Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2000 > October 2000 Decisions > G.R. No. 119794 October 3, 2000 - TOMAS SEE TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 119794. October 3, 2000.]

TOMAS SEE TUAZON, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and JOHN SIY LIM, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N


PURISIMA, J.:


This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 40167, which reinstated with modification the Decision dated December 2, 1991 of Branch 131 of the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City in Civil Case No. C-14542, and reversed the Order 2 of the court a quo granting the Motion for Partial Reconsideration.

The antecedent facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On July 15, 1987, spouses Tomas S. Tuazon and Natividad S. Tuazon sold to John Siy Lim (Lim) a 650 square meter conjugal lot covered by Transfer Certificate Title No. 860, 3 along A. del Mundo Street, 7th Avenue, Kaloocan City, with a two-storey building and Apartment Units Nos. 161 and 163 existing thereon.

Atty. Crisostomo, lawyer of the Tuazons, drafted the Absolute Deed of Sale, which was duly registered. By virtue of the said deed, TCT No. 860 in the name of the Tuazons was cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. 152621 was issued in the name of John Siy F. Lim.

On October 1, 1990, the Tuazons brought a Complaint for Reformation of Contract, Quieting of Title with Damages against John Siy F. Lim, docketed as Civil Case No. C-14542 before Branch 131 of Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City; the Tuazons theorizing that the real intention of the parties was to enter into a loan accommodation.

On November 15, 1990, Lim filed his answer, theorizing that the Deed of Absolute Sale expressed the true intention of the parties.

The case originated from a contract of mortgage constituted on the subject lot. On December 18, 1970, Tomas See Tuazon, who was then the President and General Manager of Universal Rubber Products, Inc., together with the spouses, See Tiong Cheng and Eng Tang Go See, mortgaged, together with other properties, subject lot to the Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBCom), 4 to secure a loan of Four Million Eight Hundred Thirty Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Five and 90/100 (P24,830,265.90) Pesos. When the mortgagors failed to pay the mortgage debt, the mortgaged property was foreclosed and sold at public auction, with PBCom itself as the highest bidder.

During that time, Lim had amorous relations with Bernice, daughter of the Tuazons, and the two were business partners in Powerstone International. Universal Rubber Products, Inc., where petitioner and his family were majority stockholders, was experiencing business reverses and its workers staged strikes.

Petitioner alleges that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"2.12 In the first week of June 1987, before the expiration of the 1 year redemption on July 28, 1987, Bernice, the daughter of the appellee, told the appellee that her fiancee, appellant John Lim, was willing to help them redeem the subject property by accommodating them with P1 Million.

2.13 The next day, the appellee met with Bernice and the appellant met in their office below [which Bernice and appellant, as business partners, were renting from appellee) and the appellee proposed that: 60% of the P1 Million; or P600,000 would be a URPI 5 loan where machineries worth P3 Million, by way of chattel mortgage, would secure it, and 40% of the 91 Million would be appellant’s personal loan." 6

Petitioner proposed further that, to simplify matters, P20,000.00 of the P400,000.00 would be applied as private respondent’s advance rent of the office space he and Bernice were renting, reducing petitioner’s personal loan to P380,000.00. 7 The remaining balance was secured from other persons and petitioner’s personal funds.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Consequently, since the loan accommodation was only for One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos and the redemption price was 41.1 Million, petitioner negotiated with PBCom to reduce the redemption price to Eight Hundred Eighty Three Thousand (P883,000.00) Pesos but the bank rejected such offer. Upon further negotiations, the bank agreed to reduce the redemption price to One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos subject to the condition that petitioner surrendered in favor of PBCom his (petitioner) Producer’s Bank stock certificates by way of dacion en pago. 8

Petitioner then tendered to PBCom the redemption amount of One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos and the bank issued a Certificate of Redemption.

To keep the creditors, suppliers and laborers of URPI from levying on subject property, petitioner decided to transfer the title thereof to Lim. The new title was to serve as security for the loan. The Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by petitioner and signed by him and his wife, Natividad Sue Deecho. The consideration of the purported contract of sale executed on July 15, 1987 was Three Hundred Eighty Thousand (P380,000.00) Pesos. By virtue thereof, a new title was issued in private respondent’s name but the same was delivered to petitioner. The transfer taxes and capital gains tax were paid by petitioner. Petitioner continued residing in the place.

