Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2011 > June 2011 Decisions > [G.R. No. 180683, June 01 : 2011] AURORA L. TECSON, SPOUSES JOSE L. TECSON AND LEONILA TECSON, PETITIONERS, VS. MINERVA, MARIA, FRANCISCO, AGUSTINA, JOSE, ROMUALDO, ELIZABETH AND VICTOR, ALL SURNAMED FAUSTO, AND ISABEL VDA. DE FAUSTO, RESPONDENTS.:




FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 180683, June 01 : 2011]

AURORA L. TECSON, SPOUSES JOSE L. TECSON AND LEONILA TECSON, PETITIONERS, VS. MINERVA, MARIA, FRANCISCO, AGUSTINA, JOSE, ROMUALDO, ELIZABETH AND VICTOR, ALL SURNAMED FAUSTO, AND ISABEL VDA. DE FAUSTO, RESPONDENTS.

D E C I S I O N


PEREZ, J.:

For Review[1] are the Decision[2] dated 12 December 2006 and Resolution[3] dated 2 October 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 70303.  In the said decision and resolution, the Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19 of Pagadian City[4] thereby allowing the respondents to recover four hundred fifty-seven (457) square meters of land from Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-4,342 in the name of petitioner Jose Tecson.  The decretal portion of the decision of the appellate court reads:[5]

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Defendant-appellee Atty. Jose L. Tecson is entitled only to 507 square meters under Lot 2189-A; he is DIRECTED to reconvey, within thirty (30) days from notice, the excess of 457 square meters thereof to herein plaintiff-appellants in order to restore the latter's original area of 508 square meters under Lot 2189-B pursuant to Exhibit "B" (Subdivision Plan Psd-09-06-000110 dated March 25, 1974) and Exhibit "C" (the Agreement of Partition dated April 15, 1974).  Failure on his part to reconvey the aforesaid 457 square meters within the period prescribed thereto, the Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 19, Pagadian City, is hereby directed to cause the transfer of the same in favor of herein plaintiff-appellants pursuant to Section 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Defendant-appellees Aurora L. Tecson and Atty. Jose L. Tecson are directed to pay, jointly and severally, plaintiff-appellants the following:

a.) P200,000 as moral damages;
b.) P10,000 as exemplary damages; and
c.) P20,000 as attorney's fees.

The antecedents of this case are as follows:

Sometime in 1945, Atty. Agustin Fausto (Atty. Fausto) acquired in co-ownership with his sister, Waldetrudes Fausto-Nadela (Waldetrudes), Lot 2189--a one thousand fifteen (1,015) square meter parcel of land situated at Jose Zulueta Street corner National Highway in Pagadian City, Zamboanga Del Sur.[6]  In 1953, Atty. Fausto constructed his house on a portion of the said lot.[7]

In 1970, following a cadastral proceeding, Atty. Fausto and Waldetrudes were recognized as co-owners of Lot 2189.  Consequently, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 734[8] covering Lot 2189 was issued in the names of:

[I]n undivided shares, Waldetrudes Fausto, married to Leon Nadela; and Agustin Fausto, married to Isabel Pareja, x x x.

Not long after, Atty. Fausto and Waldetrudes decided to partition Lot 2189. For this purpose, Waldetrudes hired one Engr. Ernesto D. Aguilar (Engr. Aguilar) to prepare a subdivision plan for the lot.  On 25 March 1974, Engr. Aguilar prepared subdivision plan Psd-09-06-000110 (First Plan)[9] that divided Lot 2189 into two (2) lots, i.e., Lot 2189-A with an area of 507 square meters, and Lot 2189-B with an area of 508 square meters.  An illustration of the First Plan shows this division:

On 6 April 1974, the Regional Director of the Bureau of Lands approved the First Plan.

On 15 April 1974, Atty. Fausto and Waldetrudes formalized their decision to subdivide Lot 2189 by executing an Agreement of Partition.[10]  Under this agreement (First Partition Agreement), Waldetrudes was to be given absolute ownership over Lot 2189-A, while Atty. Fausto was to be conferred separate dominion over Lot 2189-B.[11]  The First Partition Agreement, however, was never registered with the Register of Deeds.

On 14 March 1975, Atty. Fausto died.  He was survived by herein respondents, who are his wife[12] and children.[13]

On 7 July 1977, however, Waldetrudes entered into a Contract to Sell[14] with herein petitioner Aurora L. Tecson (Aurora).  In it, Waldetrudes undertook to sell, among others, her "ideal share" in Lot 2189 to Aurora upon full payment of the purchase price.[15]

On 28 July 1977, Engr. Aguilar prepared a second subdivision plan (Second Plan)[16] for Lot 2189.  The Second Plan, designated as Psd-268803, drastically altered the division of Lot 2189 under the First Plan.[17]  It introduced the following changes:

1. Waldetrudes' Lot 2189-A with an area of 507 square meters under the First Plan was now Lot 2189-B with an increased area of 964 square meters.[18]

2. Atty. Fausto's Lot 2189-B with an area of 508 square meters under the First Plan was now Lot 2189-A with a decreased area of 51 square meters.[19]

An illustration of the Second Plan will further highlight these changes:

The Second Plan was approved by the Land Registration Commission on 12 August 1977.

On 28 September 1977, a second partition over Lot 2189 (Second Partition Agreement)[20] was executed between the respondents in their capacity as heirs of Atty. Fausto on one hand, and Waldetrudes on the other. Presumably with the Second Plan as a new basis, the agreement named Waldetrudes as the owner of Lot 2189-B while the respondents were allocated Lot 2189-A.

On 8 May 1978, Waldetrudes sold Lot 2189-B, with an area of nine hundred sixty-four (964) square meters, to Aurora.[21]

Meanwhile, it would seem that the Register of Deeds had refused registration of the Second Partition Agreement in view of the fact that several of the respondents, namely Jose, Romualdo, Elizabeth and Victor were still minors.[22] Hence, a guardianship proceeding was commenced by respondent Isabel Vda. De Fausto (Isabel)--the wife of Atty. Fausto--to secure her appointment as the legal guardian of her minor children in connection with the Second Partition Agreement.[23]

On 28 July 1978, the guardianship court granted Isabel's Petition[24] and, on 17 January 1980, issued an Order approving the Second Partition Agreement.[25]

On 19 February 1980, the following events transpired:

1. The Second Partition Agreement was finally registered with the Register of Deeds.  As a consequence, OCT No. 734 covering Lot 2189 was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, were issued the following titles:

  1. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-4,335 covering Lot 2189-A in the name of Atty. Fausto; and
  2. TCT No. T-4,336 for Lot 2189-B in the name of Waldetrudes.[26]

2. The sale of Lot 2189-B in favor of Aurora was likewise registered with the Register of Deeds.[27]  Accordingly, the newly issued TCT No. T-4,336 was immediately cancelled and replaced by TCT No. T-4,338[28] in the name of Aurora.

3. Aurora executed a Deed of Absolute Sale,[29] conveying Lot 2189-B to her brother, herein petitioner Atty. Jose L. Tecson (Atty. Tecson).

4. On the very same day, the above deed was registered with the Register of Deeds.[30]

On 20 February 1980, TCT No. T-4,338 was cancelled. In its place, TCT No. T-4,342[31] was issued, this time, in the name of Atty. Tecson.

