Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > October 2012 Decisions > G.R. No. 174582 : The Heirs of the Late Spouses Laura Yadno and Pugsong Mat-an, namely, Lauro Mat-an, et al. v. The Heirs of the Late Spouses Mauro and Elisa Achales, namely, Johnny S. Anchales, et al.:




G.R. No. 174582 : The Heirs of the Late Spouses Laura Yadno and Pugsong Mat-an, namely, Lauro Mat-an, et al. v. The Heirs of the Late Spouses Mauro and Elisa Achales, namely, Johnny S. Anchales, et al.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 174582 : October 11, 2012

THE HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES LAURA YADNO and PUGSONG MAT-AN, namely, LAURO MAT-AN, FE MAT-AN LAOYAN, JULIA MAT-AN KITANI, ANA MAT-AN MALANI, DARIO MAT-AN and VICTOR MAT-AN, who are represented by their co-petitioner NENA MAT-AN CLEMENT, Petitioner, v. THE HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES MAURO and ELISA ANCHALES, namely, JOHNNY S. ANCHALES, BELMORE S. ANCHALES, BENSON S. ANCHALES, BRIGETTE S. HARASYMUK, RITA A. KAWA, and NENITA S. ANCHALES, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are the Decision1ςrνll dated January 12, 2006 and the Resolution2ςrνll dated June 28, 2006 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77427.

The antecedent facts are as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

On December 1, 1982, the Spouses Mauro and Elisa Anchales (Spouses Anchales), respondents' predecessors, filed with the then Court of First Instance, Branch 9, now Regional Trial Court, Branch 46, of Urdaneta, Pangasinan (Urdaneta RTC), a Complaint3ςrνll for ownership, delivery of possession, damages with preliminary injunction and attachment against the spouses Augusto and Rosalia Yadno (Spouses Yadno), Orani Tacay (Orani), and the spouses Laura Yadno and Pugsong Mat-an (Spouses Mat-an), petitioners' predecessors, docketed as Civil Case No. U- 3882. The Spouses Mat-an and Orani did not file their Answer, thus, they were declared in default. The Spouses Yadno were also declared in default so the Spouses Anchales were allowed to present their evidence ex-parte. The Spouses Yadno filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order declaring them in default, but the RTC denied the motion and submitted the case for decision. On September 14, 1987, the Urdaneta RTC rendered its Decision,4ςrνll the dispositive portion of which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring the plaintiffs as the absolute owners of the land in question;

2. Ordering the defendants Augusto Yadno and Rosalia Yadno to vacate the premises of the land in question and restore the possession thereof to the plaintiffs;

3. Ordering the said defendants to remove their house constructed which is still standing on the premises in question;

4. Ordering the defendants Augusto Yadno, Rosalia Yadno, Orani Tacay, Laura Yadno and Pugsong Mat-an to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the amount of 400 cavans of palay representing the harvest for the last six (6) years up to and including the years 1982 and 1983 until they actually vacate and deliver the premises to the plaintiffs; and

5. That the said defendants are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees.

Other claims of plaintiffs for damages are hereby denied for lack of evidence.

With costs against all the defendants solidarily.

SO ORDERED.5ςrνll

The decision became final and executory. A Writ of Execution was issued on September 20, 1988.6ςrνll The sheriff of the Urdaneta RTC issued a Notice of Levy dated October 10, 1988 on the property registered under the name of Orani, one of the defendants, covered by TCT No.T-13845 of the Register of Deeds of Baguio City. The notice of levy was annotated at the back of the title on November 7, 1988.7ςrνll A public auction was held on November 14, 1988 and Mauro Anchales emerged as the highest bidder.8ςrνll A Certificate of Sale9ςrνll dated December 20, 1988 was issued to Mauro Anchales which was registered with the Register of Deeds of Baguio City on August 7, 1989. The Sheriff's Final Certificate of Sale10ςrνll was issued on March 7, 1991 and was annotated at the back of TCT No. 13845 on April 3, 1991.

