Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > September 2012 Decisions > G.R. No. 174376 : Zosima Incorporated v. Lilia Salimbagat and all persons claiming rights under her:




G.R. No. 174376 : Zosima Incorporated v. Lilia Salimbagat and all persons claiming rights under her

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 174376 : September 12, 2012

ZOSIMA IN CORPORA TED, Petitioner, v. LILIA SALIMBAGAT and all persons claiming rights under her, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

Before us is the petition for review on certiorari,1ςrνll filed by Zosima Incorporated (Zosima) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision2ςrνll dated June 26, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 92475. The CA reversed and set aside the decision3ςrνll dated October 5, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Manila. The RTC affirmed the decision4ςrνll dated May 4, 2005 of the Metropolitan Trial Court premises and to pay Zosima rental arrearages, attorneys fees and costs of suit.

The Antecedent Facts

Zosima, a domestic corporation, has been the registered owner of an office building situated at 2414 Legarda Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Sometime in April 1993, Zosima entered into a contract with Salimbagat for the lease of the office building. The lease was on a yearly basis with the initial monthly rate of P 8,000.00 that is subject to an annual increase. In 1999, the monthly rental fee reached P 14,621.00. In March 2000, no monthly fee was paid because the contract of lease was allegedly not renewed.

On June 20, 2003, Zosima, through counsel, sent a formal letter of demand to Salimbagat, requiring her to pay her arrears within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the demand letter and to vacate the property. Despite the receipt of the demand letter, Salimbagat refused to vacate the property and to pay her alleged rental obligations.

On November 5, 2003, Zosima filed a case for unlawful detainer against Salimbagat. Zosima alleged that from April 2000 to October 2003, Salimbagat had accumulated arrears in her rental payments amounting to P 628,703.00.

On March 26, 2004, Salimbagat filed her answer alleging that she was not occupying the property of Zosima. Salimbagat alleged that although she was occupying a property using the same address denominated as "2414 Legarda Street, Sampaloc, Manila," it was not the same office building that Zosima owned, but a warehouse on a dried estero located at the back of the office building. Salimbagat argued that the office building which belonged to Zosima was demolished to pave the way for the construction of the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Line II Project. She further alleged that she bought the warehouse for P 300,000.00 as evidenced by a Deed of Conditional Sale, and she had declared the property for taxation purposes.

On July 6, 2004, after the submission of the parties position papers, the MeTC set the case for clarificatory hearing. It sought to resolve the following factual issues:

1. Whether the office building subject of the expired contract of lease is still existing vis-vis Salimbagats claim that it had already been demolished;

2. Presuming it still exists, whether Salimbagat is presently occupying the office building; and,

3. Whether the warehouse/factory erected on a dried estero that Salimbagat now claims to occupy is part and parcel of the land registered in the name of Zosima under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 262637.

Zosima filed a motion to reset the clarificatory hearing, prompting Salimbagats counsel to submit the case for decision solely on the basis of the position papers that the parties had submitted.

On May 4, 2005, the MeTC rendered a decision whose dispositive portion reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant Lilia Salimbagat and all other persons claiming rights under her:

1) To vacate the office building subject of the expired Contract of Lease located at No. 2414 Legarda Street, Sampaloc, Manila covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 262637 and peacefully surrender possession thereof to the plaintiff;

2) To pay plaintiff rental arrearages in the amount of P 14,621.00 per month counted from April 2000 until the time the office building was fully vacated by said defendant;

3) To pay attorneys fees fixed in the reasonable amount of P 7,000.00; and

4) To pay the costs of suit.5ςrνll

Salimbagat appealed the MeTC decision to the RTC. In its decision dated October 5, 2005, the RTC fully affirmed the MeTC decision. Salimbagat elevated the case to the CA which reversed the RTCs decision on June 26, 2006, and dismissed the case for unlawful detainer.

The CA did not dispute the findings of both lower courts on the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties, nor that the lease had been annually renewed from April 1993 to March 1997. The CA also agreed that upon the termination of the lease contract in March 1997, an implied new lease or tacita reconduccion was created by operation of law between the parties,6ςrνll and that from March 1997 to March 2000, Salimbagat continued to pay Zosima the monthly rentals. Notwithstanding this finding, the CA was not convinced that Salimbagat had unlawfully possessed the property from April 2000 to June 2003. According to the CA, the records do not support this conclusion and Zosima failed to introduce any evidence to prove its allegations.7ςrνll

Zosima moved for reconsideration of the CA decision but the CA denied the motion in a resolution8ςrνll dated August 25, 2006.