Thereafter, the relationship between Bernice Tuazon and private respondent began to deteriorate. Sometime in August 1988, after petitioner returned from a trip to the United States, he discovered that the new title and other documents were missing. 9 When confronted, private respondent refused to return the same. In July 1989, a tenant, William Sze, renewed his lease but this time, with private Respondent. Also in 1989, private respondent began paying real estate taxes and sending demand letters to petitioner. The latter then filed the complaint below for reformation of contract, quieting of title with damages.

The private respondent theorized that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioner Tuazon and his daughter persuaded him to redeem for himself the extrajudicially foreclosed property from PBCom because Tuazon was financially incapable. The total consideration of the sale was One Million Three Hundred Eighty Thousand (P1,380,000.00) Pesos. He (Lim) purchased a manager’s check from Asian Bank for One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos and tendered the check to PBCom as the redemption price. On July 16, 1987 Three Hundred Eighty Thousand (P380,000.00) Pesos was paid directly to the Tuazons. 10 Atty. Crisostomo, Tuazon’s counsel, executed an instrument with the nomenclature of a deed of sale 11 which by its contents, purported to convey the subject property to private Respondent.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Meanwhile, private respondent had some misunderstanding with his father so that he temporarily resided with the Tuazons. The relation of Bernice and Lim was souring up until finally, they broke off in July 1989. He (Lim) began documenting and claiming ownership over the property. Because of this, the spouses Tuazon annotated a Notice of Lis Pendens dated September 30, 1991 and a Joint Affidavit of Adverse Claim on TCT No. 152621 in the Register of Deeds of Kalookan City.

Due to the harassment perpetuated by the Tuazon, Lim was forced to vacate the premises. He let one William Sze of SK Enterprises lease Apartment No. 161 for Eight Thousand (P8,000.00) Pesos a month. He also allowed Tuazon to lease Apartment 163 conditioned on the payment of Eight Thousand (P8,000.00) Pesos rental a month, for one (1) year or from June 1987 to June 1988.

One year having expired, Lim, through, his counsel demanded that Tuazon vacate the premises and to pay the arrearages. He was constrained to file an ejectment case docketed as Civil Case No. 19668 before Branch 50 of the Municipal Trial Court in Kalookan City when Tuazon deprived him for six (6) long years of his rightful ownership and possession over the subject lot.

On December 2, 1991, the trial court or origin decided for the private respondent, disposing thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the complaint and declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the parties on July 15, 1987 as an absolute and unconditional conveyance by the plaintiff in favor of the defendant of the subject property; likewise, defendant’s counterclaim is hereby dismissed.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SO ORDERED." 12

Dissatisfied therewith, on December 27, 1991, the parties filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration.

On November 16,1992, the lower court reconsidered its Decision dated December 2, 1991, and resolved instead:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the Decision rendered on December 2, 1991 is accordingly reconsidered, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) The Deed of Absolute Sale, marked as Exhibit ‘A’ for the plaintiff and Exhibit ‘1’ for the defendant, is hereby declared an equitable mortgage and is accordingly reformed as such;

(2) The plaintiff is hereby directed to pay the One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos accommodation to the defendant; and

(3) The Transfer Certificate of Title No. 152621 is hereby cancelled, and the former title, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 860 is revived/reinstated subject to those liens appearing therein at the time plaintiff’s adverse claim was registered.

SO ORDERED." 13

On July 28, 1993, Lim elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. In his appellant’s brief, Lim contended that he was not a party to the fraud perpetrated against the Tuazons’ creditors, suppliers and laborers, and the principle of pari delicto 14 does not apply, as the Tuazons failed to establish that the transaction between them was actually for an illegal purpose.

In the Appellee’s Brief sent in on January 10, 1994, Tuazon reiterated that under Articles 1381(3) 15 and 1383, 16 the deed of sale was executed to technically avoid creditor’s levies, and thus merely made the contract rescissible, or valid until judicially rescinded and subsidiarily assailed at the instance of the creditor prejudiced thereby. However, since the Deed of Sale was simulated, it was void on that score, and may thus be reformed to conform to the real agreement, under the specific and legal provisions applicable. 17

On March 31, 1995, the respondent Court decided in favor of respondent Lim and upheld the validity of the Absolute Deed of Sale, ratiocinating thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the appealed Order, dated November 16, 1992, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the original Decision of the trial court, dated December 2, 1991, hereby REINSTATED, with the modification that plaintiff-appellee is ordered to pay defendant-appellant the sum of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos a month as reasonable rental for the use and occupation of Apartment No. 161 from July 15, 1988 until the premises shall have been vacated and possession thereof peacefully turned over to defendant-appellant.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The counterclaim for attorney’s fees of defendant-appellant is DENIED. There is no clear showing that the action taken by plaintiff-appellee was done in bad faith. There should be no penalty on the right to litigate." 18

On June 2, 1995, the petitioner found his way to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assigning as errors, that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First.

THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT TO BE ONE OF ABSOLUTE SALE AND NOT EQUITABLE MORTGAGE.

Second.

THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE PETITIONER LIABLE TO THE PRIVATE RESPONDENT FOR UNPAID RENTALS. 19

Petitioner invites attention and places reliance on the alleged inadequacy of the purchase price and his having remained in possession of subject land.

The petition is not impressed with merit.

It has been held that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Article 1602 of the Civil Code provides that a contact shall be presumed to be an equitable mortgage by the presence of any of the following:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

‘(1) When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is unusually inadequate;

(2) When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise;

(3) When upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase another instrument extending the period of redemption or granting a new period is executed;

(4) When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price;

(5) When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold;

(6) In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation.’" 20

Under Article 1604 of the New Civil Code, the provisions of Article 1602 shall also apply to a contract purporting to be an absolute sale. 21 And for these provisions of law to apply, two requisites must concur: that the parties entered into a contract denominated as a contract of sale and that their intention was to secure an existing debt by way of mortgage.

While the existence of any of the circumstances in Article 1602, not a concurrence nor an overwhelming number thereof, suffices to give rise to the presumption that the contract is an equitable mortgage; 22 the present case is entirely different. Records on hand and the documentary evidence introduced by the parties indubitably show no room for construction, Article 1365 23 of the New Civil Code on reformation of contracts applies only if there is evidence, clear and convincing, that the parties did agree upon a mortgage of subject property. Here, everything appears to be clear and unambiguous and nothing is doubtful, within the contemplation of Article 1602. When the words of the contract are clear and readily understandable, there is no room for construction. The contract is the law between the parties. 24 Said this Court:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

"‘A contract’, according to Article 1305 of the Civil Code, ‘is a meeting of the minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service.’ Once, the minds of the contracting parties meet, a valid contract exists, whether it is reduced to writing or not. And, when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is considered as containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement, except when it fails to express the true intent and agreement of the parties thereto, in which case, one of the parties may bring an action for the reformation of the instrument to the end that such true intention may be expressed."25cralaw:red

For an action for reformation of an instrument as provided for in Article 1359 to prosper, the following requisites must concur, to wit: (1) there must have been a meeting of the minds of the parties to the contract; (2) the instrument does not express the true intention of the parties; and (3) the failure of the instrument to express the true intention of the parties is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct or accident. 26 Here, petitioner has not shown or established the presence of the aforestated requirements for the reformation of the deed in question.

What is more, any doubt as to the real meaning of the contract must be resolved against the person who drafted the instrument and is responsible for the ambiguity thereof. 27 Prepared by the lawyer of the herein petitioner, Tomas See Tuazon, subject Deed of Absolute Sale executed on July 15, 1987 is couched in clear terms and conditions. John Siy Lim had no hand in its preparation. Besides, the voluntary, written and unconditional acceptance of contractual commitments negate the theory of equitable mortgage.

Petitioner theorizes that the value of the land in dispute is more than Two Million (P2,000,000.00) Pesos. According to him, in 1987 he offered to sell the same property for Two Million Eight Hundred Thousand (P2,800,000.00) Pesos, should he fail to redeem the lot. Mr. Itchon of PBCom allegedly estimated that the said property was worth Three Million (P3,000,000.00) Pesos, even before 1987 when the laborers of the company staged a strike. There were also two (2) alleged potential buyers, Lim Chu Ching and William Go, who wanted to buy the property at Two Million Five Hundred Thousand (P2,500,000.00) Pesos.