Earlier, on February 10, 1989, petitioners' predecessors, the Spouses Mat-an, filed with the RTC of Baguio City (Baguio RTC), Branch 7, an Action11ςrνll for injunction and damages with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction against respondents predecessors, the Spouses Anchales, Spouses Yadno, and the Provincial Sheriff of the RTC Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, docketed as Civil Case No. 1651-R, the subject of the instant petition. In their Complaint, the Spouses Mat-an claimed that on December 16, 1988, the Provincial Sheriff of Urdaneta, without any authority from the trial court, indiscriminately levied and conducted a public auction sale of the property registered under the name of Orani Tacay covered by TCT No. 13845, thus, saving the real property of the Spouses Yadno covered by TCT No. T-88740 situated at Dungon, Sison, Pangasinan. The Spouses Mat-an further argued that Orani died on December 28, 1986, which was before the Urdaneta RTC had rendered its decision on September 14, 1987, thus Orani's property covered by TCT No 13845 became the estate of her legal heirs and had since been with a distinct personality which cannot be subjected to levy.

On April 13, 1990, both counsels in the Baguio RTC case moved12ςrνll that the injunction case filed therewith be archived in view of the pending case for partition involving the Yadno and Mat-an Spouses.

On April 30, 1991, the Spouses Anchales filed a motion with the Urdaneta RTC for the issuance of title in their favor. The RTC issued its Order13ςrνll dated July 2, 1991 directing the Spouses Yadno, Orani and the Spouses Mat-an to produce and surrender the duplicate owner's copy of TCT No. T- 13845 within 15 days from receipt of the Order. The Spouses Mat-an assailed this Order with us which we dismissed in a Resolution dated December 12, 1991. Subsequently, in an Order14ςrνll dated May 20, 1994, the RTC authorized the Register of Deeds of Baguio City to cancel TCT No. T-13845 and correspondingly issue a new owner's duplicate copy of the same in the name of Mauro Anchales. Later, the RTC issued another Order15ςrνll dated June 14, 1994 directing the Register of Deeds of Baguio City to annul the title of Orani and to issue another title in lieu thereof to Mauro Anchales immediately upon receipt of the Order. Consequently, TCT No. 60513 was issued to Mauro Anchales on July 6, 1994.16ςrνll

On September 16, 1997, petitioners' predecessors, the Spouses Mat-an, filed with Baguio RTC an Ex-Parte Motion17ςrνll for the revival of their injunction case filed therewith, a motion for admission of supplemental complaint and a motion for substitution18ςrνll of defendants Mauro and Eliza Anchales who had already died. In their Supplemental Complaint,19ςrνll the Spouses Mat-an assailed the levy and sale of the Orani property as illegal and the Orders dated July 2, 1991, May 20, 1994 and June 14, 1994 for being void and of no legal effect. They claimed that the decision rendered by the Urdaneta RTC in Civil Case No. U-3882 was null and void in so far as Orani was concerned, since she had died before the decision was rendered and her intestate estate was not impleaded to substitute her before the rendition of the judgment.

In an Order20ςrνll dated October 22, 1997, the Baguio RTC granted the Motion to Revive the Case, and on February 9, 1998, admitted the Supplemental Complaint. The RTC subsequently ordered the defendants to file their answer to the complaint. Accordingly, defendants filed their Answer with Counterclaim.21ςrνll

The Spouses Mat-an moved22ςrνll to drop the Spouses Yadno as defendants in the case, which the RTC granted in an Order dated January 3, 2002.

Subsequently, defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss23ςrνll on the ground that the Baguio RTC had no jurisdiction to enjoin the Urdaneta RTC, since that latter court is a court of coordinate jurisdiction. The Spouses Mat-an filed their Opposition.

On August 21, 2002, the Baguio RTC issued its Order24ςrνll granting the Motion to Dismiss.

In so ruling, the RTC said:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

There is no doubt Orani Tacay was defendant in Civil Case No.-3882. And so, the decision rendered in said case, dated September 14, 1987, is binding and effective on said Orani Tacay and her co-defendants (Augusto Yadno, Rosalia Yadno, Laura Yadno and Pugsong Mat-an). And so to enforce said judgment by way of writ of execution, the property/properties of said defendants can be levied upon to satisfy the judgment.