The Petition

Zosima now questions the CAs ruling before us. Zosima posits that the CA erred in ruling on factual matters that were not part of the proceedings in the lower courts. Zosima also insists that the subject matter of the unlawful detainer complaint is the office building owned by Zosima, not the warehouse on the dried estero.

For her part, Salimbagat argues that the appellate court may review factual matters on appeal, to determine whether these factual findings are just and equitable in accordance with the aim of justice. Salimbagat further argues that Zosima has no cause of action to file the complaint for unlawful detainer, since the office building she had lease had already been demolished and she presently occupies a warehouse that does not belong to Zosima.

The Courts Ruling

We deny the petition for lack of merit.

The complaint for unlawful detainer

The present petition is an action for unlawful detainer governed by Section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.9ςrνll As the principal issue in an unlawful detainer case is the right to possess a real property, the subject matter must refer to a particular property. In an unlawful detainer, the defendants possession of the plaintiffs property is based on the plaintiffs permission expressed through an express or implied contract between them. The defendants possession becomes illegal only when the plaintiff demands the return of the property, either because of the expiration of the right to possess it or the termination of their contract, and the defendant refuses to heed the demand.10ςrνll

Zosimas complaint for unlawful detainer referred to the office building located at "2414 Legarda Street, Sampaloc, Manila;" hence, we confine our ruling to the question of whether Salimbagat should be held liable for unlawfully occupying the office building that was the subject of their lease agreement.

It is not disputed that Salimbagat had been in possession of the leased property from April 1993 to March 1997 and had been diligently paying the monthly rentals. There is also no issue that at the time the lease contract expired in March 1997, no new contract of lease was executed between the parties for the period of March 1997 to March 2000. Salimbagat, however, continued to pay Zosima the monthly rentals during that period. Beginning April 2000, Salimbagat stopped the payment of monthly rentals, alleging that she was no longer in possession of the property. Despite this claim, Salimbagat still used the address of the property, alleging this time that she was occupying not the office building itself that she used to lease, but the warehouse on the dried estero behind the office building.

The evidence on record does not contain any information supporting the allegation that Salimbagat has been in actual possession of Zosimas property from April 2000, but neither does it confirm Zosimas allegation that Salimbagat then occupied the office building. This was precisely the reason why the MeTC set the case for a clarificatory hearing. Unfortunately, the hearing was cancelled due to Zosimas failure to appear, and the case was submitted for decision solely on the basis of the parties position papers. The CA decision in fact noted that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

These issues were not at all resolved due to the unavailability of the respondents counsel despite due notice. These matters are essential to establish its case by preponderance of evidence for the burden of proof is on the respondent as plaintiff in the original action for the ejectment case. It leads us to conclude, therefore, that the respondent, as plaintiff in the unlawful detainer case, failed to prove its case by preponderance of evidence since the burden of proof rests on its side.11ςrνll (emphasis and underscoring ours)

In civil cases, the rule is that the party carrying the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence,12ςrνll i.e., by evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition to it.13ςrνll

In the present case, Zosima, as plaintiff, bears the burden of proving that Salimbagat has been in actual possession of the property between April 2000 and June 2003 when a demand to vacate was made. Zosima cannot reason out that Salimbagat was likewise not able to prove that she had not been in possession of the property as the burden of adducing proof arises only after Zosima, as plaintiff, had proven that Salimbagat had been in possession during the relevant time. Additionally, the party carrying the burden of proof must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defendants.14ςrνll For us to justify a judgment in Zosimas favor, it must in the first place establish through preponderance of evidence the case it alleged that Salimbagat possessed its property after Salimbagats right of possession had lapsed or expired.