Seven (7) years after, or on 28 May 1987, the respondents filed a Complaint[32] for the Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Titles, Reconveyance and Damages against Waldetrudes and the petitioners before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pagadian City.  In essence, the respondents seek the recovery of four hundred fifty-seven (457) square meters of land from TCT No. T-4,342, which they believe was unlawfully taken from the lawful share of their predecessor-in-interest, Atty. Fausto, in Lot 2189.[33]

The respondents allege that Atty. Fausto and Waldetrudes are, in actual fact, co-owners in equal share of Lot 2189.[34]  They insist on the First Partition Agreement as the only true, correct and binding division of Lot 2189.[35]  Hence, Atty. Fausto is entitled not merely to the meager fifty-one (51) square meter lot actually given to him under the Second Plan and Second Partition Agreement, but to the five hundred eight (508) square meters of land allotted for him under the original partition.[36]

Verily, Waldetrudes could not have sold more than her rightful share of only five hundred seven (507) square meters.[37] The respondents, thus, ask for the nullification of the sale of Lot 2189-B to the petitioners, at least with respect to the excess amounting to four hundred fifty-seven (457) square meters.[38]

In the same vein, the respondents impugn the validity and binding effect of the Second Plan and the ensuing Second Partition Agreement.[39]  They denounce the said plan and agreement as mere handiworks of respondent Atty. Tecson himself in a fraudulent scheme to get a lion's share of Lot 2189.[40]  More particularly, the respondents claim that:

1. Atty. Tecson was the one who deceived them into signing the Second Partition Agreement.[41] The respondents say that they were not involved in the preparation of the Second Partition Agreement.[42]  It was only respondent Atty. Tecson who presented them with the said agreement and who misleadingly told them that it was required to facilitate the sale of Waldetrudes' share.[43]  The respondents explain that they believed Atty. Tecson because he was their long-time neighbor, a close family friend and, not the least, a respected member of the community being a former governor of the province.[44]

2. The respondents also point out that the Second Partition Agreement did not specify the exact areas allotted for each component lot, and that they were never furnished with copies of the Second Plan.[45]

3. The Second Plan, which supposedly supplants the First Plan and divides Lot 2189 into two (2) vastly unequal portions, was prepared without the respondents' knowledge or consent.[46]  For which reason, the Second Plan could not be binding upon them.

4. The guardianship proceeding purportedly initiated in the name of respondent Isabel was actually orchestrated and financed by Atty. Tecson.[47] Atty. Tecson was the one who hired Atty. Fausto M. Lingating, his former legal adviser during his term as governor, to handle the guardianship case for and on behalf of Isabel.[48]

On 20 October 1988, Waldetrudes, who was originally sued by the respondents as a defendant in the RTC, executed an affidavit[49] expressing her intent to join the respondents in their cause.  In the mentioned affidavit, Waldetrudes confirmed the allegations of the respondents as follows:

x x x x

4. That the truth of the matter is that, my brother the late Agustin Fausto and I are co-owners of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 734 of Lot 2189, situated at Gatas District, Pagadian City, containing an area of 1,015 square meters, more or less, in equal share pro indiviso;

5. That sometimes (sic) in 1974 the late Agustin Fausto and myself agreed to terminate our co-ownership and have the area surveyed and the same was approved and designated as PSD-09-06-000110, of which we have executed an agreement of partition on April 15, 1974 apportioning Lot No. 2189-A with an area of 508 square meters in favor of my late brother Agustin Fausto and Lot No. 2189-B with an area of 507 square meters in my favor;

6. That the aforestated documents were not registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds until the death of my brother Agustin Fausto on March 14, 1975, however, the papers or documents involving Lot No. 2189 was kept by me;

7. That due to financial problem especially I am already very old and sickly, I thought of selling my portion which is Lot 2189-B in favor of Jose L. Tecson, however, in the document the vendee appears to be the sister of Jose L. Tecson in the person of Aurora L. Tecson;

8. That I do not know later on how Jose L. Tecson maneuvered to have the parcel of land again surveyed reducing the area of my brother to only 51 square meters, when in truth and in fact the portion of my late brother has an area of 508 square meters;

9. That while it is true that I sold Jose L. Tecson my portion of Lot 2189-B but the area sold is only 507 square meters and there is no intention on my part to sell to Jose L. Tecson more than that area;

10. That several occasion in the past I was made to sign documents by Jose L. Tecson in relation to the portion sold in his favor, trusting him to be closed (sic) to the family, not knowing later on that he maneuvered to change the area of my portion from 507 square meters to 964 square meters encroaching the share of my late brother Atty. Agustin Fausto thereby reducing his area to 51 square meters;

11. That because of the illegal maneuvering which does not reflect to be my true intention in selling my share to Jose L. Tecson, I am informing the Honorable Court that I am joining as party plaintiff in Civil Case No. 2692 in order that the truth will come out and justice will prevail.

On 18 August 1992, the trial court ordered Waldetrudes to be dropped as a party-defendant from the case and, instead, be impleaded therein as a party-plaintiff.[50]

During the trial, Waldetrudes[51] and respondents Romualdo,[52] Minerva[53] and Isabel[54] were able to testify.

In its decision dated 8 December 2000, the RTC dismissed the complaint of the respondents.[55]  The trial court found no merit in the position of the respondents and considered the petitioners to be innocent purchasers for value of Lot 2189-B.[56]  The dispositive portion of the ruling of the trial court reads:[57]

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the case, and placing defendants spouses Jose Tecson and Leonila F. Tecson in physical possession of Lot No. 2189-B, with an area of 964 square meters in accordance with the approved subdivision plan on August 12, 1977 of the then Land Registration Commission; and ordering the plaintiffs to pay defendants:

a. Moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00;
b. Attorney's fee in the amount of P15,000.00;
c. And the cost of litigation expenses in the amount of P5,000.00.

As earlier mentioned, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of the trial court on appeal.[58]  Hence, the present appeal by the petitioners.

The primary issue in this appeal is whether the respondents may recover the four hundred fifty-seven (457) square meters of land from TCT No. T-4,342, registered in the name of petitioner Atty. Tecson.

The petitioners would like this Court to answer in the negative.

The claim of petitioner Atty. Tecson over the entire nine hundred sixty-four (964) square meters of land covered by TCT No. T-4,342 is intricately linked with the validity of the Second Plan and the Second Partition Agreement.  As a perusal of the facts reveal, TCT No. T-4,342, along with its precursors TCT Nos. T-4,338 and T-4,336, are but derivates of the division of Lot 2189 fixed by the Second Plan and the Second Partition Agreement.

Understandably, the petitioners argue in favor of the validity of the Second Plan and the Second Partition Agreement.[59]  They deny Atty. Tecson's participation in the preparation of the said instruments.[60]  The petitioners insist that the Second Plan and the Second Partition Agreement were voluntary and intelligent deeds of Waldetrudes and the respondents themselves.[61]

The petitioners also claim that the Second Plan and the Second Partition Agreement present a more accurate reflection of the true nature of the co-ownership between Atty. Fausto and Waldetrudes.  Contrary to what the respondents profess, Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto were not actually co-owners in equal share of Lot 2189.[62]  In truth, the siblings were not even co-owners at all.[63]

According to the petitioners, Lot 2189 was originally the conjugal property of Waldetrudes and her late husband, Leon Nadela.[64]  At the inception, Atty. Fausto was never a co-owner of Lot 2189.[65]  Suitably, it was only Waldetrudes who initially declared Lot 2189 for taxation purposes per Tax Declaration No. 6521.[66]

During the cadastral proceedings in 1970, however, Waldetrudes allowed Lot 2189 to be registered in her name and the name of Atty. Fausto as co-owners.[67]  The petitioners claim that Waldetrudes consented to such a registration only because Atty. Fausto had already constructed his house on a portion of Lot 2189.[68]  The registered co-ownership between Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto is, therefore, based merely on the siblings' actual occupancy of Lot 2189.[69]

The petitioners point out that the interest of Atty. Fausto in Lot 2189 was only limited to the house he constructed thereon--which, as it happened, lies evenly on the fifty-one (51) square meter portion eventually assigned to him under the Second Plan and Second Partition Agreement.[70]  Hence, the Second Plan and the Second Partition Agreement must be sustained as perfectly valid instruments.

We are not convinced.

Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto are Co-owners in Equal Share

After reviewing the arguments and evidence presented in this case, We rule that Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto are, indeed, co-owners of Lot 2189.  Moreover, We hold that the siblings have equal shares in the said lot.

First. The mother title of Lot 2189, OCT No. 734, states in no unclear terms that Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto were co-owners of the subject lot.  The inscription in the original title for Lot 2189 carries more than sufficient weight to prove the existence of a co-ownership between Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto.

