Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2017 > January 2017 Decisions > G.R. No. 191636, January 16, 2017 - PRUDENTIAL BANK (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Petitioner, v. RONALD RAPANOT AND HOUSING & LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, Respondents.:




G.R. No. 191636, January 16, 2017 - PRUDENTIAL BANK (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Petitioner, v. RONALD RAPANOT AND HOUSING & LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, Respondents.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 191636, January 16, 2017

PRUDENTIAL BANK (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Petitioner, v. RONALD RAPANOT AND HOUSING & LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CAGUIOA, J:

Only questions of law may be raised in petitions for review on certiorari brought before this Court under Rule 45, since this Court is not a trier of facts. While there are recognized exceptions which warrant review of factual findings, mere assertion of these exceptions does not suffice. It is incumbent upon the party seeking review to overcome the burden of demonstrating that review is justified under the circumstances prevailing in his case.

The Case

Before the Court is an Appeal by Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Petition) of the Decision2 dated November 18, 2009 (questioned Decision) rendered by the Court of Appeals - Seventh Division (CA). The questioned Decision stems from a complaint filed by herein private respondent Ronald Rapanot (Rapanot) against Golden Dragon Real Estate Corporation (Golden Dragon), Golden Dragon's President Ma. Victoria M. Vazquez3 and herein petitioner, Bank of the Philippine Islands, formerly known as Prudential Bank4 (Bank) for Specific Performance and Damages (Complaint) before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB).5

The Petition seeks to reverse the questioned Decision insofar as it found that the Bank (i) was not deprived of due process when the Housing and Land Use Arbiter (Arbiter) issued his Decision dated July 3, 2002 without awaiting submission of the Bank's position paper and draft decision, and (ii) cannot be deemed a mortgagee in good faith with respect to Unit 2308-B2 mortgaged by Golden Dragon in its favor as collateral.5-a

The Facts

Golden Dragon is the developer of Wack-Wack Twin Towers Condominium, located in Mandaluyong City. On May 9, 1995, Rapanot paid Golden Dragon the amount ofP453,329.64 as reservation fee for a 41.1050-square meter unit in said condominium, particularly designated as Unit 2308-B2,6 and covered by Condominium Certificate of Title (CCT) No. 2383 in the name of Golden Dragon.7

On September 13, 1995, the Bank extended a loan to Golden Dragon amounting to P50,000,000.008 to be utilized by the latter as additional working capital.9 To secure the loan, Golden Dragon executed a Mortgage Agreement in favor of the Bank, which had the effect of constituting a real estate mortgage over several condominium units owned and registered under Golden Dragon's name. Among the units subject of the Mortgage Agreement was Unit 2308-B2.10 The mortgage was annotated on CCT No. 2383 on September 13, 1995.11

On May 21, 1996, Rapanot and Golden Dragon entered into a Contract to Sell covering Unit 2308-B2. On April 23, 1997, Rapanot completed payment of the full purchase price of said unit amounting to P1,511,098.97.12 Golden Dragon executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Rapanot of the same date.13 Thereafter, Rapanot made several verbal demands for the delivery of Unit 2308-B2.14

Prompted by Rapanot's verbal demands, Golden Dragon sent a letter to the Bank dated March 17, 1998, requesting for a substitution of collateral for the purpose of replacing Unit 2308-B2 with another unit with the same area. However, the Bank denied Golden Dragon's request due to the latter's unpaid accounts.15 Because of this, Golden Dragon failed to comply with Rapanot's verbal demands.

Thereafter, Rapanot, through his counsel, sent several demand letters to Golden Dragon and the Bank, formally demanding the delivery of Unit 2308-B2 and its corresponding CCT No. 2383, free from all liens and encumbrances.16 Neither Golden Dragon nor the Bank complied with Rapanot's written demands.17

Proceedings before the HLURB

On April 27, 2001, Rapanot filed a Complaint with the Expanded National Capital Region Field Office of the HLURB.18 The Field Office then scheduled the preliminary hearing and held several conferences with a view of arriving at an amicable settlement. However, no settlement was reached.19

Despite service of summons to all the defendants named in the Complaint, only the Bank filed its Answer.20 Thus, on April 5, 2002, the Arbiter issued an order declaring Golden Dragon and its President Maria Victoria Vazquez in default, and directing Rapanot and the Bank to submit their respective position papers and draft decisions (April 2002 Order).21 Copies of the April 2002 Order were served on Rapanot and the Bank via registered mail.22 However, the envelope bearing the copy sent to the Bank was returned to the Arbiter, bearing the notation "refused to receive".23

Rapanot complied with the April 2002 Order and personally served copies of its position paper and draft decision on the Bank on May 22, 2002 and May 24, 2002, respectively.24 In the opening statement of Rapanot's position paper, Rapanot made reference to the April 2002 Order.25cralawred

On July 3, 2002, the Arbiter rendered a decision (Arbiter's Decision) in favor of Rapanot, the dispositive portion of which reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
  1. Declaring the mortgage over the condominium unit No. 2308-B2 covered by Condominium Certificate of Title No. 2383 in favor of respondent Bank as null and void for violation of Section 18 of Presidential Decree No. 957[;]

  2. Ordering respondent Bank to cancel the mortgage on the subject condominium unit, and accordingly, release the title thereof to the complainant;chanrobleslaw

  3. Ordering respondents to pay jointly and severally the complainant the following sums:

    1. P100,000.00 as moral damages,

    2. P100,000.00 as exemplary damages,

    3. P50,000.00 as attorney's fees,

    4. The costs of litigations (sic), and

    5. An administrative fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) payable to this Office fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this decision, for violation of Section 18 in relation to Section 38 of PD 957;

  4. Directing the Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City to cancel the aforesaid mortgage on the title of the subject condominium unit; and

  5. Immediate[ly] upon receipt by the complainant of the owner's duplicate Condominium Certificate of Title of Unit 2308-B2, delivery of CCT No. 2383 over Unit 2308-B2 in favor of the complainant free from all liens and encumbrances.
SO ORDERED.26ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
On July 25, 2002, the Bank received a copy of Rapanot's Manifestation dated July 24, 2002, stating that he had received a copy of the Arbiter's Decision.27 On July 29, 2002, the Bank filed a Manifestation and Motion for Clarification,28 requesting for the opportunity to file its position paper and draft decision, and seeking confirmation as to whether a decision had indeed been rendered notwithstanding the fact that it had yet to file such submissions.

Subsequently, the Bank received a copy of Rapanot's Motion for Execution dated September 2, 2002,29 to which it filed an Opposition dated September 4, 2002.30

Meanwhile, the Bank's Manifestation and Motion for Clarification remained unresolved despite the lapse of five (5) months from the date of filing. This prompted the Bank to secure a certified true copy of the Arbiter's Decision from the HLURB.31

On January 16, 2003, the Bank filed a Petition for Review with the HLURB Board of Commissioners (HLURB Board) alleging, among others, that it had been deprived of due process when the Arbiter rendered a decision without affording the Bank the opportunity to submit its position paper and draft decision.