In this light, Zosimas contention that although the lease contract had already expired, the principle of implied new lease or tacita reconduccion existed by operation of law between the periods of April 2000 and June 2003 is not correct. An implied new lease will set in if it is shown that: (a) the term of the original contract of lease has expired; (b) the lessor has not given the lessee a notice to vacate; and (c) the lessee continued enjoying the thing leased for 15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor. This acquiescence may be inferred from the failure of the lessor to serve notice to vacate upon the lessee.15ςrνll This principle is provided for under Article 1670 of the Civil Code:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Article 1670. If at the end of the contract the lessee should continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously been given, it is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the original contract, but for the time established in Articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of the original contract shall be revived. [emphasis and underscoring ours]

The cited Article 1687, on the other hand, provides:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Article 1687. If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily. However, even though a monthly rent is paid, and no period for the lease has been set, the courts may fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupied the premises for over one year. If the rent is weekly, the courts may likewise determine a longer period after the lessee has been in possession for over six months. In case of daily rent, the courts may also fix a longer period after the lessee has stayed in the place for over one month. [emphasis ours]

Thus, after the expiration of the contract of lease, the implied new lease should have only been in a monthly basis. In this regard, we find it significant that it was only on June 20, 2003, or three (3) years after the last payment of the monthly rentals, that Zosima filed the complaint for unlawful detainer against Salimbagat. It does not help that Zosima failed to adduce any additional evidence to rebut the allegation that by April 2000, no office building stood to be leased because it had been demolished to pave way for the construction of the LRT Line II Project.16ςrνll

We further note that Salimbagat was able to produce tax declarations and a copy of the Deed of Conditional Sale as proof of her right to possess the warehouse located on a dried estero and adjoining the demolished building she used to lease.17ςrνll While tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible proof of ownership, they constitute, at least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property.18ςrνll In practical terms under the circumstances of this case, we see it absurd for Salimbagat to be occupying a property and paying monthly rentals on it when she owns and occupies the property just behind it.

Under the existing evidentiary situation, we see no evidence supporting Zosima's allegations and, thus, cannot rule in its favor.ςηαοblενιrυαllαωlιbrαr

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92475.ςrαlαωlιbrαr

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:


1ςrνll Rollo, pp. 10-24.

2ςrνll Penned by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of this Court) and Enrico A. Lanzanas; id. at 25-35.

3ςrνll Penned by Judge Marivic Balisi-Umali; id. at 38-43.

4ςrνll Penned by Judge Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta; id. at 44-49.

5ςrνll Id. at 28.

6ςrνll Id. at 30.

7ςrνll Id. at 33.

8ςrνll Id. at 36-37.

9ςrνll Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.

10ςrνll Sarmiento v. CA, 320 Phil. 146, 153 (1995); and Espiritu v. Court of Appeals, 368 Phil. 669, 674-675 (1999).

11ςrνll Rollo, p. 32.

12ςrνll RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Section 1.

13ςrνll The New Testament Church of God v. CA, 316 Phil. 330, 333 (1995); and Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84966, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 160, 168.

14ςrνll Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. v. Ope, 513 Phil. 160, 179 (2005), citing Jison v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124853, February 24, 1998, 286 SCRA 495.

15ςrνll Arevalo Gomez Corporation v. Lao Hian Liong, 232 Phil. 343, 348 (1987).

16ςrνll Rollo, p. 102.

17ςrνll Id. at 57.

18ςrνll Republic of the Phils. v. Alconaba, 471 Phil. 607, 621 (2004).




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






September-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 6753 - Mila Virtusio v. Atty. Grenalyn V. Virtusio

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2182 Formerly A.M. No. 08-3007-RTJ - Government Service Insurance System by Atty. Lucio L. Yu, Jr. v. Executive Judge Maria Cancino-Erum, Regional Trial Court, Br. 210, Mandaluyong City and Presiding Judge Carlos A. Valenzuela, Regional Trial court, Branch 213, Mandaluyong City

  • G.R. No. 148607, G.R. NO. 167202, G.R. NO. 167223 and G.R. NO. 167271 - Elsa B. Reyes v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/Artemio C. Mendoza v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/Elsa B. Reyes v. People of the Philippines/Caridad A. Miranda v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 153799, G.R. NO. 157169, G.R. NO. 157327 and G.R. NO. 157506 - Solidbank Union, et al. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Solidbank Union, et al.; Solidbank Corporation, etc., et al. v. Solidbank Union, et al.; Solidbank Union, et al. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company

  • G.R. No. 171107 - Anita C. Vianzon, Heirs of the late Lucila Candelaria Gonzales v. Minople Macaraeg

  • G.R. No. 173425 - Fort Bonifacio Develoment Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Revenue District Officer, etc.

