Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > March 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 160669 : March 14, 2012] SPOUSES WILFREDO SANTOS AND LUZVIMINDA SANTOS v. SPOUSES ALFREDO NEPOMUCENO AND ESTER DELA PAZ NEPOMUCENO, AND HON. MAURICIO M. RIVERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RTC JUDGE, 4TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 73, ANTIPOLO CITY. :




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 160669 : March 14, 2012]

SPOUSES WILFREDO SANTOS AND LUZVIMINDA SANTOS v. SPOUSES ALFREDO NEPOMUCENO AND ESTER DELA PAZ NEPOMUCENO, AND HON. MAURICIO M. RIVERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RTC JUDGE, 4TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 73, ANTIPOLO CITY.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 March 2012 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 160669 - SPOUSES WILFREDO SANTOS and LUZVIMINDA SANTOS v. SPOUSES ALFREDO NEPOMUCENO and ESTER DELA PAZ NEPOMUCENO, and HON. MAURICIO M. RIVERA, in his capacity as RTC Judge, 4th Judicial Region, Branch 73, Antipolo City.

This dispute concerns the award of the parcel of land with an area of 109 square meters denominated as Lot 1, Block 16, of the San Isidro Subdivision, Cainta, Rizal. Respondents Alfredo Nepomuceno and Ester dela Paz (Nepomucenos) assert their right in the contested lot as its original awardees based on the List of Lot Awardees as of 1975, the Post Audit/Census conducted on July 7-8 1988, and the Physical Audit Result of Lot Occupants as of February 1988. On the other hand, the petitioners hold a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 589564 covering the contested lot issued in their names by the Registry of Deeds of Rizal.

In December 1988, the petitioners rented from Ester dela Paz (common-law wife of Alfredo Nepomuceno) a house of light materials standing on the contested lot,[1] agreeing to pay rental of P750.00.[2] They stopped paying in 1991, causing the Nepomucenos to complain in the barangay. No concrete solution of the matter resulted.[3] On June 26, 1991, the petitioners' lawyer sent a letter to the Nepomucenos,[4]  informing the latter that the Provincial Government of Rizal had already awarded the contested lot to the petitioners on September 29, 1989.[5] Thereafter, the petitioners sued the Nepomucenos for ejectment in the Municipal Trial Court, in Cainta, Rizal, docketed as Civil Case No. MTC 347-91.[6]

On their part, the Nepomucenos commenced on November 25, 1991 their own action against the petitioners in the Regional Trial Court in Antipolo (RTC), seeking the annulment of the award of the contested lot to the petitioners, the corresponding deed of absolute sale, and TCT No. 589564,[7] alleging that the petitioners had surreptitiously and in evident bad faith applied for the award of the contested lot to them despite their being mere lessees in the contested lot, and had succeeded in having the lot awarded to them. The action was assigned to Branch 73 of the RTC.

In their answer in the RTC, the petitioners denied acting in bad faith, and averred that despite having leased the property from the Nepomucenos, they had validly filed their application with the Housing and Resettlement Division of the Province of Rizal in the latter part of 1988, and had been awarded the lot in due course; and that they had based their application on Ordinance No. 50 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan ng Rizal that empowered the Provincial Governor to enter into deeds of absolute sale involving lots of the San Isidro Subdivision under the following criteria, viz

1. First priority�The original awardees/relocates who have occupied their respective lots since 1968 to 1970 and who are occupying the lots up to present including their heirs; 

2. Second priority�Those transferees who have acquired their lots from original relocatees/awardees and/or transferees out of monetary consideration, and who have continuously lived in the place for at least fifteen (15) years up to present; 

3. Third priority�Those transferees who have acquired the lots from original refocatees/awardees out of any consideration and have been living in the place up to the present; 

4. Fourth priority�Those transferees who have acquired their lots from original awardees/relocatees/transferees out of monetary and other considerations and have resided in the place for at least five (5) years up to the present; and 

5. Fifth priority�Those lot applicants/occupants whose lots are under question by other interested parties and/or non-conforming users and the likes.[8]