Second.  Other than the bare assertion of the petitioners, there is absolutely no proof on record that Waldetrudes was the sole beneficial owner of Lot 2189.  Tax Declaration No. 6521 simply cannot prevail over OCT No. 734 as conclusive evidence of the true ownership of Lot 2189.[71]

Third. During the cadastral proceeding involving Lot 2189, Waldetrudes herself stated that Atty. Fausto was a co-owner of the subject lot. The transcript taken from the proceeding shows:[72]

Commissioner:  What is your relation with Waldetrudes Fausto who is the claimant of Lot No. 2189 (portion) of a parcel of land located at Pagadian City and more particularly bounded as follows:  On the North by Lot No. 2190, on the East by Zulueta St., on the South by National Highway and on the West by Gatas Creek with an area of 1015 sq. meters and a house as a permanent improvement.

A: I am the very one sir.

Q: How did you acquire the said land?

A:  I purchase (sic) it from Sofia Vda. Claro in the year 1945 but a copy of the document was lost.

x x x x

Q:  Who is your co-owner of this land?

A: My co-owner is my brother Atty. Agustin Fausto.

Fourth.  There was likewise no evidence behind the petitioners' allegation that the registered co-ownership between Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto was based on their actual occupancy of Lot 2189.  On the contrary, OCT No. 734 categorically states that Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto are co-owners "in undivided share" of Lot 2189. The conspicuous silence of OCT No. 734 as to the definite extent of the respective shares of Atty. Fausto and Waldetrudes in Lot 2189 gives rise to a presumption that they are in equal measure. We are at once reminded of Article 485 of the Civil Code,[73] to wit:

Article 485.  x x x.

The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved.

Fifth.  The equality in terms of share in Lot 2189, was affirmed by Waldetrudes when she testified in open court, to wit:[74]

DIRECT EXAMINATION

ATTY. PERALTA

Q: Now considering that you are, you owned that parcel of land jointly with your younger brother Atty. Agustin Fausto, what is the extent of your ownership?

A: We have co-equal shares sir.

Clearly, the evidence preponderates in favor of the position that Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto were co-owners in equal share of Lot 2189.

Second Plan and Second Partition Agreement is Invalid

Having settled the existence and extent of the co-ownership between Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto, We next inquire into the validity of the Second Plan and Second Partition Agreement.

We find the Second Plan and Second Partition Agreement to be invalid.

We agree with the findings of the Court of Appeals that Atty. Tecson was behind the execution of the Second Partition Agreement.[75]  It was Atty. Tecson who misled Waldetrudes and the respondents into signing the Second Partition Agreeement without giving them notice of the existence of a Second Plan.[76]  As a consequence, Waldetrudes and the respondents were misinformed as to the true nature of the Second Partition Agreement.  These factual findings are adequately supported by the positive testimonies of respondents Romualdo Fausto,[77] Minerva Fausto[78] and Isabel,[79] to wit:

ROMUALDO'S DIRECT EXAMINATION

ATTY. PERALTA:

Q: Will you please go over if this is the machine copy of the Deed of partition which was brought to you by Atty. Tecson and requested you to sign the same?

A: Yes sir that is the one.

x x x x

Q: When was that Deed of Partition marked as Exhibit "G" presented to you by Atty. Tecson?

A: Early part of 1977.  I was already connected with the Provincial Assessor that was the time I have seen so many Deed of Sale and the area is specified so before I signed I asked Atty. Tecson where is the area and he told me never mind the area it will be surveyed and I did not insist because I trusted him very much.

Q: By the time this was presented to you by Atty. Tecson there was no survey of 2189?

A: There was no survey.

x x x x

COURT:

This document which you said you were present during the signing of your brothers and sisters but you cannot remember whether you were present for the others where did you sign this document?

A:  At our house.

COURT:

Who delivered this document to you[r] house?

A: Atty. Tecson.

COURT:

You want to impress this court that when you affixed your signatures in your house Atty. Tecson was present?

A: Yes sir.

COURT:

After signing what was done to this document?

A: We are not aware of that but we just waited for the survey because Atty. Tecson told us that the survey follows later.

COURT:

Who kept this document?

A: My Auntie Waldetrudes Nadela.

COURT:

It is clear now that this document was signed in your house and it was kept by your Auntie?

A: Yes, sir.

x x x x

ATTY. PERALTA:

Q: When Atty. Tecson went your house to request you to sign how did he tell you?

A: He told us just to sign the document and the survey will just follow we just sign the document without the area and he told us that the area will just follow later.

Q: When you signed the document with your mother, brothers and sisters Atty. Tecson brought the documents?

A: Yes, sir.

MINERVA FAUSTO'S DIRECT EXAMINATION

ATTY. PERALTA:

Q: Why, at the time when - who brought this deed of partition for signature?

A: Jose L. Tecson.

Q: You are referring to one of the defendants, Jose L. Tecson?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, when this was brought by Jose L. Tecson, the defendant Jose L. Tecson, where did he

COURT: For a moment.

Q: You said that defendant Jose L. Tecson brought that deed of partition. Were you there when defendant Jose L. Tecson brought that deed of partition?

A: Yes, your Honor.

Q: Where was it brought?

A: In the house.

COURT: Proceed.

ATTY. PERALTA:

Q: Who were present in your house when this was brought by defendant Jose L. Tecson?

A: Myself, Neneth or Agustin, Romualdo and Jose Fausto.  There were four (4) of us when that deed of partition was brought to the house, myself, my sister Agustina, my brothers Romualdo and Jose.

Q: Do you want to convey to the Court that when this was brought to you Francisco Fausto, Victor Fausto and your sister Elizabeth, Maria Fausto were not around when this was brought by Jose L. Tecson for signature in your house?

A: Yes, sir.

x x x x

Q: Why did you sign above the typewritten name of Francisco Fausto knowing that he was not around?

A: Because defendant Jose L. Tecson told me to affix the signature of Francisco Fausto because this deed of partition is just to facilitate the transferring (sic) of the title of the land.

x x x x

Q: Who signed for her, for and behalf of Maria Lilia Fausto?

A: I signed myself.

Q: Why did you sign for Maria Lilia Fausto?

A: Because Jose L. Tecson told me to sign the document in order that the deed of partition could be accomplished.

x x x x

Q: Now, how about the residence certificates appearing after the name of Agustina Fausto, with her own residence certificate 3976584 to have been issued January 6, 1977, Pagadian City, and the Residence Certificate of Jose Fausto which has the same number 3976584 issued on January 6, 1977, Pagadian City, who placed this residence certificate?

A: All of us sir never exhibited our residence certificates.  It was the Tecsons who supplied the residence certificate numbers.

ISABEL'S DIRECT EXAMINATION

ATTY. PERALTA:

Q: Do you remember having signed a Deed of Partition together with some of your children?

A: Yes sir[.] I can remember.

Q: Who brought that Deed of Partition for signature together with some of your children?

A: Governor Tecson.

Q: Were you able to sign the Deed of Partition?

A: I signed that Deed of Partition because according to him "just sign this for purposes of subdividing the property."

x x x x

Q: Do you recall if you have filed guardianship proceeding?

A: I have not remembered having filed a guardianship proceeding.

Q: Have you heard that there was guardianship proceeding?

A: All I can remember about that guardianship proceeding was that when Gov. Tecson let me sign a guardianship because some of my children were not around.

Q: Do you want to convey to this court that personally you have not filed guardianship proceeding but it was Governor Tecson who let you sign some documents regarding guardianship?

A: It was Governor Tecson who explained to me to sign that guardianship proceeding because according to him it will facilitate and I thought that guardianship was only for purposes of being guardian to my children as a mother.


Indeed, the lack of a plausible explanation why a co-owner would gratuitously cede a very substantial portion of his rightful share to another co-owner in partition renders the foregoing testimonies more credible as against the plain general denial of Atty. Tecson.  On this point, We find no reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals.

The established facts have several legal consequences:

First. The Second Plan, having been prepared without the knowledge and consent of any of the co-owners of Lot 2189, have no binding effect on them.