  • G.R. No. 175170 - Misamis Oriental II Electric Service Cooperative (MORESCO II) v. Virgilio M. Cagalawan

  • G.R. No. 176343 - Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Phil. v. Rosario S. Manalang-Demigillo

  • G.R. No. 184606 - People of the Philippines v. Calexto D. Fundales

  • G.R. No. 188979 - People of the Philippines v. Christopher Pareja y Velasco

  • G.R. No. 189486 and G.R. NO. 189699 - Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G. Yao and the Heirs of the late Grace G. Cheu v. Gilbert Guy/Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G. Yao and the heirs of the late Grace G. Cheu v. The Hon. Ofelia C. Calo, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC-Mandaluyong City-Branch 211 and Gilbert Guy

  • G.R. No. 191062 - People of the Philippine v. Mohamad Angkob y Milang

  • G.R. No. 191753 - People of the Philippines v. Ronald De Jesus y Apacible and Amelito Dela Cruz y Pua

  • G.R. No. 191837 - Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual v. Spouses Marilyn Lim and George Lim and The Registry of Deeds of Valenzuela City

  • G.R. No. 192117 and G.R. NO. 192118 - Association of Southern Tagalog Electric Cooperatives, Inc., et al. v. Energy Regulatory Commission/Central Luzon Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc., et al. v. Energy Regulatory Commission

  • G.R. No. 192945 - City of Iriga v. Camarines Sur III Electric Cooperative Inc.

  • G.R. No. 194014 - Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Alejandro and Myrna Reblando

  • G.R. No. 195592 - Magdiwang Realty Corporation, Renato P. Dragon and Esperanza Tolentino v. The Manila Banking Corporation, substituted by First Sovereign Asset Management [SPV-AMC], Inc.

  • G.R. No. 195619 - Planters Development Bank v. Julie Chandumal

  • G.R. No. 196355 - Bienvenido William D. Lloren v. The Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 196231 and G.R. NO. 196232 - Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President of the Philippines, acting through and represented by Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al./Wendell Barreras-Sulit v. Atty. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Office of the President, Atty. Dennis F. Ortiz, et al.

  • G.R. No. 197528 - Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. v. Amando A. Vinuya, et al.

  • G.R. No. 198662 - Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. and Eric S. Canoy v. Domingo Z. Ybarola, et al.

  • G.R. No. 199084 - Antonia P. Ceron v. Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 200951 - People of the Philippines v. Jose Almodiel alias "Dodong Astrobal"

  • A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1606-MTJ : Atty. Arturo Juanito T. Maturan v. Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 60, Mandaluyong City

  • A.C. No. 6753 - Mila Virtusio v. Atty. Grenalyn V. Virtusio

  • A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666 : Gerlie M. Uy and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug v. Judge Erwin B. Javellana, Municipal Trial Court, La Castellana, Negros Occidental

  • A.M. No. P-06-2161 : Atty. Dennis A. Velasco v. Myra L. Baterbonia/In Re: Report on the financial audit conducted in the RTC, Branch 38, Alabel etc.

  • A.M. No. P-11-2920 : Lucia Nazar Vda. De Feliciano v. Romeo L. Rivera, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Valenzuela City

  • A.M. No. P-12-3086 : Office of the Court Administrator v. Susana R. Fontanilla, Clerk of Court, MCTC, San Narciso-Buenavista, San Narciso, Quezon

  • A.M. No. P-12-3087 : Dionisio P. Pilot v. Renato B. Baron, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Br. 264, Pasig City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2182 Formerly A.M. No. 08-3007-RTJ - Government Service Insurance System by Atty. Lucio L. Yu, Jr. v. Executive Judge Maria Cancino-Erum, Regional Trial Court, Br. 210, Mandaluyong City and Presiding Judge Carlos A. Valenzuela, Regional Trial court, Branch 213, Mandaluyong City

  • A.M. No. RTJ-11-2271 : Lucio O. Magtibay v. Judge Cader P. Indar, Al Haj., RTC, Branch 14 Cotabato City

  • G.R. No. 148607, G.R. NO. 167202, G.R. NO. 167223 and G.R. NO. 167271 - Elsa B. Reyes v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/Artemio C. Mendoza v. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines/Elsa B. Reyes v. People of the Philippines/Caridad A. Miranda v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 148843 : Antioquia Development Corporation, et al. v. Benjamin P. Rabacal, et al.