The HLURB Board modified the Arbiter's Decision by: (i) reducing the award for moral damages from P100,000.00 to P50,000.00, (ii) deleting the award for exemplary damages, (iii) reducing the award for attorney's fees from P50,000.00 to P20,000.00, and (iv) directing Golden Dragon to pay the Bank all the damages the latter is directed to pay thereunder, and settle the mortgage obligation corresponding to Unit 2308-B2.32

Anent the issue of due process, the HLURB Board held, as follows:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
x x x x

With respect to the first issue, we find the same untenable. Records show that prior to the rendition of its decision, the office below has issued and duly sent an Order to the parties declaring respondent GDREC in default and directing respondent Bank to submit its position paper. x x x33 (Underscoring omitted)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Proceedings before the Office of the President

The Bank appealed the decision of the HLURB Board to the Office of the President (OP). On October 10, 2005, the OP issued a resolution denying the Bank's appeal. In so doing, the OP adopted the BLURB's findings.34 The Bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the OP in an Order dated March 3, 2006.35

Proceedings before the CA

The Bank filed a Petition for Review with the CA on April 17, 2006 assailing the resolution and subsequent order of the OP. The Bank argued, among others, that the OP erred when it found that the Bank (i) was not denied due process before the HLURB, and (ii) is jointly and severally liable with Golden Dragon for damages due Rapanot.36

After submission of the parties' respective memoranda, the CA rendered the questioned Decision dismissing the Bank's Petition for Review. On the issue of due process, the CA held:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Petitioner asserts that it was denied due process because it did not receive any notice to file its position paper nor a copy of the Housing Arbiter's Decision. Rapanot, meanwhile, contends that the Housing Arbiter sent petitioner a copy of the April 5, 2002 Order to file position paper by registered mail, as evidenced by the list of persons furnished with a copy thereof. However, according to Rapanot, petitioner "refused to receive" it.

x x x x

In the instant case, there is no denial of due process. Petitioner filed its Answer where it was able to explain its side through its special and affirmative defenses. Furthermore, it participated in the preliminary hearing and attended scheduled conferences held to resolve differences between the parties. Petitioner was also served with respondent's position paper and draft decision. Having received said pleadings of respondent, petitioner could have manifested before the Housing Arbiter that it did not receive, if correct, its order requiring the submission of its pleadings and therefore prayed that it be given time to do so. Or, it could have filed its position paper and draft decision without awaiting the order to file the same. Under the circumstances, petitioner was thus afforded and availed of the opportunity to present its side. It cannot make capital of the defense of denial of due process as a screen for neglecting to avail of opportunities to file other pleadings.37ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
With respect to the Bank's liability for damages, the CA held thus:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 18 of PD 957, requires prior written authority of the HLURB before the owner or developer of a subdivision lot or condominium unit may enter into a contract of mortgage. Hence, the jurisdiction of the HLURB is broad enough to include complaints for annulment of mortgage involving violations of PD 957.

Petitioner argues that, as a mortgagee in good faith and for value, it must be accorded protection and should not be held jointly and severally liable with Golden Dragon and its President, Victoria Vasquez.

It is true that a mortgagee in good faith and for value is entitled to protection, as held in Rural Bank of Compostela vs. Court of Appeals but petitioner's dependence on this ruling is misplaced as it cannot be considered a mortgagee in good faith.

The doctrine of "mortgagee in good faith" is based on the rule that all persons dealing with property covered by a certificate of title, as mortgagees, are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title.

However, while a mortgagee is not under obligation to look beyond the certificate of title, the nature of petitioner's business requires it to take further steps to assure that there are no encumbrances or liens on the mortgaged property, especially since it knew that it was dealing with a condominium developer. It should have inquired deeper into the status of the properties offered as collateral and verified if the HLURB's authority to mortgage was in fact previously obtained. This it failed to do.

It has been ruled that a bank, like petitioner, cannot argue that simply because the titles offered as security were clean of any encumbrances or lien, it was relieved of taking any other step to verify the implications should the same be sold by the developer. While it is not expected to conduct an exhaustive investigation of the mortgagor's title, it cannot be excused from the duty of exercising the due diligence required of banking institutions, for banks are expected to exercise more care and prudence than private individuals in their dealings, even those involving registered property, for their business is affected with public interest.

As aforesaid, petitioner should have ascertained that the required authority to mortgage the condominium units was obtained from the HLURB before it approved Golden Dragon's loan. It cannot feign lack of knowledge of the sales activities of Golden Dragon since, as an extender of credit, it is aware of the practices, both good or bad, of condominium developers. Since petitioner was negligent in its duty to investigate the status of the properties offered to it as collateral, it cannot claim that it was a mortgagee in good faith.38ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The Bank filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated March 17,2010.39 The Bank received a copy of the resolution on March 22, 2010.39-a

On April 6, 2010, the Bank filed with the Court a motion praying for an additional period of 30 days within which to file its petition for review on certiorari.39-b

On May 6, 2010, the Bank filed the instant Petition.

Rapanot filed his Comment to the Petition on September 7, 2010.40 Accordingly, the Bank filed its Reply on January 28, 2011.41

Issues

Essentially, the Bank requests this Court to resolve the following issues:
  1. Whether or not the CA erred when it affirmed the resolution of the OP finding that the Bank had been afforded due process before the HLURB; and

  2. Whether or not the CA erred when it affirmed the resolution of the OP holding that the Bank cannot be considered a mortgagee in good faith.
The Court's Ruling

In the instant Petition, the Bank avers that the CA misappreciated material facts when it affirmed the OP's resolution which denied its appeal. The Bank contends that the CA committed reversible error when it concluded that the Bank was properly afforded due process before the HLURB, and when it failed to recognize the Bank as a mortgagee in good faith. The Bank concludes that these alleged errors justify the reversal of the questioned Decision, and ultimately call for the dismissal of the Complaint against it.

The Court disagrees.

Time and again, the Court has emphasized that review of appeals under Rule 45 is "not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion."42 Thus, a petition for review on certiorari shall only be granted on the basis of special and important reasons.43

As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45.44 However, there are recognized exceptions to this general rule, namely:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. x x x45 (Emphasis supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The Bank avers that the second, fourth and eleventh exceptions above are present in this case. However, after a judicious examination of the records of this case and the respective submissions of the parties, the Court finds that none of these exceptions apply.

The Bank was not deprived of due process before the HLURB.

The Bank asserts that it never received the April2002 Order. It claims that it was taken by surprise on July 25, 2002, when it received a copy of Rapanot's Manifestation alluding to the issuance of the Arbiter's Decision on July 3, 2002. Hence, the Bank claims that it was deprived of due process, since it was not able to set forth its "valid and meritorious" defenses for the Arbiter's consideration through its position paper and draft decision.46

The Court finds these submissions untenable.