The property (covered by TCT T-13845) levied upon belongs to the intestate estate of Orani Tacay. And the only legal heirs of the deceased Orani Tacay are Lauro Yadno and Augusto Yadno, who are all defendants in said Civil Case U-3882.

There were no intestate proceedings instituted in the proper court with respect to the properties left by Orani Tacay. And so, her (Orani Tacay's) properties are not in custodia legis.

Since the land covered by TCT T-13845 belongs to the defendants, then the Deputy Sheriff who levied on said property to satisfy the judgment in Civil Case U-3882 just acted within his authority and in accordance with the rules. As correctly pointed by the defendants-movants, the proper remedy is to file the appropriate motion/pleading to this effect with the RTC, Branch 46, Urdaneta, which rendered the judgment. This is so because this court (RTC, Branch 46, Urdaneta) has exclusive jurisdiction over the execution proceedings.25ςrνll

The Spouses Mat-an appealed the decision to the CA, which rendered its Decision dated January 12, 2006 dismissing the appeal.

The CA found that the issue involving Civil Case No. U-3882, which was decided by the Urdaneta RTC, must be resolved by that court and the Baguio RTC had no authority to interfere with the processes of the Urdaneta RTC which is a coordinate court; that the Spouses Mat-an would like the Baguio RTC to enjoin the sheriff from auctioning the subject property which cannot be done as it had been levied pursuant to a lawful order of the Urdaneta RTC which placed the property under custodia legis, hence, beyond the authority of a co-equal court.

The Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners' predecessors was denied in a Resolution dated June 28, 2006.

Petitioners, as heirs of the Spouses Mat-an, filed the instant petition claiming that the CA committed a reversible error in affirming the Baguio RTC's order dismissing the complaint for the following reasons:

(1) The Supplemental Complaint of the late PLAINTIFFS Laura Yadno and Pugsong Mat-an in Civil Case No. 1651-R before the court a quo explicitly alleges that the property in litigation was not in custodia legis but already sold at public auction and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-13845- in the name of the late Orani Tacay had already been cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 60513 was already issued to the late DEFENDANT Mauro Anchales on July 6, 1994;

(2) The main action in Civil Case No. 1651-R before the court a quo is for quieting of title, recovery of ownership and reconveyance of the property in litigation, in which case the policy of judicial stability is inapplicable thereto;

(3) The prayer of the late PLAINTIFFS Laura Yadno and Pugsong Mat-an in their Supplemental Complaint for the court a quo to declare "as null and void ab initio Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-60513 issued to the (late) defendant Mauro Anchales" is only incidental to the main action to quiet title, recovery of ownership, and reconveyance of the property in litigation "by directing the Register of Deeds for Baguio City to restore Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-13845" and, therefore, the policy of judicial stability is inapplicable to Civil Case No. 1651-R before the court a quo; and

(4) The late DEFENDANTS Mauro Anchales and Eliza Anchales flagrantly violated the policy of judicial stability and the prohibition against forum shopping in securing, and the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, committed grave abuse of discretion, as it was utterly devoid of jurisdiction in issuing the July 2, 1991, May 20, 1994 and June 14, 1994 Orders in Civil Case No. U-3882 during the pendency of Civil Case No. 2175 before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City. Hence, the said July 2, 1991, May 20, 1994 and June 14, 1994 Orders are null and void ab initio and the court a quo will not violate the policy of judicial stability if it resolved these issues in Civil Case No. 1651-R before it.26ςrνll

The main issue for resolution is whether the CA committed a reversible error when it affirmed the Baguio RTC's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction the complaint filed with it by petitioners' predecessors, the Spouses Mat-an.

We rule in the negative.