The petitioners alleged that the Provincial Government of Rizal had sold the lot to them through a Deed of Absolute Sale upon their paying P16,895.00 as consideration,[9]  resulting in the issuance of their TCT No. 589564 on May 15, 1991.[10]

Ruling of the RTC 

On April 23, 1998, the RTC, noting that the name of Wilfredo Nepomuceno had appeared in the records of the Provincial Government of Rizal as the awardee of Lot 1, Block 16 in San Isidro Subdivision; and that the petitioners had admitted their being the Nepomucenos' lessees, thereby proving that they were not entitled to the property, ruled in favor of the Nepomucenos, viz:[11]  

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Certificate of Award in the name of Wilfredo P. Santos, the Deed of Absolute Sale and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 589564 are hereby declared null and void. 

Defendants are hereby further ordered, to wit: 

1. Ordering the Provincial Government of Rizal and the present Chief of the Housing and Resettlement Division, to make the necessary award to plaintiffs, notifying and accept their payments, execute the corresponding Deed of Absolute Sale and all documents relative thereto in order that they may secure their rightful Transfer Certificate of Title to said parcel of land; 

2. Ordering the Provincial Government of Rizal and/or Danile [sic] M. Gonzaga in his private capacity and spouses defendants to pay solidarily moral damages to plaintiffs in the amount of One Hundred Thousand (100,000.00) Pesos; 

3. Ordering the Provincial Government of Rizal and/or Daniel M. Gonzaga in his private capacity and spouses defendants to pay solidarily exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos; 

4. Ordering the Provincial Government of Rizal and/or Daniel Gonzaga in his private capacity and spouses defendants to pay solidarily attorney's fees in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos. 

5. Pay the costs of suit. 

The injunction against the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Cainta, Rizal and plaintiffs thereat is hereby made permanent. 

SO ORDERED.[12]

Ruling of the CA

Both the petitioners and the Provincial Government of Rizal appealed. Two issues were submitted for the resolution of the CA, namely: (a) who had the better right to own the property; and (b) whether the award of moral and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees was proper.

The CA found on the first issue that the Nepomucenos had the better right to own the property due to their being its prior occupants;[13] and held on the second issue that the Nepomucenos failed to prove petitioners' bad faith. Thus, the CA affirmed with modification the judgment of the RTC, viz

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that: 

The Certificate of Award in the name of Wilfredo P. Santos, the Deed of Absolute Sale and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 589564 are hereby declared null and void. 

Defendants-appellants are hereby further ordered, to wit: 

  1. Ordering the Provincial Government of Rizal and the present Chief of the Housing and Resettlement Division to make the necessary awards to plaintiffs-appellees, execute a corresponding Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the plaintiffs-appellees and all other documents relative thereto in order that they may secure their rightful Transfer Certificate of Title to said parcel of land;
     
  2. Ordering the plaintiffs-appellants spouses Santos the amount of P16,895.00;
     
  3. Ordering the Provincial Government of Rizal and/or Daniel M. Gonzaga in his private capacity and spouses defendants to pay solidarity to plaintiffs-appellees exemplary damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos;
     
  4. Ordering the Provincial Government of Rizal and/or Daniel M. Gonzaga in his private capacity and spouses defendants to pay solidarily to plaintiffs-appellees attorney's fees in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos.
     
  5. Pay the costs of suit.

The injunction against the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Cainta, Rizal and plaintiffs thereat is hereby made permanent. 

SO ORDERED.[14]

With the CA denying their motion for reconsideration,[15] the petitioners now come to the Court for relief.

Issue 

The petitioners raise the sole issue of: 

WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 73 OF ANTIPOLO, RIZAL COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ANNULLED CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 589564 IN CIVIL CASE NO. 91-2202 FILED BY SPOUSES ALFREDO AND ESTER DELA PAZ NEPOMUCENO.

The petitioners contend that Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) proscribed the proceedings in the RTC as a collateral attack against their title; and insist that the RTC had no jurisdiction to declare their TCT No. 589564 null and void.