"The essence of due process is to be heard."47 In administrative proceedings, due process entails "a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former a formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied."48

As correctly pointed out by the CA in the questioned Decision, the Bank was able to set out its position by participating in the preliminary hearing and the scheduled conferences before the Arbiter.49 The Bank was likewise able to assert its special and affirmative defenses in its Answer to Rapanot's Complaint.50

The fact that the Arbiter's Decision was rendered without having considered the Bank's position paper and draft decision is of no moment. An examination of the 1996 Rules of Procedure of the HLURB51 then prevailing shows that the Arbiter merely acted in accordance therewith when he rendered his decision on the basis of the pleadings and records submitted by the parties thus far. The relevant rules provide:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
RULE VI - PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE AND RESOLUTION

x x x x

Section 4. Position Papers. - If the parties fail to settle within the period of preliminary conference, then they will be given a period of not more than thirty (30) calendar days to file their respective verified position papers, attaching thereto the affidavits of their witnesses and documentary evidence.

In addition, as provided for by Executive Order No. 26, Series of 1992, the parties shall be required to submit their respective draft decisions within the same thirty (30)-day period.

Said draft decision shall state clearly and distinctly the findings of facts, the issues and the applicable law and jurisprudence on which it is based. The arbiter may adopt in whole or in part either of the parties' draft decision, or reject both and prepare his own decision.

The party who fails to submit a draft decision shall be fined P2,000.00.

Section 5. Summary Resolution - With or without the position paper and draft decision[,] the Arbiter shall summarily resolve the case on the basis of the verified pleadings and pertinent records of the Board. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Clearly, the Arbiter cannot be faulted for rendering his Decision, since the rules then prevailing required him to do so.

The Bank cannot likewise rely on the absence of proof of service to further its cause. Notably, while the Bank firmly contends that it did not receive the copy of the April 2002 Order, it did not assail the veracity of the notation "refused to receive" inscribed on the envelope bearing said order. In fact, the Bank only offered the following explanation respecting said notation:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
9. The claim that the Bank "refused to receive" the envelope that bore the Order cannot be given credence and is belied by the Bank's act of immediately manifesting before the Housing Arbiter that it had not yet received an order for filing the position paper and draft decision.52ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
This is specious, at best. More importantly, the records show that the Bank gained actual notice of the Arbiter's directive to file their position papers and draft decisions as early as May 22, 2002, when it was personally served a copy of Rapanot's position paper which made reference to the April 2002 Order.53 This shows as mere pretense the Bank's assertion that it learned of the Arbiter's Decision only through Rapanot's Manifestation.54 Worse, the Bank waited until the lapse of five (5) months before it took steps to secure a copy of the Arbiter's Decision directly from the HLURB for the purpose of assailing the same before the OP.

The Mortgage Agreement is null and void as against Rapanot, and thus cannot be enforced against him.

The Bank avers that contrary to the CA's conclusion in the questioned Decision, it exercised due diligence before it entered into the Mortgage Agreement with Golden Dragon and accepted Unit 2308-B2, among other properties, as collateral.55 The Bank stressed that prior to the approval of Golden Dragon's loan, it deployed representatives to ascertain that the properties being offered as collateral were in order. Moreover, it confirmed that the titles corresponding to the properties offered as collateral were free from existing liens, mortgages and other encumbrances.56 Proceeding from this, the Bank claims that the CA overlooked these facts when it failed to recognize the Bank as a mortgagee in good faith.

The Court finds the Bank's assertions indefensible.

First of all, under Presidential Decree No. 957 (PD 957), no mortgage on any condominium unit may be constituted by a developer without prior written approval of the National Housing Authority, now HLURB.57 PD 957 further requires developers to notify buyers of the loan value of their corresponding mortgaged properties before the proceeds of the secured loan are released. The relevant provision states:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Section 18. Mortgages. - No mortgage on any unit or lot shall be made by the owner or developer without prior written approval of the Authority. Such approval shall not be granted unless it is shown that the proceeds of the mortgage loan shall be used for the development of the condominium or subdivision project and effective measures have been provided to ensure such utilization. The loan value of each lot or unit covered by the mortgage shall be determined and the buyer thereof, if any, shall be notified before the release of the loan. The buyer may, at his option, pay his installment for the lot or unit directly to the mortgagee who shall apply the payments to the corresponding mortgage indebtedness secured by the particular lot or unit being paid for, with a view to enabling said buyer to obtain title over the lot or unit promptly after full payment thereof.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In Far East Bank & Trust Co. v. Marquez,58 the Court clarified the legal effect of a mortgage constituted in violation of the foregoing provision, thus:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The lot was mortgaged in violation of Section 18 of PD 957. Respondent, who was the buyer of the property, was not notified of the mortgage before the release of the loan proceeds by petitioner. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void. Hence, the mortgage over the lot is null and void insofar as private respondent is concerned.59 (Emphasis supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The Court reiterated the foregoing pronouncement in the recent case of Philippine National Bank v. Lim60 and again in United Overseas Bank of the Philippines, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners-HLURB.61

Thus, the Mortgage Agreement cannot have the effect of curtailing Rapanot's right as buyer of Unit 2308-B2, precisely because of the Bank's failure to comply with PD 957.

Moreover, contrary to the Bank's assertions, it cannot be considered a mortgagee in good faith. The Bank failed to ascertain whether Golden Dragon secured HLURB's prior written approval as required by PD 957 before it accepted Golden Dragon's properties as collateral. It also failed to ascertain whether any of the properties offered as collateral already had corresponding buyers at the time the Mortgage Agreement was executed.

The Bank cannot harp on the fact that the Mortgage Agreement was executed before the Contract to Sell and Deed of Absolute Sale between Rapanot and Golden Dragon were executed, such that no amount of verification could have revealed Rapanot's right over Unit 2308-B2.62 The Court particularly notes that Rapanot made his initial payment for Unit 2308-B2 as early as May 9, 1995, four (4) months prior to the execution of the Mortgage Agreement. Surely, the Bank could have easily verified such fact if it had simply requested Golden Dragon to confirm if Unit 2308-B2 already had a buyer, given that the nature of the latter's business inherently involves the sale of condominium units on a commercial scale.