  • G.R. No. 153799, G.R. NO. 157169, G.R. NO. 157327 and G.R. NO. 157506 - Solidbank Union, et al. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company; Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Solidbank Union, et al.; Solidbank Corporation, etc., et al. v. Solidbank Union, et al.; Solidbank Union, et al. v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company

  • G.R. Nos. 154470-71 : Bank of Commerce v. Planters Development Bank, et al./Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Planters Develoment Bank

  • G.R. No. 161122 : Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Spouses Felix and Nenita Ng, Spouses Martin and Azucena Ng and Agripina R. Goc-ong, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162372 : Government Service Insurane System (GSIS), et al. v. Commission on Audit (COA), et al.

  • G.R. No. 162809 : Pacific Ocean Manning Inc., et al. v. Benjamin D. Penales

  • G.R. No. 165355 : Tomas T. Teodoro, et al. v. Continental Cement Corporation

  • G.R. No. 166467 : Danilo R. Querijero, Johnny P. Lilang and Ivene D. Reyes v. Lina Palmes-Limitar, Isagani G. Palmes and the Court of Appeals

  • G.R. No. 167366 : Dr. Pedro Dennis Cereno and Dr. Santos Zafe v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 170787 : Crispino Pangilinan v. Jocelyn N. Balatbat substituted by her heirs, namely, Vicente Balatbat, Ana Lucia N. Balatbat, et al.

  • G.R. No. 171107 - Anita C. Vianzon, Heirs of the late Lucila Candelaria Gonzales v. Minople Macaraeg

  • G.R. No. 171118 : Park Hotel, J's Playhouse Burgos Corp., Inc., and/or Gregg Harbutt, General Manager, Atty. Roberto Enriquez, President, and Bill Percy v. Manolo Soriano, Lester Gonzales, and Yolanda Badilla

  • G.R. No. 171219 : Atty. Fe Q. Palmiano-Salvador v. Constantino Angeles substituted by Luz G. Angeles

  • G.R. No. 173036 : Agoo Rice Mill corporation, etc. v. Land Bank of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 173425 - Fort Bonifacio Develoment Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Revenue District Officer, etc.

  • G.R. No. 174376 : Zosima Incorporated v. Lilia Salimbagat and all persons claiming rights under her

  • G.R. No. 174669 : Belle Corporation v. Erlinda De Leon-Banks, Rhodora De Leon Tiatco, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174982 : Jose Vicente Atilano II, Heirs of Carlos V. Tan, represented by Conrad K. Tan, Carlos K. Tan, Camilo Karl Tan, Carisa Rosenda T. Go, Nelida F. Atilano and Isidra K. Tan v. Hon. Judge Tibing A. Asaali, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City and Atlantic Merchandising, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 175170 - Misamis Oriental II Electric Service Cooperative (MORESCO II) v. Virgilio M. Cagalawan

  • G.R. No. 175284 : BP Philippines, Inc. (formerly Burmah Castrol Philippines, Inc.) v. Clark Trading Corporation

  • G.R. No. 176343 - Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Phil. v. Rosario S. Manalang-Demigillo

  • G.R. No. 177438 : Amada Resterio v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 177711 : Suico Industrial Corporation and Spouses Esmeraldo and Elizabeth Suico v. Hon. Marilyn Lagura-Yap, Presiding Judge Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 28, Private Development Corporation of the Philippines (PDCP), Now First E-Bank, and Antonio Agro Development Corporation

  • G.R. Nos. 177857-58 : Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED), et al. v. Republic of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 179115 : Asia International Auctioneers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 182045 : Gulf Air Company, Philippines Branch v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 182230 : People of the Philippines v. Edgardo Lupac y Flores

  • G.R. No. 183097 : People of the Philippines v. Antonio Venturina

  • G.R. No. 183533 : In the Matter of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and the Writ of Habeas Data in favor of Francis Saez, Francis Saez, petitioner versus Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al., respondents

  • G.R. No. 184500 : People of the Philippines v. Wenceslao Nelmida, et al.