But it bears stressing that the aforementioned allegations of petitioner are unsubstantiated. The agent of the bank and the alleged potential buyers were not presented to prove that the value of subject property was higher or that the purchase price thereof was inadequate. As held by the trial court in its original decision, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘Plaintiff alleges that the price was below the fair market value which he claims to be P2.5 million. He was not able to prove this allegation. In fact, such is even belied by the evidence presented by plaintiff himself which was the confirmation receipt of his payment of capital gains tax in the amount of P44,175.00 (Exh.’S’). The said amount is 5% of P883,500.00 which is the fair market value and which was used as the tax base being higher than the P380,000.00 selling price as per Deed of Absolute Sale. Plaintiff s contention that the stated selling price was the only consideration for the sale is further controverted by defendant’s evidence that the subject property was redeemed by defendant from PBCom for P1 million (Exh.’4’). . . ." ‘ 28

Anent the claim that petitioner continued to occupy the premises under controversy in concept of owner, suffice to repeat the finding of the Court of Appeals, to wit:chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

"The Tuazon family remained in the premises sold to Lim. But not in the concept of owner. The first year of Tuazon’s continued occupancy of Apt. No. 163 was at Lim’s graciousness with the understanding that after one year, the Tuazon’s will pay the appropriate rentals for the continued use and occupation of the property. In the exercise of his right as owner of the property, Lim leased Apartment No. 161 to a William Sze where Lim signed the contract of lease as the lessor." 29

Private respondent’s payment of realty taxes after the consummation of the sale, though not conclusive evidence of ownership, bolsters his right over the property in dispute. He religiously paid the taxes thereon, as evidenced by Tax Declaration Receipts Nos. 007-0202188 and Tax Receipts Nos. 7161749, 7161798, 1010764, 1010814, 3437277, 3437327, 5117314, 5117364, 8680601, 8680651, 1392311, 1392361, 4690025, 4690075. 30

In light of the foregoing, the Court deems it unnecessary to still pass upon the other issues raised by petitioner.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED; and the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 40167, dated March 31, 1995, AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:



1. Penned by J. Antonio P. Solano and concurred in by JJ. Alfredo L. Benipayo and Ricardo P. Galvez.

2. Annex "D", Rollo, p. 69.

3.." . . a parcel of land (Lot No. 6, Block No. 85 of the consolidation (sic) and subdivision plan PCS-764, being a portion of Block No. 85 of the Subdivision plan Psd-2895, G.L.R.O. Record No. 11267) situated in the Barrio of Calaanan, Municipality of Caloocan, Province of Rizal; . . . Containing an area of SIX HUNDRED FIFTY SQUARE METERS (650), more or less.

4. Sometimes referred to as Philippine Bank of Communications.

5. Where Tuazon was one of the principal stockholders.

6. Rollo, p. 136.

7. Rollo, p. 10.

8. Appellee’s Brief, p. 25, Rollo, p. 155.

9. Rollo, p. 142.

10. Answer, p. 3, Rollo, p. 51.

11. DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

This DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE, made and executed this 30th day of June 1987, by and between:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

TOMAS S. TUAZON, of legal age, Filipino, married to NATIVIDAD SUE DEECHO, and a resident of No. 163 A. del Mundo Street, Caloocan City, Metro Manila, now and hereinafter referred to as the VENDOR,

- in favor of -

JOHN SIY LIM, likewise of legal age, single, Filipino, with postal address at No. 161 A. del Mundo Street, Caloocan City, Metro Manila, now and hereinafter referred to as the VENDEE.

x       x       x


. . . the former by these presents hereby SELL, CEDE, TRANSFER AND CONVEY BY WAY OF ABSOLUTE SALE unto the VENDEE, his heirs and assigns, the above-described parcel of land together with all the improvements thereon, free from all liens and encumbrances of whatever nature or kind." (Appellant’s Brief, p. 22, Rollo, p. 102).

12. Decision Civil Case No. C-14542, p. 8, Rollo, p. 68.

13. Order dated November 16, 1992, p. 7, Rollo, p. 75.

14. Civil Code of the Philippines by Arturo M. Tolentino, Volume II.

Article 1411 — When the nullity proceeds from the illegality of the cause or object of the contract, and the act constitutes a criminal offense, both parties being in pari delicto, they shall have no action against each other, and both shall be prosecuted. Moreover, the provisions of the Penal Code relative to the disposal of effects or instruments of a crime shall be applicable to the things or the price of the contract.

This rule shall be applicable when only one of the parties is guilty; but the innocent one may claim what he has given, and shall not be bound to comply with his promise.

Article 1412 — If the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense, the following rules shall be observed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) When the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, neither may recover what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand the performance of the other’s undertaking;

(2) When only one of the contracting parties is at fault, he cannot recover what he has given by reason of the contract, or ask for the fulfillment of what has been promised him. The other, who is not at fault, may demand the return of what he has given without any obligation to comply with his promise.