It bears stressing that banks are required to exercise the highest degree of diligence in the conduct of their affairs. The Court explained this exacting requirement in the recent case of Philippine National Bank v. Vila,63 thus:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Belle Corporation, the Court exhorted banks to exercise the highest degree of diligence in its dealing with properties offered as securities for the loan obligation:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
When the purchaser or the mortgagee is a bank, the rule on innocent purchasers or mortgagees for value is applied more strictly. Being in the business of extending loans secured by real estate mortgage, banks are presumed to be familiar with the rules on land registration. Since the banking business is impressed with public interest, they are expected to be more cautious, to exercise a higher degree of diligence, care and prudence, than private individuals in their dealings, even those involving registered lands. Banks may not simply rely on the face of the certificate of title. Hence, they cannot assume that, x x x the title offered as security is on its face free of any encumbrances or lien, they are relieved of the responsibility of taking further steps to verify the title and inspect the properties to be mortgaged. As expected, the ascertainment of the status or condition of a property offered to it as security for a loan must be a standard and indispensable part of the bank's operations. x x x (Citations omitted)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
We never fail to stress the remarkable significance of a banking institution to commercial transactions, in particular, and to the country's economy in general. The banking system is an indispensable institution in the modern world and plays a vital role in the economic life of every civilized nation. Whether as mere passive entities for the safekeeping and saving of money or as active instruments of business and commerce, banks have become an ubiquitous presence among the people, who have come to regard them with respect and even gratitude and, most of all, confidence. Consequently, the highest degree of diligence is expected, and high standards of integrity and performance are even required, of it.64 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In loan transactions, banks have the particular obligation of ensuring that clients comply with all the documentary requirements pertaining to the approval of their loan applications and the subsequent release of their proceeds.65

If only the Bank exercised the highest degree of diligence required by the nature of its business as a financial institution, it would have discovered that (i) Golden Dragon did not comply with the approval requirement imposed by Section 18 of PD 957, and (ii) that Rapanot already paid a reservation fee and had made several installment payments in favor of Golden Dragon, with a view of acquiring Unit 2308-B2.66

The Bank's failure to exercise the diligence required of it constitutes negligence, and negates its assertion that it is a mortgagee in good faith. On this point, this Court's ruling in the case of Far East Bank & Trust Co. v. Marquez67 is instructive:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Petitioner argues that it is an innocent mortgagee whose lien must be respected and protected, since the title offered as security was clean of any encumbrance or lien. We do not agree.
"x x x As a general rule, where there is nothing on the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto. This rule, however, admits of an exception as where the purchaser or mortgagee has knowledge of a defect or lack of title in the vendor, or that he was aware of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into the status of the property in litigation."ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Petitioner bank should have considered that it was dealing with a town house project that was already in progress. A reasonable person should have been aware that, to finance the project, sources of funds could have been used other than the loan, which was intended to serve the purpose only partially. Hence, there was need to verity whether any part of the property was already the subject of any other contract involving buyers or potential buyers. In granting the loan, petitioner bank should not have been content merely with a clean title, considering the presence of circumstances indicating the need for a thorough investigation of the existence of buyers like respondent. Having been wanting in care and prudence, the latter cannot be deemed to be an innocent mortgagee.

Petitioner cannot claim to be a mortgagee in good faith. Indeed it was negligent, as found by the Office of the President and by the CA. Petitioner should not have relied only on the representation of the mortgagor that the latter had secured all requisite permits and licenses from the government agencies concerned. The former should have required the submission of certified true copies of those documents and verified their authenticity through its own independent effort.

Having been negligent in finding out what respondent's rights were over the lot, petitioner must be deemed to possess constructive knowledge of those rights. (Emphasis supplied)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The Court can surely take judicial notice of the fact that commercial banks extend credit accommodations to real estate developers on a regular basis. In the course of its everyday dealings, the Bank has surely been made aware of the approval and notice requirements under Section 18 of PD 957. At this juncture, this Court deems it necessary to stress that a person who deliberately ignores a significant fact that could create suspicion in an otherwise reasonable person cannot be deemed a mortgagee in good faith.68 The nature of the Bank's business precludes it from feigning ignorance of the need to confirm that such requirements are complied with prior to the release of the loan in favor of Golden Dragon, in view of the exacting standard of diligence it is required to exert in the conduct of its affairs.

Proceeding from the foregoing, we find that neither mistake nor misapprehension of facts can be ascribed to the CA in rendering the questioned Decision. The Court likewise finds that contrary to the Bank's claim, the CA did not overlook material facts, since the questioned Decision proceeded from a thorough deliberation of the facts established by the submissions of the parties and the evidence on record.

For these reasons, we resolve to deny the instant Petition for lack of merit.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated November 18, 2009 and Resolution dated March 17, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 93862 are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:


1Rollo, pp. 8-23.

2 Id. at 28-41. Penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor, with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a Member of this Court) and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring.

3 Also spelled as "Vasquez" elsewhere in the records.

4Rollo, p. 30.

5 Id. at 31.

5-a Id. at 16-20.

6 Id. at 29.

7 Id. at 48.

8 Id. at 29.

9 Id. at 44.

10 Id. at 44-46.

11 Id. at 48 (dorsal portion).

12 Id. at 30, 68. P1,511,098.87 as reflected on page 68.

13 See id. at 11, 30.

14 Id. at 30.

15 Id.

16 Id. at 30-31, 69.

17 Id. at 31, 69.

18 Id. at 31, 70.

19 Id. at 12, 31.

20 Id. at 70.

21 Id.

22 Id. at 34, 75.

23 Id. at 75.

24 Id.

25cralawred Id.

26 Id. at 31-32.

27 Id. at 12.

28 Id. at 51-54.

29 Id. at 55-58.

30 Id. at 59-62. Based on the records, it appears that Rapanot's Motion for Execution and the Bank's Opposition thereto remain unresolved.

31 Id. at 13.

32 Id. at 32-33.

33 Id. at 14.

34 Id. at 14-15.

35 Id. at 15.

36 Id. at 34.

37 Id. at 34-36.

38 Id. at 37-40.

39 Id. at 42-43.

39-a Id. at 8.

39-b Id.

40 Id. at 65-89.

41 Id. at 92-99.

42 RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 6.

43 Id.

44 Id. at Section 1.

45Ambray and Ambray, Jr. v. Tsourous, et al., G.R. No. 209264, July 5, 2016, pp. 6-7.

46Rollo, p. I 7.

47San Miguel Properties, Inc. v. BF Homes, Inc., G.R. No. 169343, August 5, 2015, 765 SCRA 131, 166.

48 Id.

49Rollo, p. 35.

50 Id.

51 Board of Commissioners Resolution No. R-586, series of 1996.

52Rollo, p. 94.

53 Id. at 70, 94.

54 Id. at 52.

55 Id. at 18.

56 Id. at 19.

57 The regulatory functions of the National Housing Authority was transferred to the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (later HLURB) by virtue of Executive Order No. 648, series of 1981, which took effect on February 7, 1981.

58 465 Phil. 276 (2004).

59 Id. at 289.

60 702 Phil. 461 (2013).

61 G.R. No. 182133, June 23, 2015, 760 SCRA 300.

62 See rollo, p. 96.

63 G.R. No. 213241, August 1, 2016.

64 Id. at 8-9.

65Far East Bank and Trust Co. (now Bank of the Philippines Islands) v. Tentmakers Group, Inc., 690 Phil. 134, 146 (2012).