On the other hand, the Nepomucenos insist that the petitioners were estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction pursuant to Tijam v. Sibonghanoy,[16] because they had actively participated in the proceedings in the RTC by filing their answer, by seeking affirmative relief thereat, and by constantly attending the scheduled trials; that the petitioners did not assail the jurisdiction of the RTC in the CA; and that, in any event, the allegations of the complaint had actually sought the annulment of the petitioners' title, indicating that the issue of ownership was within the RTC's jurisdiction to decide.

Ruling 

We deny the petition for review on certiorari for lack of merit.

As a rule, a Torrens title is conclusive and indefeasible pursuant to Section 48 of P.D. No. 1529 (which provides that a certificate of title shall not be subject to a collateral attack);[17] and, consequently, cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except by a direct proceeding for that purpose.[18]

Yet, given the pertinent allegation and prayer of the complaint, which are quoted hereunder, to wit:

xxx 

14. That on account of a baseless or misrepresented basis, a faulty award was given by the Provincial Government of Rizal, through the manipulations of Daniel M. Gonzaga, the Chief of the Housing and Resettlement Division, in connivance with the defendants the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title culminating in the issuance in favor of spouses defendants and by virtue of which, they had filed a case for ejectment against plaintiffs before the Municipal Trial Court of Cainta, Rizal, the same as docketed as Civil Case No. 347-(91);

xxx 

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that pending the hearing of the case on the merits � 

A. That the Hon. Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Cainta, Rizal and the defendants, spouses Wilfredo and Luzviminda Santos, be restrained from proceeding any further in the ejectment suit and defendant spouses from taking any further action or actions aimed at and/or tending to eject plaintiffs in the premises in question; and 

After hearing, judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants as follows, to wit: 

xxx 

2. Declaring the Provincial Government of Rizal's award of that parcel of land designated as Lot 1 Block 16 San Isidro Subdivision, Cainta, Rizal to defendants be declared null and void or annulled and necessarily likewise the Deed of Sale and the consequential Transfer Certificate of Title; xxx. (Emphasis supplied)[19]

it is not difficult to see that the action of the Nepomucenos against the petitioners was a direct attack precisely brought to annul the title of the petitioners, not a merely collateral attack. Thus, the CA did not commit any reversible error in adjudicating who between the Nepomucenos and the petitioners were entitled to the contested lot; and in nullifying the award of the contested lot, the deed of absolute sale in favor of the petitioners, and the ensuing TCT No. 589564. There is a direct attack when the object of the action or proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus to challenge the judgment pursuant to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the action or proceeding is to annul or to set aside such judgment, or to enjoin its enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is also made as an incident thereof.[20] A collateral attack is any proceeding that is not instituted for the express purpose of annulling, correcting, or modifying title.[21] Hence, an action to attack a certificate of title may be an original action or a counterclaim in which a certificate of title is assailed as void.[22]

ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the May 29, 2003 decision of the Court of Appeals.

The petitioners shall pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED." DEL CASTILLO, J., on leave; PERLAS-BERNABE, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1207 dated 23 February 2012.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Exhibit "G" for plaintiffs, Exhibit Folder, p. 58.

[2] TSN dated April 28, 1993, pp. 5 and 8. 

[3] Exhibit "12" for the defendants, Exhibit Folder, p. 82. 

[4] Exhibit "11" for the defendants, Exhibit Folder, p. 80. 

[5] Exhibit "6" for the defendants, Exhibit Folder, p. 72. 

[6] Records, pp. 17-21. 

[7] Id., 1-8 (The action was docketed as Civil Case No. 91-220 and was entitled Alfredo C. Nepomuceno and Ester Dela Paz. The Provincial Government of Rizal, represented by its Governor, Daniel M. Gonzaga, Chief, Housing and Resettlement Division and in his personal capacity, Spouses Wilfredo and Luzviminda Santos, Hon. Jose R. Natividad, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Cainta, Rizal. 

[8] Exhibit Folder, pp. 100-101. 

[9] Records, p. 74. 

[10] Exhibit Folder, p. 78. 

[11] Rollo, pp. 46-61. 

[12] Id., pp. 60-61. 

[13] Id., p. 30. 

[14] Id., pp. 32-33. 

[15] Id., pp. 35. 

[16] G.R. No. L-21450, April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 29. 