Article 1414 — When money is paid or property delivered for an illegal purpose, the contract may be repudiated by one of the parties before the purpose has been accomplished, or before any damage has been caused to a third person. In such case, the courts, may, if the public interest will thus be subserved, allow the party repudiating the contract to recover the money or property.

15.

x       x       x


(3) Those undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any other manner collect the claims due them;

x       x       x


16. The action for rescission is subsidiary; it cannot be instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal means to obtain reparation for the same.

17. Appellee’s Brief, p. 10, Rollo, p. 140.

18. Decision, CA-G.R. CV No. 40167, pp. 8-9, Rollo, pp. 204-205.

19. Petition, pp. 19-20, Rollo, pp. 27-28.

20. Oronce v. Court of Appeals, 298 SCRA 133, 155-156.

21. Lustan v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 663, 671.

22. Ibid., p. 672 citing: Uy v. CA, 230 SCRA 664.

23. If two parties agree upon the mortgage or pledge of real or personal property, but the instrument states that the proper is sold absolutely or with a right of repurchase, reformation of the instrument is proper.

24. Article 1306, New Civil Code — The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

Article 1159, New Civil Code — Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the parties and should be complied with in good faith.

25. National Irrigation Administration v. Gamit, 215 SCRA 436, 450.

26. Ibid., p. 451.

27. Villamil v. Court of Appeals, 208 SCRA 643, 649-650.

28. Decision, Court of Appeals, pp. 203-204.

29. Ibid.

30. Appellant’s brief, p. 20, Rollo, p. 100.




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-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 108552 October 2, 2000 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109305 October 2, 2000 - INSURANCE SERVICES and COMMERCIAL TRADERS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121182 October 2, 2000 - VICTORIO ESPERAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121408 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO DECILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122733 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SASAN BARIQUIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123130 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NESTOR MIRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129211 October 2, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129315 October 2, 2000 - OSIAS I. CORPORAL, SR., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138584 October 2, 2000 - MARIA VICTORIA CANO-GUTIERREZ v. HERMINIO A. GUTIERREZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1213 October 2, 2000 - FRANK LAWRENCE A. CARIÑO v. JONATHAN S. BITENG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1469 October 2, 2000 - JULIUS N. RABOCA v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1263 October 3, 2000 - EDUARDO MA. QUINTERO, ET AL. v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-00-1430 October 3, 2000 - ATTY. JOSEPHINE MUTIA-HAGAD v. IGNACIO DENILA

  • G.R. No. 106873 October 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119794 October 3, 2000 - TOMAS SEE TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125005 October 3, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO CABILES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126881 October 3, 2000 - HEIRS OF TAN ENG KEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130547 October 3, 2000 - LEAH ALESNA REYES, ET AL. v. SISTERS OF MERCY HOSPITAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138544 October 3, 2000 - SECURITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. RODOLFO M. CUENCA

  • G.R. No. 140823 October 3, 2000 - MELVYN U. CALVAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. OCA-00-03 October 4, 2000 - LIWAYWAY G. BANIQUED v. EXEQUIEL C. ROJAS

  • A.M. No. P-99-1285 October 4, 2000 - TERESITA REYES-DOMINGO v. BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

  • G.R. No. 127405 October 4, 2000 - MARJORIE TOCAO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128559 & 130911 October 4, 2000 - SEC. OF EDUC., CULTURE AND SPORTS, ET AL VS. COURT OF APPEALS; ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129371 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132633 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GEMOYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134480-82 October 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGTRAYO

  • G.R. No. 137798 October 4, 2000 - LUCIA R. SINGSON v. CALTEX (PHILS.)

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1296 October 5, 2000 - ALBERT R. SORDAN v. ROLANDO B. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. Nos. 115251-52 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN O. DEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111904 October 5, 2000 - AGRIPINO GESTOPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129532 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE HILOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130613 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131942 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO BAWANG

  • G.R. No. 133904 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO DELA CUESTA

  • G.R. Nos. 134143-47 October 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CATUBIG, JR.