66Rollo, p. 69.

67 Supra note 58, at 287-288.

68Land Bank of the Philippines v. Belle Corporation, G.R. No. 205271, September 2, 2015, p. 13.



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






January-2017 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 221071, January 18, 2017 - EDDIE E. DIZON AND BRYAN R. DIZON, Petitioners, v. YOLANDA VIDA P. BELTRAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 197492, January 18, 2017 - CHATEAU ROYALE SPORTS AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Petitioner, v. RACHELLE G. BALBA AND MARINEL N. CONSTANTE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 188448, January 11, 2017 - RODOLFO LAYGO AND WILLIE LAYGO, Petitioners, v. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SOLANO, NUEVA VIZCAYA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 223528, January 11, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEFFREY HIRANG Y RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 189158, January 11, 2017 - JAMES IENT AND MAHARLIKA SCHULZE, Petitioners, v. TULLETT PREBON (PHILIPPINES), INC., Respondent.; G.R. No. 189530 - JAMES IENT AND MAHARLIKA SCHULZE, Petitioners, v. TULLETT PREBON (PHILIPPINES), INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218871, January 11, 2017 - JEBSENS MARITIME, INC.,SEA CHEFS LTD., AND ENRIQUE M. ABOITIZ, Petitioners, v. FLORVIN G. RAPIZ, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-15-2423, January 11, 2017 - SANTIAGO D. ORTEGA, JR., Complainant, v. JUDGE ROGELIO LL. DACARA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 37, IRIGA CITY, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215290, January 11, 2017 - HEIRS OF PABLO FELICIANO, JR., NAMELY: LOURDES FELICIANO TUDLA, GLORIA FELICIANO CAUDAL, GABRIELA FELICIANO BAUTISTA, ANGELA FELICIANO LUCAS, DONNA CELESTE FELICIANO-GATMAITAN, CYNTHIA CELESTE FELICIANO, AND HECTOR REUBEN FELICIANO, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSIGNEE, VICTORIA ALDA REYES ESPIRITU, Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187950, January 11, 2017 - CRISTINA BARSOLO, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193340, January 11, 2017 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF TANGKAL, PROVINCE OF LANAO DEL NORTE, Petitioner, v. HON. RASAD B. BALINDONG, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, 4TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, MARAWI CITY, AND HEIRS OF THE LATE MACALABO ALOMPO, REPRESENTED BY SULTAN DIMNANG B.ALOMPO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 213027, January 18, 2017 - ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 213253 - IMELDA ROMUALDEZ MARCOS AND IRENE MARCOS ARANETA, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 210788, January 10, 2017 - ANNALIZA J. GALINDO AND EVELINDA P. PINTO, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 187448, January 09, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. ALFREDO R. DE BORJA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 188658, January 11, 2017 - HEIRS OF TEODORA LOYOLA, REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ZOSIMO L. MENDOZA, SR., Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND ALICIA R. LOYOLA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206617, January 30, 2017 - PHILIPPINE NUMISMATIC AND ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY, Petitioner, v. GENESIS AQUINO, ANGELO BERNARDO, JR., EDUARDO M. CHUA, FERNANDO FRANCISCO, JR., FERMIN S. CARINO, PERCIVAL M. MANUEL, FERNANDO M. GAITE, JR., JOSE CHOA, TOMAS DE GUZMAN, JR., LI VI JU, CATALINO M. SILANGIL, RAMUNDO SANTOS, PETER SY, AND WILSON YULOQUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 206345, January 23, 2017 - NATIONAL HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FLORITA C. TAROBAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 198968, January 18, 2017 - STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION, AND ADMIBROS SHIPMANAGEMENT CO., LTD., Petitioners, v. RODRIGO C. DOCTOLERO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215807, January 25, 2017 - ROSARIO E. CAHAMBING, Petitioner, v. VICTOR ESPINOSA AND JUANA ANG, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 181596, January 30, 2017 - JENESTOR B. CALDITO AND MARIA FILOMENA T. CALDITO, Petitioners, v. ISAGANI V. OBADO AND GEREON V. OBADO, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 191636, January 16, 2017 - PRUDENTIAL BANK (NOW BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS), Petitioner, v. RONALD RAPANOT AND HOUSING & LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 192602, January 18, 2017 - SPOUSES MAY S. VILLALUZ AND JOHNNY VILLALUZ, JR., Petitioners, v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR DAVAO CITY, Respondents.

  • A.C. No. 7478, January 11, 2017 - EDUARDO R. ALICIAS, JR., Complainant, v. ATTYS. MYRNA V. MACATANGAY, KARIN LITZ P. ZERNA, ARIEL G. RONQUILLO, AND CESAR D. BUENAFLOR, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 210328, January 30, 2017 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioner, v. APOLINARIO C. PAUIG, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 10533, January 31, 2017 - SILVESTRA MEDINA AND SANTOS MEDINA LORAYA, Complainant, v. ATTY. RUFINO LIZARDO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 199977, January 25, 2017 - SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES, INC., CROWN SHIPMANAGEMENT INC., AND VICTORIO Q. ESTA, Petitioners, v. WILFREDO T. DE LEON, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184450, January 24, 2017 - JAIME N. SORIANO, MICHAEL VERNON M. GUERRERO, MARY ANN L. REYES, MARAH SHARYN M. DE CASTRO AND CRIS P. TENORIO, Petitioners, v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.; G.R. No. 184508 - SENATOR MANUEL A. ROXAS, Petitioner, v. MARGARITO B. TEVES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND LILIAN B. HEFTI, IN HER CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.; G.R. No. 184538 - TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DEMOCRITO T. MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. MARGARITO B. TEVES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND LILIAN B. HEFTI, IN HER CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE Respondents.; G.R. No. 185234 - SENATOR FRANCIS JOSEPH G. ESCUDERO, TAX MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. AND ERNESTO G. EBRO, Petitioners, v. MARGARITO B. TEVES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND SIXTO S. ESQUIVIAS IV, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 186967, January 18, 2017 - DIVINA PALAO, Petitioner, v. FLORENTINO III INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 168288, January 25, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HAROLD TIO GO, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-2814-MTJ], January 09, 2017 - TRINIDAD GAMBOA-ROCES, Complainant, v. JUDGE RANHEL A. PEREZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, ENRIQUE MAGALONA-MANAPLA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-11-2989 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3249-P), January 10, 2017 - WYNA MARIE P. GARINGAN�FERRERAS, Complainant, v. EDUARDO T. UMBLAS, LEGAL RESEARCHER II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BALLESTEROS, CAGAYAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212375, January 25, 2017 - KABISIG REAL WEALTH DEV., INC. AND FERNANDO C. TIO, Petitioners, v. YOUNG CORPORATION BUILDERS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220617, January 30, 2017 - NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. BENNY A. PUEDAN, JR., JAYFER D. LIMBO, BRODNEY N. AVILA, ARTHUR C. AQUINO, RYAN A. MIRANDA, RONALD R. ALAVE, JOHNNY A. DIMAYA, MARLON B. DELOS REYES, ANGELITO R. CORDOVA, EDGAR S. BARRUGA, CAMILO B. CORDOVA, JR., JEFFRY B. LANGUISAN, EDISON U. VILLAPANDO, JHEIRNEY S. REMOLIN, MARY LUZ A. MACATALAD,* JENALYN M. GAMUROT, DENNIS G. BAWAG, RAQUEL A. ABELLERA, AND RICANDRO G. GUATNO, JR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 213224, January 16, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROQUE DAYADAY Y DAGOOC, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 207838, January 25, 2017 - LEO T. MAULA, Petitioner, v. XIMEX DELIVERY EXPRESS, INC., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 214303, January 30, 2017 - DELFIN C. GONZALEZ, JR., Petitioner, v. MAGDALENO M. PE�A, ALABANG COUNTRY CLUB, INC., AND MS. ARSENIA VERA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 200009, January 23, 2017 - SPRING HOMES SUBDIVISION CO., INC., SPOUSES PEDRO L. LUMBRES AND REBECCA T. ROARING, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES PEDRO TABLADA, JR. AND ZENAIDA TABLADA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206627, January 18, 2017 - VAN CLIFFORD TORRES Y SALERA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206390, January 30, 2017 - JACK C. VALENCLA, Petitioner, v. CLASSIQUE VINYL PRODUCTS CORPORATION, JOHNNY CHANG (OWNER) AND/OR CANTINGAS MANPOWER SERVICES, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 218466, January 23, 2017 - MANNY RAMOS, ROBERTO SALONGA AND SERVILLANO NACIONAL, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No. 221425 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANNY RAMOS, ROBERTO SALONGA A.K.A. "JOHN," "KONYONG" SALONGA AND SERVILLANO NACIONAL @ "INONG" @ DIONISIO NACIONAL, Accused-Appellants.