[17] Mallilin, Jr. v. Castillo, G.R. No. 136803, June 16, 2000, 333 SCRA 628, 640. 

[18] Caraan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140752, November 11, 2005, 474 SCRA 543, 549. 

[19] Records, pp. 1-6. 

[20] Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 152627, September 16, 2005, 470 SCRA 99, 107-108. 

[21] Roces v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 167499, September 15, 2005, 469 SCRA 681, 695. 

[22] Leyson v. Bontuyan, G.R. No. 156357, February 18, 2005, 452 SCRA 94, 112.




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






March-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 192822 : January 16, 2012] PEOPLE OE THE PHILIPPINES v. RODOLFO MONTEMAYOR Y TAMAYO

  • [G.R. No. 199796 : March 05, 2012] ROMEO M. SARMIENTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 187571 : March 05, 2012] FILIPINO ACADEMY OF MOVIE ARTS AND SCIENCES, INC., REPRESENTED BY JUMMY A. TIU V. ART M. PADUA, ANGEL CALSO, UP THEATER, REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS MANAGER VONN PERDON GOLFO, AND ABC TV-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ROBERTO BARRIERO AND DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM ACQUISITION VICTORINO VIANZON

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2906 (Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 10-3440-P) : March 05, 2012] LEAVE DIVISION, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. CESAR V. ACANCE, RECORDS OFFICER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, QUEZON CITY

  • [G.R. No. 200210 : March 05, 2012] BENJAMIN DE VILLA Y CANTERO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [A.C. No. 4500 : March 06, 2012] BAN HUA U. FLORES v. ATTY. ENRIQUE S. CHUA

  • [UDK No. 14623 : March 07, 2012] SCAD SERVICES PTE. LTD. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, FORMER 14TH DIVISION, JORGE YANSON, EDDIE GOLDE, EDGAR NOCHE, ET AL.

  • [March 06, 2012] RE: HOLY WEEK RECESS

  • [G.R. No. 177292 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. JESSIE GARBIDA Y FOSTER, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. 12-2-11-MCTC : March 07, 2012] UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION OF TRAVEL ABROAD BY MIGUELITA D. VILLA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), KIBAWE, BUKIDNON

  • [G.R. No. 176126 : March 07, 2012] OSMUND DECANO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 192259 : March 07, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ROSALINDA SUMAYA Y MABALON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187792 : March 07, 2012] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CONRADA AREVALO

  • [G.R.No. 182210 : March 07, 2012] PAZ BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 200227 : March 12, 2012] LORENZO HIDALGO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 200353 : March 12, 2012] SOUTHERN CARRIER CO., INC. v. CARLITO MA�ACAP

  • [G.R. No. 184315 : March 12, 2012] ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO v. THE MANILA CHRONICLE PUBLISHING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-11-2303 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3416-RTJ) : March 12, 2012] MARIO S. ROMERO, COMPLAINANT VS. MANUEL C. LUNA, JR. EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 39, CALAPAN CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO,

  • [A.M. No. 11-1-09-RTC : March 13, 2012] RE: REQUEST FOR THE CREATION OF ADDITIONAL DRUGS COURTS IN THE RTC, DUMAGUETE CITY

  • [G.R. No. 181779 : March 13, 2012] ANDREW L. ONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND TEODORO DELA TORRE VILLAGRACIA, SR.

  • [G.R. No. 192070 : March 13, 2012] EDDIE "AMONG ED" T. PANLILIO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND LILIA G. PINEDA.