In their Complaint for injunction and damages and issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction filed before the Baguio RTC, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 1651-R, petitioners' predecessors assailed the validity of the judgment issued by Branch 46 of the Urdaneta RTC in Civil Case No. U-3882 for being null and void. They claimed that Orani Tacay, one of the party defendants in Civil Case No. U-3882, had already died before the judgment was rendered but was not duly substituted by either her heirs or the administrator of her estate. Thus, the judgment was never binding and had never attained finality as against Orani or her intestate estate; that the levy and execution, as well as the subsequent sale at public auction of Orani's property to satisfy the judgment in Civil Case No. U-3882 were all null and void, because of the total nullity of the judgment sought to be enforced. In their Supplemental Complaint, petitioners' predecessors argued that the Orders dated July 2, 1991, May 20, 1994, and June 14, 1994 issued by the Urdaneta RTC were also all null and void.

Notably, the Decision dated September 14, 1987 of the Urdaneta RTC, issued in Civil Case No. U-3882 which petitioners sought to assail in their complaint filed in the Baguio RTC had long become final and executory. In the said Decision, the Urdaneta RTC ordered, among others, that: "defendants Augusto Yadno, Rosalia Yadno, Orani Tacay, Laura Yadno and Pugsong Mat-an to pay jointly and severally the plaintiffs the amount of 400 cavans of palay representing the harvest for the last six years up to and including the years 1982 and 1983 until they actually vacate and deliver the premises to the plaintiffs." Since Orani was one of the defendants adjudged to be jointly and severally liable to respondents' predecessors, the Spouses Anchales, her property was levied on October 10, 1988 by virtue of a Writ of Execution dated September 20, 1988 issued in the said case. The notice of levy was annotated at the back of Orani's TCT No. 13845 on November 7, 1988 and the property was sold to Mauro Anchales who emerged as the highest bidder. A certificate of sale was issued to Mauro Anchales on December 20, 1988 and was registered and annotated on TCT No. 13845 on August 7, 1989. As no redemption was made within the one-year period for doing so, the sheriff's sale became absolute. Subsequently, the Urdaneta RTC issued an Order dated July 2, 1991 which directed the defendants in said case to produce and surrender to the court their duplicate owner's copy of TCT No. T-13845. And on the May 20, 1994 and June 14, 1994 Orders of the Urdaneta RTC, the Register of Deeds of Baguio City was authorized to cancel TCT No. 13845 in Orani's name and to correspondingly issue a new owner's duplicate copy in the name of Mauro Anchales and to annul Orani's title and to issue another title to Mauro Anchales, respectively. Notably, the last three Orders which petitioners claimed to be void were merely the consequence of the execution of judgment dated September 14, 1987 in Civil Case No. U-3382 which had already been enforced when Orani's property was levied upon and sold at public auction with Mauro Anchales as the highest bidder.

We find that the Baguio RTC correctly dismissed the case for injunction with damages filed with it, since it had no jurisdiction over the nature of the action. Petitioners' predecessors could not in an action for injunction with damages filed with the Baguio RTC sought the nullification of a final and executory decision rendered by the Urdaneta RTC and its subsequent orders issued pursuant thereto for the satisfaction of the said judgment. This would go against the principle of judicial stability where the judgment or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, the Urdaneta RTC, may not be interfered with by any court of concurrent jurisdiction (i.e., another RTC), for the simple reason that the power to open, modify or vacate the said judgment or order is not only possessed by but is restricted to the court in which the judgment or order is rendered or issued.27ςrνll

The long standing doctrine is that no court has the power to interfere by injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction. The various trial courts of a province or city, having the same or equal authority, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with their respective cases, much less with their orders or judgments.28ςrνll A contrary rule would obviously lead to confusion and seriously hamper the administration of justice.29ςrνll

Petitioners argue that the decision of the Urdaneta RTC had never attained finality as against defendant Orani because it was rendered after Orani's death and without her having been substituted by her intestate estate; that her intestate estate cannot be held liable to the satisfaction of the judgment debt because in legal contemplation, no judgment was ever rendered either against her or her intestate estate.