  • G.R. No. 139592 October 5, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112792-93 October 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL TAGUBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119602 October 6, 2000 - WILDVALLEY SHIPPING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133448-53 October 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136781, 136786 & 136795 October 6, 2000 - VETERANS FEDERATION PARTY, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108615 October 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NILO VEDRA

  • G.R. No. 125468 October 9, 2000 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHILS. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128110-11 October 9, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE UBALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128121 & 128993 October 9, 2000 - PHIL. CREOSOTING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138979 October 9, 2000 - ERNESTO BUNYE v. LOURDES AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140904 October 9, 2000 - RENE S. ONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-2-27-MTCC October 10, 2000 - EDELITO I. ALFONSO. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC)

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1247 October 10, 2000 - CHARLES N. UY v. NELIDA S. MEDINA

  • G.R. No. 128002 October 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO BONITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132168 October 10, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO LOPEZ

  • G.R. No. 133511 October 10, 2000 - WILLIAM G. PADOLINA, ET AL. v. OFELIA D. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 138570, 138572, 138587, 138680 & 138698 October 10, 2000 - BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) ET AL. v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RONALDO ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109143 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO G. TALIMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109853 October 11, 2000 - PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE v. C A

  • G.R. No. 120897 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERO DAYUHA

  • G.R. No. 130177 October 11, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN BARRAMEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139020 October 11, 2000 - PAQUITO BUAYA v. STRONGHOLD INSURANCE CO.

  • A.M. No. 00-1395 October 12, 2000 - FRANCIA MERILO-BEDURAL v. OSCAR EDROSO

  • G.R. No. 97913 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORBERTO CARROZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106634 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NINOY MALBOG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119832 October 12, 2000 - RAYMUNDO TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122047 October 12, 2000 - SERAFIN SI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122451 October 12, 2000 - CAGAYAN ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127130 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO M. EBIAS

  • G.R. No. 127316 October 12, 2000 - LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-1-48-RTC October 12, 2000 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC-BRANCH 20

  • G.R. No. 137378 October 12, 2000 - PHIL. ALUMINUM WHEELS v. FASGI ENTERPRISES

  • G.R. No. 138596 October 12, 2000 - FIDELIS ARAMBULO v. HILARION LAQUI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139524 October 12, 2000 - PHILIP C. SANTOS, ET AL. v. LADISLAO M. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135695-96 October 12, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS TUNDAG

  • G.R. No. 120077 October 13, 2000 - MANILA HOTEL CORP. ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120350 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE YAMBOT

  • G.R. No. 120546 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO OPERAÑA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 120787 October 13, 2000 - CARMELITA G. ABRAJANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123147 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH MANENG

  • G.R. No. 123176 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR RAFAEL

  • G.R. No. 128230 October 13, 2000 - ROCKWELL PERFECTO GOHU v. ALBERTO GOHU, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 134628-30 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO ARVES

  • G.R. No. 137269 October 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MULLER BALDINO

  • G.R. No. 140825 October 13, 2000 - CIPRIANO CENTENO, ET AL. v. IGNACIA CENTENO

  • G.R. No. 115813 October 16, 2000 - EDUARDO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120367 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO BARRETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120697 October 16, 2000 - STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121971 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINARIO PERALTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129892 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BARRO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 130610 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSELITO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 132071 October 16, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL DE GUZMAN

  • A.M. No. CA-99-30 October 16, 2000 - UNITED BF HOMEOWNERS v. ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1234 October 16, 2000 - JESUS G. CHAVEZ v. PANCRACIO N. ESCAÑAN

  • A.M. RTJ 00-1593 October 16, 2000 - JAIME MORTA, SR. v. JOSE S. SAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131518 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO R. ARELLANO

  • G.R. No. 134761 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUINALDO CATUIRAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136003-04 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO A. ADAJIO

  • G.R. No. 138113 October 17, 2000 - EMILIO BUGATTI v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138516-17 October 17, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMMA DELA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139465 October 17, 2000 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. RALPH C. LANTION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140453 October 17, 2000 - TRANSFARM & CO., INC. ET AL. v. DAEWOO CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC October 18, 2000 - JUDICIAL AUDIT REPORT

  • A.C. No. 5333 October 18, 2000 - ROSA YAP PARAS v. JUSTO DE JESUS PARAS

  • G.R. No. 114028 October 18, 2000 - SALVADOR SEBASTIAN, SR. v. FRANCIS E. GARCHITORENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116417 October 18, 2000 - ALBERTO MAGLASANG, JR. v. MERCEDES GOZO DADOLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121994 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS.. v. ANGELES TEVES

