, RESPONDENTS.  D E C I S I O N






    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