  • GR. No. 194190, January 25, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 215009, January 23, 2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CARMEN SANTORIO GALENO, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212774, January 23, 2017 - WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY-PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. GUILLERMO T. MAGLAYA, SR., Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 192159, January 25, 2017 - COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MARK SENSING AUSTRALIA PTY. LTD., MARK SENSING PHILIPPINES, INC. AND OFELIA B. CAJIGAL, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONIR JAAFAR Y TAMBUYONG, Accused-Appellants.

  • G.R. No. 193397, January 25, 2017 - ESTRELLA MEJIA-ESPINOZA AND NORMA MEJIA DELLOSA, Petitioners, v. NENA A. CARI�O, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 178842, January 30, 2017 - RENE H. IMPERIAL AND NIDSLAND RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. HON. EDGAR L. ARMES, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 4, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 5TH JUDICIAL REGION, LEGAZPI CITY AND ALFONSO B. CRUZ, JR., Respondents.; G.R. No. 195509 - ALFONSO B. CRUZ, Petitioner, v. RENE IMPERIAL AND NIDSLAND RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219509, January 18, 2017 - ILOILO JAR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMGLASCO CORPORATION/AGUILA GLASS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 215331, January 23, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUDIGARIO BELEN Y MARASIGAN, Accused-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 175949, January 30, 2017 - UNITED ALLOY PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, SPOUSES DAVID C. CHUA AND LUTEN CHUA, Petitioners, v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 220506, January 18, 2017 - C.I.C.M. MISSION SEMINARIES (MARYHURST, MARYHEIGHTS, MARYSHORE AND MARYHILL) SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, INC., FR. ROMEO NIMEZ, CICM, Petitioners, v. MARIA VERONICA C. PEREZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 219345, January 30, 2017 - SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. GREAT WALL COMMERCIAL PRESS COMPANY, INC., ALFREDO BURIEL ATIENZA, FREDINO CHENG ATIENZA AND SPS. FREDERICK CHENG ATIENZA AND MONICA CU ATIENZA, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 211175, January 18, 2017 - ATTY. REYES G. GEROMO, FLORENCIO BUENTIPO, JR., ERNALDO YAMBOT AND LYDIA BUSTAMANTE, Petitioners, v. LA PAZ HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 189714, January 25, 2017 - TPG CORPORATION (FORMERLY THE PROFESSIONAL GROUP PLANS, INC.), Petitioner, v. ESPERANZA B. PINAS, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 193150, January 23, 2017 - LOIDA M. JAVIER, Petitioner, v. PEPITO GONZALES, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 5582, January 24, 2017 - ARTHUR O. MONARES, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEVI P. MU�OZ, Respondent.; A.C. No. 5604, January 24, 2017 - ALBAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Complainant, v. ATTY. LEVI P. MU�OZ, Respondent.; A.C. No. 5652, January 24, 2017 - BENJILIEH M. CONSTANTE,1, Complainant, v. ATTY. LEVI P. MU�OZ, Respondent.

  • A.C. No. 11545 (Formerly CBD case No. 12-3439), January 24, 2017 - SUSAN LOBERES-PINTAL, Complainant, v. ATTY. RAMONCITO B. BAYLOSIS, Respondent.