This argument should have been presented before the Urdaneta RTC as it was the court which rendered the decision and ordered the execution sale of the Orani property and thus should settle the whole controversy.30ςrνll Moreover, it appears that the Urdaneta RTC was not apprised at all of Orani's death, since there was no notice of her death filed with it. In fact, in their Comment filed with us, respondents allege that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

The defendants spouses Mauro Anchales and Elisa Anchales pointed out in paragraph 4 of their Answer to the original Complaint and in paragraph 11 of their Answer to the supplemental complaint that the plaintiff spouses Laura Yadno Mat-an and Pugsong Mat-an never informed the trial court (RTC, Branch 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan) about such alleged death of Orani Tacay.

These contentions of spouses Mauro Anchales and Elisa Anchales that the trial court (RTC 46, Urdaneta Pangasinan) was never informed of the alleged death of Orani Tacay was never rebutted by Lauro Yadno Mat-An and Pugsong Mat-an in Civil Case No. 1651-R (RTC, Branch 7, Baguio City).

In fine, it is the fault of spouses Laura Yadno Mat-an and Pugsong Mat-an (now substituted by petitioners) in not informing the trial court (RTC 46, Urdaneta, Pangasinan) about the alleged death of Orani Tacay.

Petitioners never rebutted these allegations in their Rejoinder. The Baguio RTC had no jurisdiction to nullify the final and executory decision of the Urdaneta RTC. To allow it would open the floodgates to protracted and endless litigations, since the counsel or the parties, in an action for recovery of money, in case said defendant dies before final judgment in a regional trial court, is to conceal such death from the court and thereafter pretend to go through the motions of trial, and after judgment is rendered against his client, to question such judgment by raising the matter that the defendant was not substituted by her intestate heirs.31ςrνll

Moreover, it also appears that petitioners' predecessors admitted that Orani's only legal heirs were Laura Yadno, petitioner's predecessor, and Augusto Yadno, who both became the absolute owners of the property from the moment of Orani's death. Notably, Laura and Augusto, together with Orani, were the original defendants in the case of recovery of sum of money filed with the Urdaneta RTC and who were adjudged jointly and severally liable to the Spouses Anchales. Thus, they cannot claim that they were deprived of such property, since the sale was done in accordance with the rules on the execution of judgment rendered against them.

Petitioners contend that the CA erred in its factual finding that the subject property was in custodia legis of the Urdaneta RTC when it is established that a new TCT No. 60513 had already been issued to Mauro Anchales; that such finding led to a wrong legal conclusion that the Baguio RTC is devoid of jurisdiction over the complaint on the policy of judicial stability.

We are not impressed.

There is no dispute that the Orani property had been in custodia legis of the Urdaneta RTC when it was levied on October 10, 1988 and sold under a writ of execution for the satisfaction of the judgment rendered by the said court. The subsequent issuance of a new title of the Orani property in the name of Mauro Anchales was by virtue of a levy and an execution sale of the said property which was not redeemed within the one-year period. Thus, the Baguio RTC correctly ruled that it cannot, in an injunction case with damages filed with it, interfere with the judgment of the Urdaneta RTC and the subsequent orders issued pursuant thereto since it is beyond the former's authority as a co-equal court. It is the Urdaneta RTC which has a general supervisory control over its processes in the execution of its judgment with a right to determine every question of fact and law which may be involved in the execution.32ςrνll

Finally, petitioners claim that the cause of action filed with the Baguio RTC is in reality an action to quiet title as well as for recovery of ownership and reconveyance is belied by the allegations stated in their complaint, which basically sought to nullify the final and executory judgment of the Urdaneta RTC, the levy and sale of the property, and the issuance of a new title in the name of Mauro Anchales.ςηαοblενιrυαllαωlιbrαr

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 12, 2006 and the Resolution dated June 28, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77427 are hereby AFFIRMED.ςrαlαωlιbrαr

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:


* Designated Acting Member, per Special Order No. 1299 dated August 28, 2012.

1ςrνll Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of this Court.), concurring, rollo. pp. 155-163.

2ςrνll Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with Justices Mario L. Guarina Ill and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of this Court.), concurring,. id at 207-208.

3ςrνll Rollo, pp. 114-121.

