Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > October 2012 Decisions > G.R. No. 174715 : Filinvest Land, Inc., Efren C. Gutierre v. Abdul Backy, Abehera, Baiya, Edris, et al.:




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

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 174715 : October 11, 2012

FILINVEST LAND, INC., EFREN C. GUTIERRE and LINA DE GUZMAN-FERRER, Petitioners, v. ABDUL BACKY, ABEHERA, BAIYA, EDRIS, HADJI GULAM, JAMELLA, KIRAM, LUCAYA, MONER, OMAR, RAMIR, ROBAYCA, SATAR, TAYBA ALL SURNAMED NGILAY, EDMER ANDONG, UNOS BANTANGAN and NADJER ESQUIVEL, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.:

For this Court's consideration is the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, dated November 9, 2006, of petitioner Filinvest Land, Inc., which seeks to set aside the Decision1ςrνll dated March 30, 2006 and Resolution2ςrνll dated September 18, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) partially reversing the Decision3ςrνll dated October 1, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court, Las Pis, Branch 253 (RTC).

The factual antecedents, as found in the records follow.

Respondents were grantees of agricultural public lands located in Tambler, General Santos City through Homestead and Fee patents sometime in 1986 and 1991 which are covered by and specifically described in the following Original Certificates of Title issued by the Register of Deeds of General Santos City:

OCT No. Area (sq. m.) Grantee Date Granted
P-5204 38,328 Abdul Backy Ngilay November 11, 1986
P-5205 49,996 Hadji Gulam Ngilay November 11, 1986
P-5206 49,875 Edris A. Ngilay November 11, 1986
P-5207 44,797 Robayca A. Ngilay November 11, 1986
P-5209 20,000 Omar Ngilay November 11, 1986
P-5211 29,990 Tayba Ngilay November 11, 1986
P-5212 48,055 Kiram Ngilay November 11, 1986
P-5578 20,408 Nadjer Esquevel November 24, 1991
P-5579 35,093 Unos Bantangan November 24, 1991
P-5580 39,507 Moner Ngilay November 24, 1991
P-5582 44,809 Baiya Ngilay November 24, 1991
P-5583 10,050 Jamela Ngilay November 24, 1991
P-5584 49,993 Ramir Ngilay November 24, 1991
P-5586 40,703 Satar Ngilay November 24, 1991
P-5590 20,000 Abehara Ngilay November 24, 1991
P-5592 41,645 Lucaya Ngilay November 24, 1991
P-5595 13,168 Edmer Andong November 24, 1991

Negotiations were made by petitioner, represented by Lina de Guzman-Ferrer with the patriarch of the Ngilays, Hadji Gulam Ngilay sometime in 1995. Eventually, a Deed of Conditional Sale of the above- enumerated properties in favor of petitioner Filinvest Land, Inc. was executed. Upon its execution, respondents were asked to deliver to petitioner the original owner's duplicate copy of the certificates of title of their respective properties. Respondents received the downpayment for the properties on October 28, 1995.

A few days after the execution of the aforestated deeds and the delivery of the corresponding documents to petitioner, respondents came to know that the sale of their properties was null and void, because it was done within the period that they were not allowed to do so and that the sale did not have the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) prompting them to file a case for the declaration of nullity of the deeds of conditional and absolute sale of the questioned properties and the grant of right of way with the RTC, Las Pis, Branch 253.

On the other hand, petitioner claims that sometime in 1995, the representative of Hadji Ngilay approached petitioner to propose the sale of a portion of his properties. Thereafter, representatives of petitioner flew to General Santos City from Manila to conduct an ocular inspection of the subject properties. Petitioner was willing to purchase the properties but seeing that some of the properties were registered as land grants through homestead patents, representatives of petitioner informed Ngilay that they would return to General Santos City in a few months to finalize the sale as ten (10) certificates of title were issued on November 24, 1991.

According to petitioner, Ngilay and his children prevailed upon the representatives of petitioner to make an advance payment. To accommodate the Ngilays, petitioner acceded to making an advance with the understanding that petitioner could demand anytime the return of the advance payment should Ngilay not be able to comply with the conditions of the sale. The Ngilays likewise undertook to secure the necessary approvals of the DENR before the consummation of the sale.

The RTC ruled in favor of Filinvest Land, Inc. and upheld the sale of all the properties in litigation. It found that the sale of those properties whose original certificates of title were issued by virtue of the 1986 Patents was valid, considering that the prohibitory period ended in 1991, or way before the transaction took place. As to those patents awarded in 1991, the same court opined that since those properties were the subject of a deed of conditional sale, compliance with those conditions is necessary for there to be a perfected contract between the parties. The RTC also upheld the grant of right of way as it adjudged that the right of way agreement showed that the right of way was granted to provide access from the highway to the properties to be purchased. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated October 1, 2003 reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court upholds the sale of all the properties in litigation. It likewise upholds the grant of right of way in favor of the respondent. Consequently, the petition is DISMISSED.