Second. The Second Partition Agreement is null and void as an absolute simulation,[80] albeit induced by a third party.  The fraud perpetrated by Atty. Tecson did more than to vitiate the consent of Waldetrudes and the respondents.  It must be emphasized that Waldetrudes and the respondents never had any intention of entering into a new partition distinct from the First Partition Agreement. The established facts reveal that Waldetrudes and the respondents assented to the Second Partition Agreement because Atty. Tecson told them that the instrument was merely required to expedite the sale of Waldetrudes' share.[81]

In other words, the deceit employed by Atty. Tecson goes into the very nature of the Second Partition Agreement and not merely to its object or principal condition.  Evidently, there is an absence of a genuine intent on the part of the co-owners to be bound under a new partition proposing a new division of Lot 2189.  The apparent consent of Waldetrudes and the respondents to the Second Partition Agreement is, in reality, totally wanting.  For that reason, the Second Partition Agreement is null and void.

Third. The Second Partition Agreement being a complete nullity, it cannot be ratified either by the lapse of time or by its approval by the guardianship court.[82]

Fourth. The First Plan and the First Partition Agreement remain as the valid and binding division of Lot 2189.  Hence, pursuant to the First Partition Agreement, Waldetrudes is the absolute owner of Lot 2189-A with an area of only five hundred seven (507) square meters. Atty. Fausto, on the other hand, has dominion over Lot 2189-B with an area of five hundred eight (508) square meters.

Fifth. Inevitably, Waldetrudes can only sell her lawful share of five hundred seven (507) square meters.  The sales in favor of Aurora and, subsequently, Atty. Tecson, are thereby null and void insofar as it exceeded the 507 square meter share of Waldetrudes in Lot 2189.  Nemo dat quod non habet.[83]

Atty. Tecson is not an innocent purchaser for value

The remaining bar to the recovery by the respondents of the excess area held by Atty. Tecson is the principle of an innocent purchaser for value of land under the Torrens System of Registration.

The petitioners claim that they are bona fide purchasers of the entire nine hundred sixty-four (964) square meters of land covered by Lot 2189-B--with Aurora merely relying on the strength of TCT No. T-4,336 in the name of Waldetrudes, while Atty. Tecson placing confidence in TCT No. T-4,338 in the name of Aurora.  Both TCT Nos. T-4,336 and T-4,338 define the area of Lot 2189-B as nine hundred sixty-four (964) square meters.[84]  The petitioners allege that at the time they made their respective purchase, they did not know of the existing partition of Lot 2189 per the First Plan and the First Partition Agreement.[85]

We disagree.  The proven facts indicate that Atty. Tecson knew or, at the very least, should have known that Atty. Fausto and Waldetrudes were co-owners in equal share of Lot 2189. We must be reminded of the following circumstances:

1. Atty. Tecson was a long-time friend and neighbor of the Faustos.[86]  Atty. Tecson himself testified that he considered Atty. Fausto as a good friend and even admitted that he would sometimes visit the latter in his house to play mahjong.[87]  By this, Atty. Tecson knew that Atty. Fausto has an actual interest in Lot 2189.

2. Atty. Tecson was the one who presented the Second Partition Agreement to Waldetrudes and the respondents;[88]

3. Waldetrudes and the respondents were not involved in the preparation of the Second Partition Agreement  and, at the time they signed the said agreement, had no knowledge of the existence of the Second Plan;[89] and

4. The Second Partition Agreement failed to state the specific areas allotted for each component of Lot 2189 and made no mention of the division proposed by the Second Plan.[90]

Being the one behind the execution of the Second Partition Agreement, there is no doubt that Atty. Tecson knew that Lot 2189 was owned in common by Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto. This, taken together with the instrument's unusual silence as to the definite area allotted for each component lot and the Second Plan, reveals a deliberate attempt on the part of Atty. Tecson to conceal from Waldetrudes and the respondents the unequal division of Lot 2189.

The necessity to conceal the disproportionate division of Lot 2189 can only be explained by Atty. Tecson's prior knowledge that such a partition is inherently defective for being contrary to the actual sharing between Waldetrudes and Atty. Fausto.  Atty. Tecson is clearly in bad faith.

Verily, Atty. Tecson cannot be considered as an innocent purchaser of the excess area of Lot 2189-B.  Based on the facts and circumstances prevailing in this case, Atty. Tecson may be charged with actual notice of the defect plaguing the Second Partition Agreement. The respondents may, therefore, recover.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the appealed Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 70303 dated 12 December 2006 is hereby AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta,* and Perez, JJ.

Endnotes:


*  Per Special Order No. 994, Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta is designated as Additional Member of the First Division in place of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo who is on official leave.

[1] Via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

[2] Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. with Associate Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Mario V. Lopez, concurring. Rollo, pp. 109-172.

[3] Id. at 93-94.

[4] Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 2692.  The decision was promulgated on 8 November 2000 and was penned by Presiding Judge Franklyn A. Villegas.  Id. at 95-108.

[5] Id. at 170-171.

[6] Id. at 102.

[7] Id. at 111.

[8] Index of Exhibits, p. 1.

[9] Id. at 3.

[10] Id. at 4.

[11] Id.

[12] Respondent Isabel Vda. De Fausto.

[13] Respondents Minerva, Maria, Francisco, Agustina, Jose, Romualdo, Elizabeth and Victor, all surnamed Fausto.

[14] Index of Exhibits, p. 35

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at 25.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id. at 10-11.

[21] Thru an instrument entitled "Extrajudicial Settlement and Partition of Estate with Sale."  Id. at 16.

[22] Jose was then only 20 years old, Romualdo only 19 years old, Elizabeth only 16 years old, and Victor only 14 years old.  TSN dated 13 July 1978, p. 2. Index of Exhibits, p. 47. Id. at 47.

[23] Docketed as SPL Case No. 1697 and assigned to the Court of First Instance, Branch III of Pagadian City.

[24] Via an Order dated 28 July 1978.  Index of Exhibits, pp. 20-24.

[25] Via an Order dated 17 January 1980.  Id. at 28-29.

[26] Rollo, p. 117.

[27] Id.

[28] Index of Exhibits, p. 65.

[29] Id. at 34.

[30] Rollo, p. 117.

[31] Index of Exhibits, p. 66.

[32] Records, p. 1-3.

[33] Id.

[34] Memorandum of the Respondents.  Rollo pp.  462-492.

[35] Id. at 480-486.

[36] Id.

[37] Id.

[38] Id.

[39] Id.

[40] Id.

[41] Id.

[42] Id.

[43] Id.

[44] Id.

[45] Id.

[46] Id.

[47] Id.

[48] Id.

[49] Index of Exhibits, pp. 5-6.

[50] See TSN dated 18 August 1992, p. 9.

[51] Id.

[52] TSN dated 22 September 1992.

[53] TSN dated 3 November 1992.

[54] TSN dated 6 November 1992.

[55] Rollo, p. 108.

[56] Id. at 107.

[57] Id. at 108.

[58] Id. at 170-171.

[59] Memorandum of the Petitioners.  Id. at 360-449.

[60] Id.

[61] Id.

[62] Id.

[63] Petition for Review on Certiorari.  Id. at 4-89.

[64] Id.

[65] Id.

[66] Index of Exhibits, p. 38.

[67] Rollo, pp. 4-89.

[68] Id.

[69] Id.

[70] Id.

[71] Heirs of Leopoldo Vencilao, Sr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123713, 1 April 1998, 288 SCRA 574, 581-582.

[72] Index of Exhibits, pp. 36-37.

[73] Republic Act No. 386.

[74] TSN dated 18 August 1992, p. 13.

[75] Rollo, pp. 148-152.

[76] Id.

[77] TSN dated 22 September 1992, pp. 27, 29 and pp. 31-33.

[78] TSN dated 3 November 1992, pp. 5-8, 10 and 12.

[79] TSN dated 6 November 1992, pp. 13-14 and pp. 16-17.