4ςrνll Id. at 122-127.

5ςrνll Id. at 127.

6ςrνll Records, p. 185.

7ςrνll Id. at 168.

8ςrνll Id.

9ςrνll Id. at 185-186.

10ςrνll Id. at 168.

11ςrνll Rollo, pp. 92-97.

12ςrνll Id. at 30.

13ςrνll Records, p. 188.

14ςrνll Id. at 168 and 204.

15ςrνll Id.

16ςrνll Id. at 169.

17ςrνll Id. at 37.

18ςrνll Id. at 53; Substituted by Johnny Anchales, Belmore Anchales, Benson Anchales, Brigette Anchales Harasymiuk, Rita A. Kawa and Nenita Anchales.

19ςrνll Id. at 99-107.

20ςrνll Id. at 56.

21ςrνll Id. at 134-142.

22ςrνll Id. at 132-139.

23ςrνll Id. at 143-144.

24ςrνll Rollo, pp. 147-149; Per Judge Clarence J. Villanueva.

25ςrνll Id. at 148.

26ςrνll Id. at 23-24.

27ςrνll Tiu v. First Plywood Corporation, G.R. Nos. 176123 and 185264, March 10, 2010, 615 SCRA 117, 129, citing Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114951, July 17, 2003, 406 SCRA 575, 602.

28ςrνll Ching v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118830, February 24, 2003, 398 SCRA 88, 93; 446 Phil. 121, 129 (2003).

29ςrνll Id.

30ςrνll Tiu v. First Plywood Corporation, supra, citing Crystal v. Court of Appeals, No. L- 35767, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 79, 84; 243 Phil. 244 (1988).

31ςrνll Heirs of Elias Lorilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118655, April 12, 2000, 330 SCRA 429, 438; 386 Phil. 638, 647 (2000).

32ςrνll See Paper Industries Corp. of the Philippines v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-71365, June 18, 1987, 151 SCRA 161, 167; 235 Phil. 162 (1987).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-11-1787 : Office of the Court Administrator v. Marianito C. Santos, Presiding Judge, MeTC, Branch 57, San Juan City

  • A.C. No. 6733 : Herminia P. Voluntad-Ramirez v. Atty. Rosario B. Bautista

  • A.M. No. P-06-2196 : Marites Flores-Tumbaga v. Joselito S. Tumbaga, Sheriff IV, OCC-RTC, La Trinidad, Benguet

  • A.M. No. RTJ-11-2289 : Re: Anonymous letter dated August 12, 2010 complaining against Judge Ofelia T. Pinto, RTC, Branch 60, Angeles City, Pampanga

  • A.M. No. RTJ-12-2316 : Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Liberty O. Castaneda, et al

  • A.M. No. RTJ-12-2321 : Sps. Jesus G. Crisologo and Nannette B. Crisologo v. Judge George E. Omelio, Regional Trial Court, Br. 14, Davao City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-12-2333 : Prosecutors Hydierabad A. Casar, Jonal E. Hernandez, Dante P. Sindac and Atty. Jobert D. Reyes v. Corazon D. Soluren, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 96, Baler, Aurora

  • G.R. Nos. 130714 & 139634 : People of the Philippines v. Val de los Reyes and Donel Go/People of the Philippines v. Val de los Reyes

  • G.R. No. 153478 : Mr Holdings, Ltd. v. Citadel Holdings, Incorporated, Vercingetorix Corp., Manila Golf and Country Clug, Inc. and Marcopper Mining Corp.