  • G.R. Nos. 205045 & 205723, January 25, 2017 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3615 (Formerly A.M. No. 15-8-249-RTC), January 24, 2017 - MARITA TOLENTINO AND FELY SAN ANDRES, Complainants, v. SHERIFF IV GLENN A. UMALI, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 10, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207971, January 23, 2017 - ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT, Petitioner, v. ASIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212376, January 31, 2017 - MADAG BUISAN, ET AL., NAMELY: HADJI MUSA MANALAG, HADJI SUKOR MAMADRA, H. SALAM TUMAGANTANG, SUGRA SUKOR BUISAN, MONAURA TUMAGANTAING, NOJA TUMAGANTANG, SULTAN BUISAN, PAULO TUMAGANTANG,DAKUNDAY MANALAG, KINGI BUISAN, BUGOY PANANGBUAN, TUMBA TUMAGANTANG, MAMALO ELI, MALIGA ATOGAN, PAGUIAL SALDINA, EBRAHIM TAGURAK, HADJI ESMAEL KASAN, OTAP GANDAWALI, TWAN IT SALAM, EDEL SABAL, GUIMA H. SALAM, KATUNTONG H. SALAM, THONY IBAD, BANGKALING BANTAS, ALON KIKI, DAMDAEN TUMAGANTANG, MAMASALIDO KIKI, ROSTAN TUMAGANTANG, MONTASER DAMDAMEN, MODSOL TANDIAN, RAHMAN SUKOR, SUKARNO H. SUKOR, KUNGAS PAYAG, JIMIE BUISAN, MADAODAO KEDTUNGEN, TUTIN MANALAG, DATU ALI MANALAG, TUGAYA MANALAG, SAGANDINGAN MANALAG, SAUIATRA MANALAG, KAUTIN MANALAG, PANTAS DALANDAS,ULAD BANTAS, PALANO BUISAN, PANIANG BUISAN, INDASIA BUISAN, MAKAKWA BUISAN, SULTAN BUISAN, MANTIKAN BUISAN, ABULKARIM TUMAGANTANG, SAKMAG MANALAG, DEMALANES BUISAN, MANALAG PAKAMAMA, MALAMBONG PANDIAN, ABDULKARIM TUMAGANTANG, GUIANDAL OPAO, KUSIN PUWI, H. SULAIMAN UNAK, PABLO ALQUESAR, SAGIBA GABAO, TABUAN LUAY, POTENCIANO NAVARRO, KUSIN PENEL, MALAMON TALIB, MALIGA BIDA, MOKAMAD KUDALIS, CEDULA PAGABANGAN, SALILAGUIA LENANDANG, ENGKEL ALILAYA, MANGATOG SUDANG, MANAGKING MANGATONG, SEVERINO FERNANDEZ, JOSEAS GOTOKANO, MALYOD LAWADI, MANSALGAN UDAY, SANDATO DALANDAS, BANTAS DALANDAS, MAMANTAL DALANDAS, MAKALIPUAS MAKALILAY, BINGKONG BUISAN, FARIDA SUMAGKA, NUNET YUSOP, KADIGIA SABAL, NANANGGA TAYA, MAMA BANGKALING, CORRY DAMO, BUKA LATIP, MADAODAO KADTUNGAN, KOMINIE ADAM, BANGKALING BANTAS, RONIE EDZAKAL, KEDOPAO BUTO, SARIP EDZEMBAGA, TUTEN MANALAG, ABAS LATIP, MAKALIPUAS MAKALILAY, DAGENDENGAN ZUMBAGA, PAGUIAL LUBALANG, JIMMY BUISAN, KADIL SUKOR, JAKIRI LOZANO, MANUEL MAKATIMBEL, AISA BANSUAN, TATO BUISAN, HARON ABO, MAMAAN LAMADA, THING GUIAMILON, TATO SUMAGKA, NORALYN KAHAR, MOKAGI ANTAS, KINGI BUISAN, ZAINUDEN PANAYAMAN, PIAGA MANALAG, SAGIATRA MANALAG, SAILA LATIP, PINKI KADTUNGAN, ALI KADTUNGAN, NANDING TAYA, INDAY BUISAN, KINTOL KADTUNGAN, MALAWINIE EDZAKAL, MINGUTIN AMAL, BUGLI MANALAG, MANGAPANG SADINA, KURANUNGAN SADINA, SANGUTIN LUBALANG, DAUD H. LATIP, REY PALAMAN, MONTANER KID, BAKATED KADTUNGAN, GUIAMATULA DIMAGIL, ALON H. LATIP, SULTAN BUISAN, HADJI MUSA MANALAG, MANTO BANTAS, ABAS L. LATIP RODIEL KID, DATU BUTO ALI, ODIN TIAGO, ABDUL ANTA, EMBIT BUKA, LAGA KID, ULAMA DALUS, SUWAILA DAMDAMIN, TALILISAN PALEMBA, LANTOKA PATOG, MAKATEGKA BANGKONG, BEMBI KUDO, MOGAWAN GINANTE, PATANG BALODTO, EUSEBIO QUIJANO, FAISAN TAYA, LAGA KAHAR, ESMAEL KID, TAYA PALAMAN, NORJANA BUISAN, TONTONGAN MANALAG, SAMIER MANGULI, SINUMAGAD BANSUAN, BHING HARON, NENENG BUISAN, DIDO KID, ZALDI AGIONG, ROWENA MANALAG, NASSER MAMALANGKAP, TANOSI ZUMBAGA, GUIDAT DANDALANAN, FATIMA KID, KIMAMA KATIMPO, ALON GUIANDAL, MAMALUBA AKOD, AIN SUKOR AND NORIA DALANDAS, ALL REPRESENTED BY BAI ANNIE C. MONTAWAL, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 193156, January 18, 2017 - IVQ LANDHOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. REUBEN BARBOSA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 212818, January 25, 2017 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORIO QUITA ALIAS "GREG", Accused-Appellant.

  • A.M. No. P-16-3550 (Formerly A.M. IPI No. 14-4252-P), January 31, 2017 - JUDGE GUILLERMO P. AGLORO, Complainant, v. COURT INTERPRETER LESLIE BURGOS, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/CLERK III ANNALIZA P. SANTIAGO, COURT STENOGRAPHER MARISSA M. GARCIA, AND CLERK III JULIETA FAJARDO, ALL OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 83, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 202781, January 10, 2017 - CRISANTO M. AALA, ROBERT N. BALAT, DATU BELARDO M. BUNGAD, CESAR B. CUNTAPAY, LAURA S. DOMINGO, GLORIA M. GAZMEN-TAN, AND JOCELYN P. SALUDARES-CADAYONA, Petitioners, v. HON. REY T. UY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE CITY MAYOR OF TAGUM CITY, DAVAO DEL NORTE, MR. ALFREDO H. SILAWAN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CITY ASSESSOR OF TAGUM CITY, HON. DE CARLO L. UY, HON. ALLAN L. RELLON, HON. MARIA LINA F. BAURA, HON. NICANDRO T. SUAYBAGUIO, JR., HON. ROBERT L. SO, HON. JOEDEL T. CAASI, HON. OSCAR M. BERMUDEZ, HON. ALAN D. ZULUETA, HON. GETERITO T. GEMENTIZA, HON. TRISTAN ROYCE R. AALA, HON. FRANCISCO C. REMITAR, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS CITY COUNCILORS OF TAGUM CITY, DAVAO DEL NORTE, HON. ALFREDO R. PAGDILAO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ABC REPRESENTATIVE, AND HON. MARIE CAMILLE C. MANANSALA, IN HER CAPACITY AS SKF REPRESENTATIVE, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 190431, January 31, 2017 - BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE SATUR C. OCAMPO, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE LIZA L. MAZA, BAYAN MUNA PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE TEODORO A. CASI�O, ANAKPAWIS PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVE JOEL B. MAGLUNSOD, PAGKAKAISA NG MGA SAMAHAN NG TSUPER AT OPERATOR NATIONWIDE (PISTON), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL GEORGE F. SAN MATEO, Petitioners; AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, GLICERIO M. MANZANO, JR., RAUL M. CONSUNJI, AND LYN C. BRONTE, Petitioners-In-Intervention, v. LEANDRO R. MENDOZA SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS; ARTURO C. LOMIBAO, CHIEF OF THE LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, AND STRADCOM CORPORATION, Respondents.; FEDERATION OF JEEPNEY OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (FEJODAP) REPRESENTED BY ZENAIDA "MARANAN" DE CASTRO, ALLIANCE OF TRANSPORT OPERATORS AND DRIVERS ASSOCIATIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES (ALTODAP) REPRESENTED BY MELENCIO "BOY" VARGAS, LAND TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (LTOP) REPRESENTED BY ORLANDO MARQUEZ, NTU�TRANSPORTER REPRESENTED BY ALEJO SAYASA, PASANG-MASDA NATIONWIDE, INC., REPRESENTED BY ROBERTO "OBET" MARTIN, ALLIANCE OF CONCERNED TRANSPORT ORGANIZATIONS (ACTO) REPRESENTED BY EFREN DE LUNA, Oppositors-Intervenors.