[80] Under Article 1346 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Article 1346.  An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void. A relative simulation, when it does not prejudice a third person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy binds the parties to their real agreement. (Emphasis supplied.)

[81] TSN dated 3 November 1992, p. 8.

[82] Rollo, p. 137.

[83] Literally, "one cannot give what one does not have."  See Art. 1459, New Civil Code.

[84] Rollo, pp. 391-404.

[85] Id.

[86] TSN dated 12 April 1993, pp. 15-17.

[87] Id.

[88] TSN dated 22 September 1992, pp. 27, 29, and pp. 31-33.

[89] Id.

[90] Id.



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





June-2011 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 179558, June 01 : 2011] ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK, PETITIONER, VS. FIRST AIKKA DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 169359-61, June 01 : 2011] MARCELO G. GANADEN, OSCAR B. MINA, JOSE M. BAUTISTA AND ERNESTO H. NARCISO, JR. PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ROBERT K. HUMIWAT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169191, June 01 : 2011] ROMEO VILLARUEL, PETITIONER, VS. YEO HAN GUAN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE YUHANS ENTERPRISES, RESPONDENT.

  • MEGAN SUGAR CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO, BRANCH 68, DUMANGAS, ILOILO; NEW FRONTIER SUGAR CORPORATION AND EQUITABLE PCI BANK, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186243, June 01 : 2011] HACIENDA PRIMERA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ANNA KATRINA E. HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, vs. MICHAEL S. VILLEGAS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 186243, June 01 : 2011] HACIENDA PRIMERA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and ANNA KATRINA E. HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, vs. MICHAEL S. VILLEGAS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 185230, June 01 : 2011] JOSEPH C. CEREZO,PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, JULIET YANEZA, PABLO ABUNDA, JR., AND VICENTE AFULUGENCIA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 170500 & 170510-11, June 01 : 2011] MARCELO G. GANADEN, OSCAR B. MINA, JOSE M. BAUTISTA AND ERNESTO H. NARCISO, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL TRANSMISSION COMMISSION (TRANSCO), ALIPIO NOOL, FERMIN P. LANAG, SR., EUSEBIO B. COLLADO, JOSE S. TEJANO, NECIMIO A. ABUZO, ELISEO P. MARTINEZ AND PERFECTO LAZARO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188064, June 01 : 2011] MILA A. REYES , PETITIONER, VS. VICTORIA T. TUPARAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186465, June 01 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LORIE VILLAHERMOSA Y LECO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 185917, June 01 : 2011] FREDCO MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE (HARVARD UNIVERSITY), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180683, June 01 : 2011] AURORA L. TECSON, SPOUSES JOSE L. TECSON AND LEONILA TECSON, PETITIONERS, VS. MINERVA, MARIA, FRANCISCO, AGUSTINA, JOSE, ROMUALDO, ELIZABETH AND VICTOR, ALL SURNAMED FAUSTO, AND ISABEL VDA. DE FAUSTO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167050, June 01 : 2011] SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. RIZAL POULTRY AND LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION, INC., BSD AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND BENJAMIN SAN DIEGO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161651, June 01 : 2011] ELVIRA LATEO Y ELEAZAR, FRANCISCO ELCA Y ARCAS, AND BARTOLOME BALDEMOR Y MADRIGAL, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194379, June 01 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FELICIANO "SAYSOT" CIAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 173198, June 01 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOLORES OCDEN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 178925, June 01 : 2011] MANUEL YBIERNAS, VICENTE YBIERNAS, MARIA CORAZON ANGELES, VIOLETA YBIERNAS, AND VALENTIN YBIERNAS, PETITIONERS, VS. ESTER TANCO-GABALDON, MANILA BAY SPINNING MILLS, INC., AND THE SHERIFF OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG CITY, BRANCH 163, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179675, June 01 : 2011] SPOUSES JUANITO MAHUSAY AND FRANCISCA MAHUSAY,PETITIONERS, VS. B.E. SAN DIEGO, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 154704, June 01 : 2011] NELLIE VDA. DE FORMOSO AND HER CHILDREN, NAMELY, MA. THERESA FORMOSO-PESCADOR, ROGER FORMOSO, MARY JANE FORMOSO, BERNARD FORMOSO AND PRIMITIVO MALCABA, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, FRANCISCO ARCE, ATTY. BENJAMIN BARBERO, AND ROBERTO NAVARRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 193902, June 01 : 2011] ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 193908] ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, PETITIONER, VS. SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 194075] SAMSON R. PACASUM, SR., PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191618, June 01 : 2011] ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170251, June 01 : 2011] CELIA S. VDA. DE HERRERA, PETITIONER, VS. EMELITA BERNARDO, EVELYN BERNARDO AS GUARDIAN OF ERLYN, CRISLYN AND CRISANTO BERNARDO,* RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 127851, June 02 : 2011] CORONA INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 178701 and 178754, June 06 : 2011] ZAFIRO L. RESPICIO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185211, June 06 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ARNEL BENTACAN NAVARRETE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190107, June 06 : 2011] JAPRL DEVELOPMENT CORP., PETER RAFAEL C. LIMSON AND JOSE UY AROLLADO, PETITIONERS, VS. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 168382, June 06 : 2011] AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190515, June 06 : 2011] CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS PETITIONER, VS. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160506, June 06 : 2011] JOEB M. ALIVIADO, ARTHUR CORPUZ, ERIC ALIVIADO, MONCHITO AMPELOQUIO, ABRAHAM BASMAYOR, JONATHAN MATEO, LORENZO PLATON, JOSE FERNANDO GUTIERREZ, ESTANISLAO BUENAVENTURA, LOPE SALONGA, FRANZ DAVID, NESTOR IGNACIO, JULIO REY, RUBEN MARQUEZ, JR., MAXIMINO PASCUAL, ERNESTO CALANAO, ROLANDO ROMASANTA, RHUEL AGOO, BONIFACIO ORTEGA, ARSENIO SORIANO, JR., ARNEL ENDAYA, ROBERTO ENRIQUEZ, NESTOR BAQUILA, EDGARDO QUIAMBAO, SANTOS BACALSO, SAMSON BASCO, ALADINO GREGORO, JR., EDWIN GARCIA, ARMANDO VILLAR, EMIL TAWAT, MARIO P. LIONGSON, CRESENTE J. GARCIA, FERNANDO MACABENTE, MELECIO CASAPAO, REYNALDO JACABAN, FERDINAND SALVO, ALSTANDO MONTOS, RAINER N. SALVADOR, RAMIL REYES, PEDRO G. ROY, LEONARDO P. TALLEDO, ENRIQUE F. TALLEDO, WILLIE ORTIZ, ERNESTO SOYOSA, ROMEO VASQUEZ, JOEL BILLONES, ALLAN BALTAZAR, NOLI GABUYO, EMMANUEL E. LABAN, RAMIR E. PIAT, RAUL DULAY, TADEO DURAN, JOSEPH BANICO, ALBERT LEYNES, ANTONIO DACUNA, RENATO DELA CRUZ, ROMEO VIERNES, JR., ELAIS BASEO, WILFREDO TORRES, MELCHOR CARDANO, MARIANO NARANIAN, JOHN SUMERGIDO, ROBERTO ROSALES, GERRY C. GATPO, GERMAN N. GUEVARRA, GILBERT Y. MIRANDA, RODOLFO C. TOLEDO, ARNOLD D. LASTONA, PHILIP M. LOZA, MARIO N. CULDAYON, ORLANDO P. JIMENEZ, FRED P. JIMENEZ, RESTITUTO C. PAMINTUAN, JR., ROLANDO J. DE ANDRES, ARTUZ BUSTENERA, ROBERTO B. CRUZ, ROSEDY O. YORDAN, DENNIS DACASIN, ALEJANDRINO ABATON, AND ORLANDO S. BALANGUE, PETITIONERS, VS. PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILS., INC., AND PROMM-GEM INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165279, June 07 : 2011] DR. RUBI LI, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES REYNALDO AND LINA SOLIMAN, AS PARENTS/HEIRS OF DECEASED ANGELICA SOLIMAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, June 07 : 2011] RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT

  • [G.R. No. 190259, June 07 : 2011] DATU ZALDY UY AMPATUAN, ANSARUDDIN ADIONG, REGIE SAHALI-GENERALE PETITIONERS, VS. HON. RONALDO PUNO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ALTER-EGO OF PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, AND ANYONE ACTING IN HIS STEAD AND ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP), OR ANY OF THEIR UNITS OPERATING IN THE AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO (ARMM), AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, OR ANY OF THEIR UNITS OPERATING IN ARMM, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177130, June 07 : 2011] HON. EDUARDO ERMITA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JENNY LIND R. ALDECOA-DELORINO, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 137, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, ASSOCIATION OF PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTING JG SUMMIT PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2835 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2901-P), June 08 : 2011] DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. BENILDA A. TEJADA, CHIEF LEGAL COUNSEL, COMPLAINANT, VS. CLERK OF COURT VII ATTY. JEOFFREY S. JOAQUINO, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, AND SHERIFF IV CONSTANCIO V. ALIMURUNG, BRANCH 18, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU CITY,RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 192465, June 08 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ANGELITO ESQUIBEL Y JESUS, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 170575, June 08 : 2011] SPOUSES MANUEL AND FLORENTINA DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONERS, VS. GERRY ROXAS FOUNDATION, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 185717, June 08 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DELA CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 179673, June 08 : 2011] NATIVIDAD STA. ANA VICTORIA, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 171972, June 08 : 2011] LUCIA RODRIGUEZ AND PRUDENCIA RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. TERESITA V. SALVADOR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178409, June 08 : 2011] YOLITO FADRIQUELAN, ARTURO EGUNA, ARMANDO MALALUAN, DANILO ALONSO, ROMULO DIMAANO, ROEL MAYUGA, WILFREDO RIZALDO, ROMEO SUICO, DOMINGO ESCAMILLAS AND DOMINGO BAUTRO, PETITIONERS, VS. MONTEREY FOODS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 178434] MONTEREY FOODS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. BUKLURAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MONTEREY-ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA, YOLITO FADRIQUELAN, CARLITO ABACAN, ARTURO EGUNA, DANILO ROLLE, ALBERTO CASTILLO, ARMANDO MALALUAN, DANILO ALFONSO, RUBEN ALVAREZ, ROMULO DIMAANO, ROEL MAYUGA, JUANITO TENORIO, WILFREDO RIZALDO, JOHN ASOTIGUE, NEMESIO AGTAY, ROMEO SUICO, DOMINGO ESCAMILLAS AND DOMINGO BAUTRO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170146, June 08 : 2011] HON. WALDO Q. FLORES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENIOR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, HON. ARTHUR P. AUTEA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC), PETITIONERS, VS. ATTY. ANTONIO F. MONTEMAYOR, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175834, June 08 : 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROSAURO ASETRE Y DURAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 169913, June 08 : 2011] HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE, NAMELY: JOSEFA DELESTE, JOSE RAY DELESTE, RAUL HECTOR DELESTE, AND RUBEN ALEX DELESTE, PETITIONERS, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), AS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, LAND VALUATION OFFICE OF LBP COTABATO CITY; THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR - REGION 12 OF COTABATO CITY, THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM; THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF REGION X - CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, REPRESENTED BY MCMILLAN LUCMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (PARO) OF DAR LANAO DEL NORTE; LIZA BALBERONA, IN HER CAPACITY AS DAR MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER (MARO); REYNALDO BAGUIO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ILIGAN CITY AS NOMINAL PARTY; THE EMANCIPATION PATENT HOLDERS: FELIPE D. MANREAL, CUSTUDIO M. RICO, HEIRS OF DOMINGO V. RICO, HEIRS OF ABDON T. MANREAL, MACARIO M. VELORIA, ALICIA B. MANREAL, PABLO RICO, SALVACION MANREAL, HEIRS OF TRANQUILIANA MANREAL, HEIRS OF ANGELA VELORIA, HEIRS OF NECIFURO CABALUNA, HEIRS OF CLEMENTE RICO, HEIRS OF MANTILLANO OBISO, HEIRS OF HERCULANO BALORIO, AND TITO BALER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183849, June 11 : 2011] DOMINGO M. ULEP, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, June 14 : 2011] RE: PETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE MULTIPLE MURDER CASES AGAINST MAGUINDANAO GOVERNOR ZALDY AMPATUAN, ET AL., [A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC ] RE: PETITION FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PRESENT COURT HANDLING THE TRIAL OF THE MASSACRE OF 57 PERSONS, INCLUDING 32 JOURNALISTS, IN AMPATUAN, MAGUINDANAO INTO A SPECIAL COURT HANDLING THIS CASE ALONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING GENUINE SPEEDY TRIAL and FOR THE SETTING UP OF VIDEOCAM AND MONITOR JUST OUTSIDE THE COURT FOR JOURNALISTS TO COVER AND FOR THE PEOPLE TO WITNESS THE "TRIAL OF THE DECADE" TO MAKE IT TRULY PUBLIC AND IMPARTIAL AS COMMANDED BY THE CONSTITUTION, A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC RE: LETTER OF PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III FOR THE LIVE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE MAGUINDANAO MASSACRE TRIAL.