  • G.R. No. 153852 : Spouses Humberto Delos Santos and Carmencita Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company

  • G.R. No. 159370 : Palm Tree Estates, Inc., et al. v. Philippine National Bank

  • G.R. Nos. 159561-62 : R.V. Santos Company, Inc. v. Belle Corporation

  • G.R. No. 160260 : Westmont Bank, formerly Associates Bank now United Overseas Bank Philippines v. Myrna Dela Rosa-Ramos, Domingo Tan and William Co

  • G.R. No. 163182 : Tom Tan, Annie U. Tan and Nathaniel Tan v. Heirs of Antonio F. Yamson

  • G.R. No. 164051 : Philippine National Bank v. Lilian S. Soriano

  • G.R. No. 166462 : P.L. Uy Realty Corporation v. ALS Management and Development Corporation and Antonio K. Litonjua

  • G.R. No. 166803 : Crewlink, Inc. and/or Gulf Marine Services v. Editha Teringtering, for her behalf and in behalf of minor Eimareach Rose De Garcia Teringtering

  • G.R. No. 168331 : United International Pictures, AB v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 168987 : Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Francisco Lao Lim, The Heirs of Henry Go, Manuel Limtiong and Rainbow Tours and Travel, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 169391 : Sps. Eugene C. Go and Angelita Go, and Minor Emerson Chester Kim B. Go v. Colegio De San Juan De Letran, et al.

  • G.R. No. 170454 : Cecilia T. Manese, Julietes E. Cruz, and Eufemio Peñano II v. Jollibee Foods Corporation, Tony Tan Caktiong, Elizabeth Dela Cruz, Divina Evangelista and Sylvia M. Mariano

  • G.R. No. 170677 : VSD Realty & Development Corporation v. Uniwide Sale, Inc. and Dolores Baello Tejada

  • G.R. No. 170732 : Atlantic Erectors, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and Herbal Cove Realty Corporation

  • G.R. No. 171845 : Sps. Godfrey and Gerardina Serfino v. Far East Bank and Trust Company, Inc., now Bank of the Philipine Islands

  • G.R. No. 171855 : Fe V. Rapsing, Tita C. Villanueva and Annie F. Aparejado, represented by Edgar Aparejado v. Hon. Judge Maximino R. Ables, of RTC-Branch 47, Masbate City; SSGT. Edison Rural, et al.

  • G.R. No. 172825 : Spouses Miniano B. Dela Cruz and Leta L. Dela Cruz v. Ana Marie Concepcion

  • G.R. No. 173211 : Heirs of Dr. Mario S. Intac and Angelina Mendoza-Intac v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Marcelo Roy, Jr. and Josefina Mendoza-Roy, et al.

  • G.R. No. 173610 : Town and Country Enterprises, Inc. v. Hon. Norberto J. Quisumbing, Jr., et al./Town and Country Enterprises

  • G.R. No. 174582 : The Heirs of the Late Spouses Laura Yadno and Pugsong Mat-an, namely, Lauro Mat-an, et al. v. The Heirs of the Late Spouses Mauro and Elisa Achales, namely, Johnny S. Anchales, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174715 : Filinvest Land, Inc., Efren C. Gutierre v. Abdul Backy, Abehera, Baiya, Edris, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175155 : John C. Arroyo, Jasmin Alipato, Primitivo Belanders, et al. v. Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 175177 : Republic of the Philippines v. Gloria Jaralve (deceased), substituted by Alan Jess Jaralve-Document, Jr., et al.

  • G.R. No. 175990 : Heirs of Albina G. Ampil, namely Precious A. Zavalla, Eduardo Ampil, et al. v. Teresa Manahan and Mario Manahan

  • G.R. No. 176162 : Civil service Commission v. Court of Appeals, et al./Atty. Honesto L. Cueva v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 177140 : People of the Philippines v. Alejandro Violeja y Asartin

  • G.R. No. 177232 : RCJ bus Lines, Incorporated v. Master Tours and Travel Corporation

  • G.R. No. 177357 : People of the Philippines v. Val Delos Reyes

  • G.R. No. 178584 : Associated Marine Office and Seamen's Union of the Philippines PTGWO-ITW v. Noriel Decena

  • G.R. No. 178909 : Superior Packaging corporation v. Arnel Balagsay, et al.

  • G.R. No. 181089 : Merlinda Cipriano Montañez v. Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano

  • G.R. No. 176579 : Heirs of Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Margarito B. Teves, et al.

  • G.R. No. 182018 : Norkis Trading Corporation v. Joaquin Buenavista, et al.