No pronouncement as to damages for failure to prove the same.

Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.4ςrνll

Respondents elevated the case to the CA in which the latter modified the judgment of the RTC. While the CA upheld the validity of the sale of the properties the patents of which were awarded in 1986, including the corresponding grant of right of way for the same lots, it nullified the disposition of those properties granted through patents in 1991 and the right of way on the same properties. As to the "1991 Patents," the CA ruled that the contract of sale between the parties was a perfected contract, hence, the parties entered into a prohibited conveyance of a homestead within the prohibitive period of five years from the issuance of the patent. The CA Decision dated March 30, 2006 disposed the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated October 1, 2003 is MODIFIED:

a) The Deed of Conditional Sale and Deed of Absolute Sale for the properties covered by the "1991 Patents", as well as the Right of Way Agreement thereto, are declared null and void. The Register of Deeds of General Santos City is consequently directed to cancel the certificates of title covered by the "1991 Patents" issued in favor of appellee Filinvest and to issue new titles in favor of herein appellants.

b) The sale of the properties covered by the "1986 Patents", including the corresponding grant of way for said lots, are declared valid.

SO ORDERED.5ςrνll

Petitioners filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, but it was denied by the CA.

Hence, the present petition.

The grounds relied upon are:

1.

A CONDITIONAL SALE INVOLVING THE 1991 PATENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST ALIENATION OF HOMESTEADS UNDER THE PUBLIC LAND ACT SINCE NO ACTUAL TRANSFER OR DISPOSITION WAS PERFECTED UNTIL ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEED ARE FULFILLED.

2.

REGISTRATION IS THE OPERATIVE ACT THAT CONVEYS OR DISPOSES RIGHTS IN REAL PROPERTY. BEING UNREGISTERED, THE DEED OF CONDITIONAL SALE DID NOT CONVEY OR DISPOSE OF THE 1991 HOMESTEADS OR ANY RIGHTS THEREIN IN VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC LAND ACT.

3.

ASSUMING THE NULLITY OF THE SALE OF THE 1991 PATENTS, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS SHOULD HAVE ORDERED RESPONDENTS AS A MATTER OF LAW TO RETURN TO PETITIONERS WHAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED.6ςrνll

In their Comment7ςrνll dated March 5, 2007, respondents stated the following counter-arguments:

(1) The Honorable Court of Appeals did not err in holding that the Deed of Conditional Sale and Deed of Absolute Sale for the properties covered by the 1991 Patents, as well as the Right of Way Agreement thereto is null and void for the simplest reason that the said transactions were volatile of the Public Land Act.

(2) The questions raised by the Petitioner, Filinvest Land Inc. (FLI) are unsubstantial to require consideration.8ςrνll

In its Reply9ςrνll dated July 30, 2007, petitioner insists that the prohibition against alienation and disposition of land covered by Homestead Patents is a prohibition against the actual loss of the homestead within the five-year prohibitory period, not against all contracts including those that do not result in such an actual loss of ownership or possession. It also points out that respondents themselves admit that the transfer certificates of title covering the ten parcels of land are all dated 1998, which confirms its declaration that the lands covered by 1991 Homestead Patents were not conveyed to Filinvest until after the five-year prohibitory period.

The petition is unmeritorious.

The five-year prohibitory period following the issuance of the homestead patent is provided under Section 118 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended by Commonwealth Act No. 456, otherwise known as the Public Land Act.10ςrνll It bears stressing that the law was enacted to give the homesteader or patentee every chance to preserve for himself and his family the land that the State had gratuitously given to him as a reward for his labour in cleaning and cultivating it.11ςrνll Its basic objective, as the Court had occasion to stress, is to promote public policy that is to provide home and decent living for destitute, aimed at providing a class of independent small landholders which is the bulwark of peace and order.12ςrνll Hence, any act which would have the effect of removing the property subject of the patent from the hands of a grantee will be struck down for being violative of the law.13ςrνll

In the present case, the negotiations for the purchase of the properties covered by the patents issued in 1991 were made in 1995 and, eventually, an undated Deed of Conditional Sale was executed. On October 28, 1995, respondents received the downpayment of P14,000.000.00 for the properties covered by the patents issued in 1991. Applying the five-year prohibition, the properties covered by the patent issued on November 24, 1991 could only be alienated after November 24, 1996. Therefore, the sale, having been consummated on October 28, 1995, or within the five-year prohibition, is as ruled by the CA, void.