  • G.R. No. 184606 - People of the Philippines v. Calexto D. Fundales

  • G.R. No. 185282 : People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Bravo y Estabillo

  • G.R. No. 186002 : Apo Chemical Manufacturing and Michael Cheng v. Ronaldo A. Bides

  • Gr_187052_2012

  • G.R. No. 187801 : Heirs of Leonardo Banaag, namely: Marta R. Banaag, et al. v. AMS Farming Corporation and Land Bank of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 188417 : Milagros De Belen Vda. De Cabalu, Meliton Cabali, Sps. Angela Cabalu and Rodolfo Talavera and Patricio Abus v. Sps. Renato Tabu and dolores Laxamana, MTCC, Tarlac city, Branch II

  • G.R. No. 188979 - People of the Philippines v. Christopher Pareja y Velasco

  • G.R. No. 189486 and G.R. NO. 189699 - Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G. Yao and the Heirs of the late Grace G. Cheu v. Gilbert Guy/Simny G. Guy, Geraldine G. Guy, Gladys G. Yao and the heirs of the late Grace G. Cheu v. The Hon. Ofelia C. Calo, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC-Mandaluyong City-Branch 211 and Gilbert Guy

  • G.R. No. 190680 : Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Tax Appeals and Ayala Land, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 191062 - People of the Philippine v. Mohamad Angkob y Milang

  • G.R. No. 191128 : Carmencita Guizano, substituted by her heirs namely, Eugenio M. Guizano, Jr., Emmanuel M. Guizano, et al. v. Reynaldo S. Veneracion

  • G.R. No. 191753 - People of the Philippines v. Ronald De Jesus y Apacible and Amelito Dela Cruz y Pua

  • G.R. No. 191837 - Maria Consolacion Rivera-Pascual v. Spouses Marilyn Lim and George Lim and The Registry of Deeds of Valenzuela City

  • G.R. No. 192117 and G.R. NO. 192118 - Association of Southern Tagalog Electric Cooperatives, Inc., et al. v. Energy Regulatory Commission/Central Luzon Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc., et al. v. Energy Regulatory Commission

  • G.R. No. 192945 - City of Iriga v. Camarines Sur III Electric Cooperative Inc.

  • G.R. No. 193753 : Living @ Sense, Inc. v. Malayan Insurance Company, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 193789 : Alex Q. Naranjo. Donnalyn De Guzman, Ronald V. Cruz, Rosemarie P. Pimentel and Rowena B. Bardaje v. Biomedica Health Care, Inc. and Carina "Karen" J. Motol

  • G.R. No. 193854 : People of the Philippines v. Dina Dulay y Pascual

  • G.R. No. 194014 - Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Alejandro and Myrna Reblando

  • G.R. No. 195592 - Magdiwang Realty Corporation, Renato P. Dragon and Esperanza Tolentino v. The Manila Banking Corporation, substituted by First Sovereign Asset Management [SPV-AMC], Inc.

  • G.R. No. 195619 - Planters Development Bank v. Julie Chandumal

  • G.R. No. 195909 : Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. St. Luke'sj Medical Center, Inc./St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 196161 : Cyril Calpito Qui v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 196355 - Bienvenido William D. Lloren v. The Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 196231 and G.R. NO. 196232 - Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President of the Philippines, acting through and represented by Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al./Wendell Barreras-Sulit v. Atty. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Office of the President, Atty. Dennis F. Ortiz, et al.

  • G.R. No. 197205 : Jessie V. David, represented by his wife, Ma. Theresa S. David, and chinldren, Katherine and Kristina David v. OSG Shipmanagement Manila, Inc. and/or Michaelmar Shipping Services

  • G.R. No. 197528 - Pert/CPM Manpower Exponent Co., Inc. v. Amando A. Vinuya, et al.

  • G.R. No. 198662 - Radio Mindanao Network, Inc. and Eric S. Canoy v. Domingo Z. Ybarola, et al.

  • G.R. No. 199084 - Antonia P. Ceron v. Commission on Elections, et al.

  • G.R. No. 199082 : Jose Miguel T. Arroyo v. Department of Justice, et al./Benjamin S. Abalos, Sr. v. Hon. Leila de Lima, in her capacity as Secretary of Justice, et al./Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. Commission on Elections, etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 199547 : The New Philippine Skylanders, Inc. and/or Jennifer M. Eñano-Bote v. Francisco N. Dakila

  • G.R. No. 200529 : People of the Philippines v. Juanito Garcia y Gumay @ Wapog

  • G.R. No. 200951 - People of the Philippines v. Jose Almodiel alias "Dodong Astrobal"

  • G.R. No. 202914 : Government Service Insurance System, etc. v. Heidi B. Chua