  • [G.R. No. 189314, June 15 : 2011] MIGUEL DELA BARAIRO, PENA PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND MST MARINE SERVICES (PHILS,), INC.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2246 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3219-RTJ) : June 01, 2011] ATTY. RANDY P. BARENG, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ZENAIDA R. DAGUNA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2794 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2937-P) : June 01, 2011] DANELLA G. SONIDO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSEFINA G. ILOCSO, CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 80, MORONG, RIZAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. SCC-11-16-P (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 10-33-SCC [P] : June 01, 2011] SULTAN PANDAGARANAO A. ILUPA, COMPLAINANT, VS. MACALINOG S. ABDULLAH, CLERK OF COURT II, SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURT, MARAWI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-11-2931 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2852-P) : June 01, 2011] JOHN A. MENDEZ, ANGELITO, CABALLERO AND IVY CABALLERO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. NERISSA A. BALBUENA, COURT INTERPRETER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 7, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 196919 : June 06, 2011] JOSE RAMILO O. REGALADO, PETITIONER, VS. CHAUCER B. REGALADO AND GERARD R. CUEVAS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 155307 : June 06, 2011] M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES, INC., REPRESENTED BY CESAR CALIMLIM AND LAILA BALOIS, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, JESUS P. CAMMAYO, ARTURO SANTOS, MANUEL FACTORA, TEODORO BARROZO, MANUEL ROY, RONALD MANALILI AND JOHN ULASSUS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 142676 : June 06, 2011] EMERITA MUÑOZ, PETITIONER, VS. ATTY. VICTORIANO R. YABUT, JR. AND SAMUEL GO CHAN, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 146718] EMERITA MUÑOZ, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES SAMUEL GO CHAN AND AIDA C. CHAN, AND THE BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 164939 : June 06, 2011] SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN), PETITIONER, VS. HON. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR BUENAVENTURA C. MAGSALIN AND HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 172303] SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA HYATT (SAMASAH-NUWHRAIN), PETITIONER, VS. HOTEL ENTERPRISES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191266 : June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DARIUS BAUTISTA Y ORSINO @ DADA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 164891 : June 06, 2011] VIRGINIA M. GUADINES, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168335 : June 06, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. NESTOR GALANG, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190710 : June 06, 2011] JESSE U. LUCAS, PETITIONER, VS. JESUS S. LUCAS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188897 : June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. IRENO BONAAGUA Y BERCE, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 165887 : June 06, 2011] MAJORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. MIGUEL LIM, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS STOCKHOLDER OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND REPRESENTING THE MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 165929 ] CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MIGUEL LIM, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS A STOCKHOLDER OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION AND REPRESENTING THE MINORITY STOCKHOLDERS OF RUBY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182918 : June 06, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EFREN PATELAN LAMBERTE @ “KALBO” AND MARCELINO RUIZ NIMUAN @ “CELINE,” ACCUSED, MARCELINO RUIZ NIMUAN, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 175367 : June 06, 2011] DANILO A. AURELIO, PETITIONER, VS. VIDA MA. CORAZON P. AURELIO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177131 : June 07, 2011] BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087 : June 07, 2011] (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2621-RTJ) OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, BURGOS, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2621-RTJ) : June 07, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 70, BURGOS, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182148 : June 08, 2011] SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC. AND MACGRAPHICS CARRANZ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 183210] GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. SIME DARBY PILIPINAS, INC. AND MACGRAPHICS CARRANZ INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167391 : June 08, 2011] PHIL-VILLE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MAXIMO BONIFACIO, CEFERINO R. BONIFACIO, APOLONIO B. TAN, BENITA B. CAINA, CRISPINA B. PASCUAL, ROSALIA B. DE GRACIA, TERESITA S. DORONIA, CHRISTINA GOCO AND ARSENIO C. BONIFACIO, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE SURVIVING HEIRS OF THE LATE ELEUTERIA RIVERA VDA. DE BONIFACIO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 178771 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ALBERTO ANTICAMARA Y CABILLO AND FERNANDO CALAGUAS FERNANDEZ A.K.A. LANDO CALAGUAS, APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177099 : June 08, 2011] EDUARDO G. AGTARAP, PETITIONER, VS. SEBASTIAN AGTARAP, JOSEPH AGTARAP, TERESA AGTARAP, WALTER DE SANTOS, AND ABELARDO DAGORO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 177192] SEBASTIAN G. AGTARAP, PETITIONER, VS. EDUARDO G. AGTARAP, JOSEPH AGTARAP, TERESA AGTARAP, WALTER DE SANTOS, AND ABELARDO DAGORO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189206 : June 08, 2011] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE 15TH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND INDUSTRIAL BANK OF KOREA, TONG YANG MERCHANT BANK, HANAREUM BANKING CORP., LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, WESTMONT BANK AND DOMSAT HOLDINGS, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186395 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ITO PINIC, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 167000 : June 08, 2011] GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), PETITIONER, VS. GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (GMC) AND LAPU-LAPU DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING CORPORATION (LLDHC), RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 169971] GROUP MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (GMC), PETITIONER, VS. LAPU-LAPU DEVELOPMENT & HOUSING CORPORATION (LLDHC) AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182917 : June 08, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN PADILLA Y UNTALAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2130 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. NO. 04-1946-P) : June 13, 2011] SUSANA E. FLORES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ARIEL D. PASCASIO, SHERIFF III, MTCC, BRANCH 5, OLONGAPO CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2715 : June 13, 2011] (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1383-RTJ) Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, Efren E. Tolosa, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Sorsogon City, Respondent.

  • [G. R. No. 165548 : June 13, 2011] PHILIPPINE REALTY AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G. R. No. 167879] LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE REALTY AND HOLDINGS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 191065 : June 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JONIE DOMINGUEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 164153 : June 13, 2011] JOHN ANTHONY B. ESPIRITU, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FOR WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION, STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GOLDEN ERA HOLDINGS, INC., AND EXCHANGE EQUITY CORPORATION, PETITIONERS, VS. MANUEL N. TANKIANSEE AND JUANITA U. TAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187083 : June 13, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDUARDO DAHILIG Y AGARAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 171628 : June 13, 2011] ARMANDO V. ALANO [DECEASED], SUBSTITUTED BY ELENA ALANO-TORRES,* PETITIONER, VS. PLANTER'S DEVELOPMENT BANK, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF MAUNLAD SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, INC.,*** RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-09-2715 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1383-RTJ) : June 13, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. EFREN E. TOLOSA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, SORSOGON CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194836 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARNOLD CASTRO Y YANGA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 193840 : June 15, 2011] ALEXANDER S. GAISANO, PETITIONER, VS. BENJAMIN C. AKOL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G. R. No. 178110 : June 15, 2011] AYALA LAND, INC. AND CAPITOL CITIFARMS, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. SIMEONA CASTILLO, LORENZO PERLAS, JESSIELYN CASTILLO, LUIS MAESA, ROLANDO BATIQUIN, AND BUKLURAN MAGSASAKA NG TIBIG, AS REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, SIMEONA CASTILLO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169985 : June 15, 2011] MODESTO LEOVERAS, PETITIONER, VS. CASIMERO VALDEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 194367 : June 15, 2011] MARK CLEMENTE Y MARTINEZ @ EMMANUEL DINO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187047 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL CRUZ Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 150462 : June 15, 2011] TOP MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. LUIS FAJARDO AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177995 : June 15, 2011] HEIRS OF AGAPITO T. OLARTE AND ANGELA A. OLARTE, NAMELY NORMA OLARTE-DINEROS, ARMANDO A. OLARTE, YOLANDA OLARTE-MONTECER AND RENATO A. OLARTE, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY (NHA), MARIANO M. PINEDA, AS GENERAL MANAGER, THE MANAGER, DISTRICT I, NCR, EDUARDO TIMBANG AND DEMETRIO OCAMPO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189207 : June 15, 2011] ERIC U. YU, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE JUDGE AGNES REYES-CARPIO, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PASIG-BRANCH 261; AND CAROLINE T. YU, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187640 : June 15, 2011] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, VS. THE SPS. ANGELITO PEREZ AND JOCELYN PEREZ, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. NO. 187687] SPS. ANGELITO PEREZ AND JOCELYN PEREZ, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166838 : June 15, 2011] STA. LUCIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT, INC., PETITIONER, VS. CITY OF PASIG, RESPONDENT, MUNICIPALITY OF CAINTA, PROVINCE OF RIZAL, INTERVENOR.