  • [G.R. No. 176323 : March 14, 2012] LENY B. DIAZ AND SPOUSES ANTONIO B. ESCALONA AND LEONORA ESCALONA VS. CHERRIE PINEZA AND KOJI HAMAMURA

  • [G.R. No. 189875 : March 14, 2012] NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. TRANS DIGITAL EXCEL, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 199914 : March 14, 2012] MEL MIKE GAMIN Y TARI v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 181957 : March 14, 2012] RENATO P. MENDOZA, NEGOTIATING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF LADY LOU GENERAL MERCHANDISE V. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 198315 : March 19, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RANNIE GULAPA Y ORDINARIO

  • [A.M. No. 14219-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE ULPIANO I. CAMPOS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE CONRADO B. VENUS, RTC, BRANCH 22, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ALBERTO V. BENESA, RTC, BRANCH 58, BUCAY, ABRA; JUDGE NORMELITO J. BALLOCANAG, RTC, BRANCH 41, PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO, JUDGE FILOMENO A. VERGARA, RTC, BRANCH 2, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY; JUDGE EUFEMIO R. JOLINA, MTCC, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION; JUDGE JOSE V. HABALO, MTCC, LUCENA CITY; JUDGE NORBERTO GREGORIO E. TIZON, JR., MTC, SAN ISIDRO, NORTHERN SAMAR; JUDGE GREGORIO S. VIOS, MTC, KAPATAGAN, LANAO DEL NORTE; AND JUDGE PACIANO B. GALLEPOSO, MCTC, SINDANGAN, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

  • [A.M. No. 14218-Ret., March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, RTC, BRANCH 142, MAKATI CITY AND JUDGE ANTONIO C. BAGAG�AN, MTC, GUINOBATAN, ALBAY

  • [G.R. Nos. 153304-05 : March 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [A.M. No. 14210-Ret. : March 13, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS OF MRS. VIRGINIA P. ELBINIAS, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. JESUS M. ELBINIAS, FORMER PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 160669 : March 14, 2012] SPOUSES WILFREDO SANTOS AND LUZVIMINDA SANTOS v. SPOUSES ALFREDO NEPOMUCENO AND ESTER DELA PAZ NEPOMUCENO, AND HON. MAURICIO M. RIVERA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS RTC JUDGE, 4TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 73, ANTIPOLO CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 176063 : March 14, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENATO MIA Y IFSOR

  • [G.R. No. 181969 : March 19, 2012] ROMAGO, INC. v. SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 191684 : March 20, 2012] ANG KAPATIRAN PARTY v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • [G.R. No. 199196 : March 20, 2012] NELLY RAMOS v. ANACLETO BALDO

  • [A.M. No. 14216-Ret. : March 20, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE RENE R. VICTORIANO, RTC, BRANCH 124, CALOOCAN CITY; JUDGE ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN, RTC, BRANCH 12, SANCHEZ MIRA, CAGAYAN; JUDGE IRENEO B. ESCANDOR, RTC, BRANCH 55, IROSIN, SORSOGON; JUDGE CANDIDO C. AGUINALDO, RTC, BRANCH 9, CEBU CITY; JUDGE EPIFANIO C. LLANOS, RTC, BRANCH 26, ARGAO, CEBU; JUDGE HILARIO I. MAPAYO, RTC, BRANCH 19, DIGOS CITY; JUDGE COROCOY D. MOSON, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, COTABATO CITY; JUDGE MARIANO P. FUENTEBELLA, MTCC, IRIGA CITY; JUDGE JAIME F. VILORIA, MCTC, NARVACAN, ILOCOS SUR; JUDGE ELPIDIO N. QUIÑON, MCTC, POTOTAN-MINA, ILOILO; AND JUDGE CIRIACO C. ARIÑO, MCTC, SAN FRANCISCO, AGUSAN DEL SUR

  • [G.R. No. 193387 : March 21, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS FLORO TECZON, NUMERIANO TABUYAN (DECEASED), AND JOSE ENOVESO, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174682 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE v. ELMER A. BUCA AND WILLIAM B. CAINCAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175052 : March 21, 2012] DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM REPRESENTED BY OIC SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN v. MANUEL DEL ROSARIO.

  • [G.R. No. 184649 : March 21, 2012] CESAR P. FIANZA, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 199430 : March 21, 2012] MEINRADO ENRIQUE A. BELLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 186464 : March 21, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PANNER "TOTS" IDAL Y SAMPORNA A.K.A. PANOTOLAN DAUNTE Y SAMPORNA

  • [G.R. No. 171850 : March 21, 2012] EDGARDO BAUTISTA v. ROSITA DEPONIO

  • [G.R. No. 176579 : April 10, 2012] WILSON P. GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.