Petitioner argues that the correct formulation of the issue is not whether there was a perfected contract between the parties during the period of prohibition, but whether by such deed of conditional sale there was "alienation or encumbrance" within the contemplation of the law. This is wrong. The prohibition does not distinguish between consummated and executory sale. The conditional sale entered into by the parties is still a conveyance of the homestead patent. As correctly ruled by the CA, citing Ortega v. Tan:14ςrνll

And, even assuming that the disputed sale was not yet perfected or consummated, still, the transaction cannot be validated. The prohibition of the law on the sale or encumbrance of the homestead within five years after the grant is MANDATORY. The purpose of the law is to promote a definite policy, i.e., "to preserve and keep in the family of the homesteader that portion of the public land which the State has gratuitously given to him." Thus, the law does not distinguish between executory and consummated sales. Where the sale of a homestead was perfected within the prohibitory period of five years, the fact that the formal deed of sale was executed after the expiration of the staid period DID NOT and COULD NOT legalize a contract that was void from its inception. To hold valid such arrangement would be to throw the door open to all possible fraudulent subterfuges and schemes which persons interested in the land given to a homesteader may devise in circumventing and defeating the legal provisions prohibiting their alienation within five years from the issuance of the patent.15ςrνll

To repeat, the conveyance of a homestead before the expiration of the five-year prohibitory period following the issuance of the homestead patent is null and void and cannot be enforced, for it is not within the competence of any citizen to barter away what public policy by law seeks to preserve.16ςrνll

Nevertheless, petitioner does not err in seeking the return of the down payment as a consequence of the sale having been declared void. The rule is settled that the declaration of nullity of a contract which is void ab initio operates to restore things to the state and condition in which they were found before the execution thereof.17ςrνll Petitioner is correct in its argument that allowing respondents to keep the amount received from petitioner is tantamount to judicial acquiescence to unjust enrichment. Unjust enrichment exists "when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience."18ςrνll There is unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.19ςrνll Thus, the sale which created the obligation of petitioner to pay the agreed amount having been declared void, respondents have the duty to return the down payment as they no longer have the right to keep it. The principle of unjust enrichment essentially contemplates payment when there is no duty to pay, and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it.20ςrνll As found by the CA and undisputed by the parties, the amount or the down payment made is P14,000,000.00 which shall also be the amount to be returned by respondents.ςηαοblενιrυαllαωlιbrαr

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari dated November 9, 2006 or petitioner Filinvest Land, Inc. is hereby DENIED. Consequently, the Decision dated March 30, 2006 and Resolution dated September 18, 2006 or the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that respondents return the amount of P14,000,000.00 given by petitioner as down payment for the sale which is ruled to be void ab initio.ςrαlαωlιbrαr

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:


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

1ςrνll Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso, with Associate Justices Portia Ali-Hormachuelos and Amelita G. Tolentino, concurring; rollo. pp. 40-57.

2ςrνll Id. at 60-62.

3ςrνll Penned by Presiding Judge Jose F. Caoibe, Jr., id. at 335-343.

4ςrνll Rollo, pp. 342-343.

5ςrνll Id. at 56-57. (Emphasis supplied)

6ςrνll Id. at 21-22.

7ςrνll Id. at 428-437.

8ςrνll Id. at 428.

9ςrνll Id. at 445-455.

10ςrνll Sec. 118. Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, lands acquired under free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period, but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations.

No alienation, transfer, or conveyance of any homestead after five years and before twenty-five years after issuance of title shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, which approval shall not be denied except on constitutional and legal grounds. (Emphasis supplied)

11ςrνll Flore v. Marciano Bagaoisan, G.R. No. 173365, April 15, 2010, 618 SCRA 323, 330, citing Heirs of Venancio Bajenting v. Baz, G.R. No. 166190, September 20, 2006, 502 SCRA 531, 553.

12ςrνll Id.

13ςrνll Id.

14ςrνll G.R. No. 44617, January 23, 1990, 181 SCRA 350; 260 Phil. 371 (1990).

15ςrνll Rollo, pp. 53-54. (Emphasis supplied)

16ςrνll Saltiga de Romero v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109307, November 25, 1999, 319 SCRA 180, 192; 377 Phil. 189, 201.

17ςrνll Development Bank of the Philippines v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 110053, October 16, 1995, 249 SCRA 331, 337; 319 Phil. 447, 454-455 (1995).

18ςrνll Car Cool Philippines, Inc. v. Ushio Realty and Development Corporation, G.R. No. 138088, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 404, 412; 515 Phil. 376, 384 (2006).

19ςrνll H.L. Carlos Corporation, Inc. v. Marina Properties Corporation, G.R. No. 147614, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 428, 437, citing MC Engineering, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104047, April 3, 2002, 380 SCRA 116, 138; 466 Phil. 182, 197 (2004).

20ςrνll Gil Miguel T. Puyat v. Ron Zabarte, G.R. No. 141536. February 26, 2001, 352 SCRA 738, 750: 405 Phil. 413, 431 (2001).




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