  • G.R. No. 123545 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELO PALIJON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127846 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO G. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 127851 October 18, 2000 - CORONA INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128134 October 18, 2000 - FE D. LAYSA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 128703 October 18, 2000 - TEODORO BAÑAS, ET AL. v. ASIA PACIFIC FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 129573 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO DIMAPILIS

  • G.R. No. 130590 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RANILLO PONCE HERMOSO

  • G.R. No. 131144 October 18, 2000 - NOEL ADVINCULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131280 October 18, 2000 - PEPE CATACUTAN, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF NORMAN KADUSALE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135517 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMELITO BRONDIAL

  • G.R. No. 136393 October 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADIO ITDANG

  • G.R. No. 138842 October 18, 2000 - NATIVIDAD P. NAZARENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140942 October 18, 2000 - BENIGNO M. SALVADOR v. JORGE Z. ORTOLL

  • A.M. No. P-00-1432 October 19, 2000 - JOSE C. SARMIENTO v. ROMULO C. VICTORIA

  • G.R. No. 119002 October 19, 2000 - INTERNATIONAL EXPRESS TRAVEL & TOUR SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129380 October 19, 2000.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. 133696 October 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR CALlWAN

  • G.R. No. 135337 October 19, 2000 - CITY OF OLONGAPO v. STALLHOLDERS OF THE EAST BAJAC-BAJAC PUBLIC MARKET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135527 October 19, 2000 - GEMINIANO DE OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO ARLOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135699-700 & 139103 October 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR CLADO

  • G.R. No. 135775 October 19, 2000 - EMERENCIANO ESPINOSA, ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136490 October 19, 2000 - BRENDA B. MARCOS v. WILSON G. MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 112924 October 20, 2000 - EDUARDO P. BALANAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120539 October 20, 2000 - LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO v. MONINA A. ZENOROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120931 October 20, 2000 - TAG FIBERS, INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129651 October 20, 2000 - FRANK UY and UNIFISH PACKING CORPORATION v. BIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131141 October 20, 2000 - VICTORINA MOTUS PEÑAVERDE v. MARIANO PEÑAVERDE

  • G.R. No. 131541 October 20, 2000 - THERMOCHEM INC., ET AL. v. LEONORA NAVAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131806 October 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LIBERATO CABIGTING

  • G.R. No. 132677 October 20, 2000 - ISABELA COLLEGES v. HEIRS OF NIEVES TOLENTINO-RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 136252 October 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO L. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 117949 October 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEX BANTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121438 October 23, 2000 - FELIX UY CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128127 October 23, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERGIO BRIONES

  • G.R. No. 125692 October 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GADFRE TIANSON

  • G.R. No. 132428 October 24, 2000 - GEORGE YAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136142 October 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO DATOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136456 October 24, 2000 - HEIRS OF RAMON DURANO, ET AL. v. ANGELES SEPULVEDA UY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138938 October 24, 2000 - CELESTINO VIVERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143325 October 24, 2000 - RAUL SANTOS v. JOSE P. MARIANO; ET AL.

  • A.M. Nos. MTJ-97-1132 & MTJ-97-1133 October 24, 2000 - MARIO CACAYOREN v. HILARION A. SULLER, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1396 October 24, 2000 - ROBERTO R. IGNACIO v. RODOLFO PAYUMO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1595 October 24, 2000 - LUZ CADAUAN, ET AL. v. ARTEMIO R. ALIVIA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-99-1484 (A) & RTJ 99-1484 October 24, 2000 - JOSELITO RALLOS, ET AL. v. IRENEO LEE GAKO JR.

  • G.R. No. 125542 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDO TALO

  • G.R. No. 126135 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO OCFEMIA

  • G.R. No. 128114 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER P. CANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134768 October 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. 143398 October 25, 2000 - RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134581 October 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN N. DEL ROSARIO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1330 October 27, 2000 - ELIZABETH ALEJANDRO, ET AL. v. SERGIO A. PLAN

  • G.R. No. 135551 October 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMPIE C. TARAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118608 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ULYSSES CAPINPIN

  • G.R. No. 126126 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALES SABADAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132783 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS C. LAGUERTA

  • G.R. No. 132784 October 30, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONILO VILLARBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136185 October 30, 2000 - EDUARDO P. LUCAS v. MAXIMO C. ROYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137557 October 30, 2000 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138826 October 30, 2000 - PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.