  • G.R. No. 182209 : Land Bank of the Philippines v. Emiliano R. Santiago, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 183053 : Emilio A.M. Suntay III v. Isabel Cojuangco Suntay

  • G.R. No. 184903 : Digital Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. Digitel Employees Union (DEU), et al.

  • G.R. No. 184950 : NGEI Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. and Hernancito Ronquillo v. Filipinas Palmoil Plantation Inc. and Dennis Villareal

  • G.R. No. 185368 : Arthur F. Mechavez v. Marlyn M, Bermudez

  • G.R. No. 186592 : Governor Enrique T. Garcia, Jr., Aurelio C. Angeles, Jr., Emerlinda S. Talento and Rodolfo H. De Mesa v. Leo Ruben C. Manrique

  • G.R. No. 188571 : People of the Philippines v. Maricar Brainer y Mangulabnan

  • G.R. No. 189754 : Lito Bautista and Jimmy Alcantara v. Sharon G. Cuneta-Pangilinan

  • G.R. No. 189817 : People of the Philippines v. Reyna Bataluna Llanita and Sotero Banguis Buar

  • G.R. No. 189820 : People of the Philippines v. Jovel S. Apole, et al.

  • G.R. No. 192650 : Felix Martos, Jimmy Eclana, Rodel Pilones, et al. v. New San Jose Builders, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 192088 : Initiative for Dialoque and Emprovement through Alternative Legal Services, Inc., et al. v. Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corpotation etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 192799 : Rolex Rodriquez y Olayres v. People of the Philippines and Allied Domecq Spirits and Wines, represented by Allied Domecq Phils., Inc.

  • G.R. No. 194122 : Hector Hernandez v. Susan San Pedro Agoncillo

  • G.R. No. 193237 : Dominador G. Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, et al./Agapito J. Cardino v. Dominador G. Jalosjos, Jr., et al.

  • G.R. No. 194366 : Napoleon D. Neri, et al. v. Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy and Julpha Ibrahim Uy

  • G.R. No. 194758 : Rubenj D. Andrada v. Agemar Manning Agency, Inc. and/or Sonnet Shipping Ltd./Malta

  • G.R. No. 196383 : Robert Pascua, doing business under the name and style Tri-Web Construction v. G & G Realty Corporation

  • G.R. No. 195229 : Efren Racel Aratea v. Commission on Elections and Estela D. Antipolo

  • G.R. No. 196434 : People of the Philippines v. Chito Nazareno

  • G.R. No. 196539 : Marietta N. Portillo v. Rudolf Lietz, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 197151 : SM Land, Inc. (Formerly Shoemart, Inc.) and Watsons Personal Care Store, Phils., Inc. v. City of Manila, Liberty Toledo, in her official capacity as the City Treasurer of Manila, et al.

  • G.R. No. 197309 : Ace Navigation, Co., Inc., et al. v. Teodorico Fernandez assisted by Glenita Fernandez

  • G.R. No. 196804 : Mayor Barbara Ruby C. Talaga v. Commission on Elections and Roderick A. Alcala/Philip M. castillo v. Commission on Elections, Barbara Ruby Talaga and Roderick A. Alcala

  • G.R. No. 197315 : Republic of the Philippines v. Angel T. Domingo and Benjamin T. Domingo

  • G.R. No. 198423 : Leo A. Gonzales v. Solid Cement Corporation and Allen Querubin

  • G.R. No. 198733 : Johansen World Group Corporation and Anna Liza F. Hernandez v. Rene Manuel Gonzales III

  • G.R. No. 199264 : People of the Philippines v. Noel T. Laurino

  • G.R. No. 199735 : People of the Philippines v. Asia Musa y Pinasilo, Ara Monongan y Papao, Faisah Abas y Mama, and Mike Solalo y Mlok

  • G.R. No. 201112 : Archbishop Fernando R. Capalla, et al. v. The Hon. Commission on Elections/Solidarity for Sovereignty (S4S) etc., et al. v. Commission on Electons etc./Teofisto T. Guingona, et al. v. Commission on Elections, et al./Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem), Inc., et al. v. Commission on Elections