  • [G.R. No. 175021 : June 15, 2011] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, PETITIONER, VS. THI THU THUY T. DE GUZMAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 181126 : June 15, 2011] LEONARDO S. UMALE, [DECEASED] REPRESENTED BY CLARISSA VICTORIA, JOHN LEO, GEORGE LEONARD, KRISTINE, MARGUERITA ISABEL, AND MICHELLE ANGELIQUE, ALL SURNAMED UMALE, PETITIONERS, VS. ASB REALTY CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189325 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEOFILO RAGODON MARCELINO, JR. ALIAS "TERENCE" AND ALIAS TEOFILO MARCELINO Y RAGODON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 187326 : June 15, 2011] PHILIPPINE ARMY, 5th INFANTRY DIVISION, THROUGH GEN. ALEXANDER YAPSING, LT. COL. NICANOR PENULIAR, AND LT. COL. FERNANDO PASION, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES MAJOR CONSTANCIO PAMITTAN (RET.) AND LEONOR PAMITTAN, SPOUSES ALBERTO TALINIO AND MARIA CHONA P. TALINIO, SPOUSES T/SGT. MELCHOR BACULI AND LAARNI BACULI, SPOUSES S/SGT. JUAN PALASIGUE AND MARILOU PALASIGUE, SPOUSES GRANT PAJARILLO AND FRANCES PAJARILLO, SPOUSES M/SGT. EDGAR ANOG AND ZORAIDA ANOG, AND SPOUSES 2LT. MELITO PAPA AND PINKY PAPA, FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR OTHER OCCUPANTS OF SITIO SAN CARLOS, UPI, GAMU, ISABELA, BY WAY OF CLASS SUIT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171742 : June 15, 2011] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. MIRANT (PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS, CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 176165] MIRANT (PHILIPPINES) OPERATIONS CORPORATION (FORMERLY: SOUTHERN ENERGY ASIA-PACIFIC OPERATIONS (PHILS.), INC.), PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184925 : June 15, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPH MOSTRALES Y ABAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2829 : June 21, 2011] JUDGE EDILBERTO G. ABSIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDGARDO A. MONTALLA, STENOGRAPHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 29, SAN MIGUEL, ZAMBOANGA PROMULGATED: DEL SUR, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6683 : June 21, 2011] RE: RESOLUTION OF THE COURT DATED 1 JUNE 2004 IN G.R. NO. 72954 AGAINST, ATTY. VICTOR C. AVECILLA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 149433 : June 22, 2011] THE COCA-COLA EXPORT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS.CLARITA P. GACAYAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 192649 : June 22, 2011] HOME GUARANTY CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. R-II BUILDERS INC. AND NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183122 : June 22, 2011] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 183889] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), ET. AL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183122 : June 22, 2011] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. [G.R. NO. 183889] GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION-INDEPENDENT LABOR UNION (GMC-ILU), ET. AL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 182980 : June 22, 2011] BIENVENIDO CASTILLO, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182819 : June 22, 2011] MAXIMINA A. BULAWAN, PETITIONER, VS. EMERSON B. AQUENDE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182645 : June 22, 2011] IN THE MATTER OF THE HEIRSHIP (INTESTATE ESTATES) OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ, ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, MACARIO J. RODRIGUEZ, DELFIN RODRIGUEZ, AND CONSUELO M. RODRIGUEZ AND SETTLEMENT OF THEIR ESTATES, RENE B. PASCUAL, PETITIONER, VS. JAIME M. ROBLES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182236 : June 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHITO GRATIL Y GUELAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 186523 : June 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. URBAN SALCEDO ABDURAHMAN ISMAEL DIOLAGRA, ABDULAJID NGAYA, HABER ASARI, ABSMAR ALUK, BASHIER ABDUL, TOTING HANO, JR., JAID AWALAL, ANNIK/RENE ABBAS, MUBIN IBBAH, MAGARNI HAPILON IBLONG, LIDJALON SAKANDAL, IMRAM HAKIMIN SULAIMAN, NADSMER ISNANI SULAIMAN, NADSMER ISNANI MANDANGAN KAMAR JAAFAR, SONNY ASALI AND BASHIER ORDOÑEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, KHADAFFY JANJALANI, ALDAM TILAO ALIAS "ABU SABAYA," ET AL., AND MANY OTHER JOHN DOES, PETER DOES AND RICHARD DOES, ACCUSED.

  • [G.R. No. 183676 : June 22, 2011] RUEL AMPATUAN "ALIAS RUEL," PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170646 : June 22, 2011] MA. LIGAYA B. SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. LITTON MILLS INCORPORATED AND/OR ATTY. RODOLFO MARIÑO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170292 : June 22, 2011] HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND (HDMF), PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES FIDEL AND FLORINDA R. SEE AND SHERIFF MANUEL L. ARIMADO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-07-2044 (FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 07-2553-RTJ) : June 22, 2011] ATTY. FACUNDO T. BAUTISTA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE BLAS O. CAUSAPIN, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 193023 : June 22, 2011] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. YUNITA TUAZON, ROSAURO TUAZON AND MARIA TERESA TUAZON, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170416 : June 22, 2011] UNIVERSITY PLANS INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. BELINDA P. SOLANO, TERRY A. LAMUG, GLENDA S. BELGA, MELBA S. ALVAREZ, WELMA R. NAMATA, MARIETTA D. BACHO AND MANOLO L. CENIDO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176740 : June 22, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. CARLO DUMADAG Y ROMIO, APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-11-1786 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-2262-MTJ] : June 22, 2011] FELICISIMA R. DIAZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE GERARDO E. GESTOPA, JR., MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, NAGA, CEBU, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170658 : June 22, 2011] ANICETO CALUBAQUIB, WILMA CALUBAQUIB, EDWIN CALUBAQUIB, ALBERTO CALUBAQUIB, AND ELEUTERIO FAUSTINO CALUBAQUIB, PETITIONERS, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 174158 : June 27, 2011] WILLIAM ENDELISEO BARROGA, PETITIONER, VS. DATA CENTER COLLEGE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILFRED BACTAD,[1] RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176951 : June 28, 2011] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREÑAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TREÑAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYBAY, PROVINCE OF LEYTE; MUNICIPALITY OF BOGO, PROVINCE OF CEBU; MUNICIPALITY OF CATBALOGAN, PROVINCE OF WESTERN SAMAR; MUNICIPALITY OF TANDAG, PROVINCE OF SURIGAO DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BORONGAN, PROVINCE OF EASTERN SAMAR; AND MUNICIPALITY OF TAYABAS, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 177499] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREÑAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TREÑAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF LAMITAN, PROVINCE OF BASILAN; MUNICIPALITY OF TABUK, PROVINCE OF KALINGA; MUNICIPALITY OF BAYUGAN, PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL SUR; MUNICIPALITY OF BATAC, PROVINCE OF ILOCOS NORTE; MUNICIPALITY OF MATI, PROVINCE OF DAVAO ORIENTAL; AND MUNICIPALITY OF GUIHULNGAN, PROVINCE OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 178056] LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (LCP), REPRESENTED BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P. TREÑAS; CITY OF CALBAYOG, REPRESENTED BY MAYOR MEL SENEN S. SARMIENTO; AND JERRY P. TREÑAS, IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS TAXPAYER, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS; MUNICIPALITY OF CABADBARAN, PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL NORTE; MUNICIPALITY OF CARCAR, PROVINCE OF CEBU; MUNICIPALITY OF EL SALVADOR, PROVINCE OF MISAMIS ORIENTAL; MUNICIPALITY OF NAGA, CEBU; AND DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176579 : June 28, 2011] WILSON P. GAMBOA, PETITIONER, VS. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES, FINANCE UNDERSECRETARY JOHN P. SEVILLA, AND COMMISSIONER RICARDO ABCEDE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS CHAIR AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF THE PRIVATIZATION COUNCIL, CHAIRMAN ANTHONI SALIM OF FIRST PACIFIC CO., LTD. IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF METRO PACIFIC ASSET HOLDINGS INC., CHAIRMAN MANUEL V. PANGILINAN OF PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY (PLDT) IN HIS CAPACITY AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF FIRST PACIFIC CO., LTD., PRESIDENT NAPOLEON L. NAZARENO OF PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, CHAIR FE BARIN OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AND PRESIDENT FRANCIS LIM OF THE PHILIPPINE STOCK EXCHANGE, RESPONDENTS. PABLITO V. SANIDAD AND ARNO V. SANIDAD, PETITIONERS-IN-INTERVENTION.

  • [G.R. No. 192591 : June 29, 2011] EFREN L. ALVAREZ, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172227 : June 29, 2011] SPOUSES WILFREDO PALADA AND BRIGIDA PALADA,* PETITIONERS, VS. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION AND SHERIFF MAYO DELA CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 181398 : June 29, 2011] FEB LEASING AND FINANCE CORPORATION (NOW BPI LEASING CORPORATION), PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES SERGIO P. BAYLON AND MARITESS VILLENA-BAYLON, BG HAULER, INC., AND MANUEL Y. ESTILLOSO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 188365 : June 29, 2011] BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., PETITIONER, VS. PRYCE GASES, INC., INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION, AND NEDERLANDSE FINANCIERINGS-MAATSCHAPPIJ VOOR ONTWIKKELINGSLANDEN N.V., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 148483 : June 29, 2011] BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, PETITIONER, VS. ORIENT COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, JOSE C. GO, GEORGE C. GO, VICENTE C. GO, GOTESCO PROPERTIES, INC., GO TONG ELECTRICAL SUPPLY INC., EVER EMPORIUM, INC., EVER GOTESCO RESOURCES AND HOLDINGS INC., GOTESCO TYAN MING DEVELOPMENT INC., EVERCREST CEBU GOLF CLUB AND RESORTS, INC., NASUGBU RESORTS INC., GMCC UNITED DEVELOPMENT CORP., GULOD RESORT, INC., OK STAR, EVER PLAZA, INC. AND EVER ELECTRICAL MFG., INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183564 : June 29, 2011] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. LUCRESIO ESPINA, APPELLANT.