  • G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017 - TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY/GEM ZE�AROSA, Petitioners, v. FELICIANO Z. PAJARON AND LARRY A. CARBONILLA, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 184317, January 25, 2017 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LIBERTY CORRUGATED BOXES MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 207786, January 30, 2017 - SPOUSES MARCELIAN TAPAYAN AND ALICE TAPAYAN, Petitioners, v. PONCEDA M. MARTINEZ, Respondent.

  • G.R. No. 206038, January 25, 2017 - MARY E. LIM, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, REYNALDO V. LIM, Petitioner, v. MOLDEX LAND, INC., 1322 ROXAS BOULEVARD CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, AND JEFFREY JAMINOLA, EDGARDO MACALINTAL, JOJI MILANES, AND CLOTHILDA ANNE ROMAN, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS PURPORTED MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 1322 GOLDEN EMPIRE CORPORATION, Respondents.

  • G.R. No. 196347, January 23, 2017 - SUSAN A. YAP, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH LAGTAPON, Respondent.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-14-2401 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3841-RTJ), January 25, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE ILLUMINADA P. CABATO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BAGUIO CITY; CLERK OF COURT IV ARMANDO G. YDIA, PROCESS SERVER I SONNY S. CARAGAY, CLERK OF COURT III OFELIA T. MONDIGUING, SHERIFF III JOSE E. ORPILLA, AND CLERK III VILMA C. WAYANG, ALL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES [MTCC], BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE ROBERTO R. MABALOT, CLERK OF COURT III LOURDES G. CAOILI, AND UTILITY WORKER I ANTINO M. WAKIT, ALL OF BRANCH I, MTCC, BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE JENNIFER P. HUMINDING, COURT STENOGRAPHER II PERLA B. DELACRUZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER II GRACE F. DESIERTO, COURT STENOGRAPHER II CAROLYN B. DUMAG, COURT STENOGRAPHER II MARY ROSE VIRGINIA O. MATIC, AND CLERK IV LOURDES D. WANGWANG, ALL OF BRANCH 2, MTCC, BAGUIO CITY; CLERK OF COURT REMEDIOS BALDERAS-REYES, SHERIFF IV RUBEN L. ATIJERA, CASH CLERK II MERLIN ANITA N. CALICA, PROCESS SERVER EDWIN V. FANGONIL, SHERIFF IV ROMEO R. FLORENDO, LIBRARIAN II NAMNAMA L. LOPEZ, CLERK III JEFFREY G. MENDOZA, CLERK II ROLANDO G. MONTES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III VENUS D. SAGUID, AND UTILITY WORKER I FRANCISCO D. SIAPNO, ALL OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; CLERK OF COURT GAIL M. BACBAC-DEL ISEN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III RESTITUTO A. CORPUZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER MARLENE A. DOMAOANG, AND LEGAL RESEARCHER II FLORENCE F. SALANGO, ALL OF BRANCH 3, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE MIA JOY C. OALLARES-CAWED, LEGAL RESEARCHER II ELIZABETH G. AUCENA, CLERK OF COURT V RUTH B. BAWAYAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III JOY P. CHILEM-AGUILBA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III LEONILA P. FERNANDEZ, PROCESS SERVER MARIA ESPERANZA N. JACOB, COURT CLERK III REYNALDO R. RAMOS, COURT INTERPRETER III MELITA C. SALINAS, AND COURT CLERK III WILMA M. TAMANG, ALL OF BRANCH 4, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE ANTONIO M. ESTEVES, UTILITY WORKER JONATHAN R. GERONIMO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III PRECY T. GOZE, CLERK OF COURT V ALEJANDRO EPIFANIO D. GUERRERO, AND COURT STENOGRAPHER III VIRGINIA M. RAMIREZ, ALL OF BRANCH 5, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; CLERK OF COURT MYLENE MAY ADUBE-CABUAG, PROCESS SERVER ROBERTO G. CORO�A, JR., COURT STENOGRAPHER III VICTORIA J. DERASMO, CLERK OF COURT III BOBBY D. GALANO, UTILITY WORKER MANOLO V. MARIANO III, AND CLERK III ROWENA C. PASAG, ALL OF BRANCH 6, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE MONA LISA TIONGSON-TABORA, PROCESS SERVER ROMEO E. BARBACHANO, COURT STENOGRAPHER EDNA P. CASTILLO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III DOLORES M. ESERIO, COURT INTERPRETER III GEORGE HENRY A. MANIPON, COURT STENOGRAPHER III ANITA MENDOZA, CLERK III DOMINADOR B. REMIENDO, AND CLERK III DOLORES G. ROMERO, ALL OF BRANCH 7, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; UTILITY WORKER GILBERT L. EVANGELISTA, PROCESS SERVER EDUARDO B. RODRIGO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III ELIZABETH M. LOCKEY, COURT STENOGRAPHER III ANALIZA G. MADRONIO, CLERK III EVANGELINE N. GONZALES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III MARILOU M. TADAO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III AGNES P. MACA-EY, SHERIFF IV MARANI S. BACOLOD, CLERK III EDGARDO R. ORATE, AND LEGAL RESEARCHER JESSICA D. GUANSING, ALL OF BRANCH 59, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; CLERK OF COURT ROGER NAFIANOG, COURT STENOGRAPHER III RUTH C. LAGAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III ELEANOR V. NI�ALGA, CLERK III ANGELINA M. SANTIAGO, UTILITY WORKER LEO P. VALDEZ, AND CLERK III SAMUEL P. VIDAD, ALL OF BRANCH 60, RTC, BAGUIO CITY; JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES, COURT INTERPRETER III ELEANOR I. BUCAYCAY, LEGAL RESEARCHER II JOAN G. CASTILLO, CLERK OF COURT V JERICO G. GAY�YA, CLERK III CONCEPCION SOLIVEN VDA. PULMANO, AND SHERIFF IV ALBERT G. TOLENTINO, ALL OF BRANCH 61, RTC, BAGUIO CITY, Respondents.