SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 106060. June 21, 1999]

EMILIE T. SUMBAD and BEATRICE B. TAIT, petitioners, vs. T E C!URT !" A##EALS, EDUARD !$!REN, !LI%IA T. A$!$ING, E%EL&N '. SACLANGEN, a(()(*ed +, -e. -u(+and Ju/)o Sa0/an1en, MAR& ATI'AG a(()(*ed +, -e. -u(+and A.*-u. A*)2a1, JAIME T. "R!NDA, BARBARA TALL!NGEN, JULIA #I&ES, a(()(*ed +, -e. -u(+and Ed2a.d #),e(, GLEN #A3UIT! and "ELICITAS ALINA!, respondents.
S&N!#SIS Petitioner Emilie T. Sumbad and Beatrice B. Tait were children and compulsory heirs !ata B. Tait and "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. %ter the death o% !ata B. Tait in &'()$ "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. maintained a common*law relationship with +aria ,. Tait to whom on pril -$ &'./$ he donated a parcel o% unre!istered land in Sitio Sum*at$ Bontoc. On December -/$ &'..$ "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. died. ,rom &'0- to &'0($ +aria ,. Tait sold lots included within the Sum*at property in %a1or o% pri1ate respondents. In &'00$ +aria ,. Tait died. On 2uly -/$ &'0'$ the petitioners %iled an action %or 3uietin! o% title$ nulli%ication o% deeds o% sale and reco1ery o% possession with dama!es claimin! that +aria ,. Tait sold the Sum*at property without their 4nowled!e and consent5 that she had no ri!ht to sell the same considerin! that the money used to purchase the said property came %rom the proceeds o% the inherited 6tocan property o% their mother which was sold by "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr5 that the deed o% donation between "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. and +aria ,. Tait was null and 1oid %or bein! a %or!ery. On the other hand$ the pri1ate respondents claimed that they were purchaser in !ood %aith and %or 1alue as they purchased the lots on the stren!th o% a Ta7 Declaration o1er the Sum*at property showin! the seller$ +aria ,. Tait$ to be the owner o% the property in 3uestion5 and that the action was barred by laches. %ter trial$ the trial court dismissed the complaint$ which was also a%%irmed by the Court o% ppeals. 8ence$ this petition %or re1iew. The Court ruled the petition has no merit. In the case at bar$ e1en a re1iew o% e1idence %ailed to yield any reason to disre!ard the %actual %indin!s o% the trial court and the appellate court.

,or!ery o% Donation had been pro1ed by petitioner by clear and con1incin! e1idence. Petitioner had not shown that the deed o% donation was in1alid. It was presumed that the deputy cler4 o% court who notari9ed the deed was authori9ed by the cler4 o% court. ,urther$ as admitted by petitioners$ their mother$ !ata B. Tait$ died on pril (:$&'()$ while their %ather$ "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.$ died on December -/$ &'... ;et$ petitioners waited %or twel1e <&-= years be%ore claimin! their inheritance$ ha1in! brou!ht their present action on 2uly -/$&'0'. Petitioners were thus !uilty o% laches$ which precluded them %rom assailin! the donation made their %ather in %a1or o% +aria ,. Tait. >aches is the %ailure or ne!lect %or an reasonable len!th o% time to do that which$ by e7ertin! due dili!ence$ could or should ha1e been done earlier. The decision o% the Court o% ppeals was ,,I?+ED S&LLABUS
1. REMEDIAL LA'4 E%IDENCE4 CREDIBILIT&4 "ACTUAL "INDINGS !" T E TRIAL C!URT 'ILL N!T BE DISTURBED !N A##EAL.5 It is settled that %actual %indin!s o% the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has o1erloo4ed or i!nored some %act or circumstance o% su%%icient wei!ht or si!ni%icance$ which$ i% considered$ would alter the result o% the case. @hen there is no con%lict between the %indin!s o% the trial and appellate courts$ a re1iew o% the %acts %ound by the appellate court is unnecessary. 2. CRIMINAL LA'4 "!RGER&4 MUST BE #R!%ED B& CLEAR AND C!N%INCING E%IDENCE.5 ,or!ery should be pro1ed by clear and con1incin! e1idence$ and whoe1er alle!es it has the burden o% pro1in! the same. Not only is Shirley Eillen!erAs testimony di%%icult to belie1e$ it shows it had been rehearsed as she anticipated the 3uestion o% petitionerAs counsel$ and sometime said more than was called %or by the 3uestion. 7 7 7 Petitioners should ha1e presented handwritin! e7perts to support their claim that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.As si!nature on the deed o% donation was indeed a %or!ery.

6. REMEDIAL LA'4 A##EAL4 ISSUES CANN!T BE RAISED "!R T E "IRST TIME !N A##EAL. * Time and a!ain$ this Court has ruled that liti!ants cannot raise an issue %or the %irst time on appeal as this would contra1ene the basics rules o% %air play and Bustice. 7. ID.4 ACTI!NS4 LAC ES #RESENT IN CASE AT BAR .* Petitioners claim that they only learned o% the sales to pri1ate respondents o% lots included in the Sum*at property in &'00 when they 1isited +aria ,. Tait in Bontoc because she was seriously ill. s admitted by the petitioners$ their mother$ !ata B. Tait$ died on pril (:$ &'()$ while their %ather$ "eor!e #.Tait$ Sr.$ died on December -/$ &'... ;et$ petitioners waited %or twel1e <&-= years be%ore claimin! their inheritance$ ha1in! brou!ht their present action only on 2uly -/$ &'0'. Petitioners are thus !uilty o% laches$ which precludes them %rom assailin! the donation made by their %ather in %a1or o% +aria ,. Tait. >aches is the %ailure or ne!lect %or an unreasonable len!th o% time to do that which$ by e7ertin! due dili!ence$ could or should ha1e been done earlier.

A##EARANCES !" C!UNSEL Domogan, Lockey, Orate, Dao-ayan, Boquiren, Adquilen, Cascolan Sinlao Law Offices for petitioners. duardo Acoking for !imself and on "e!alf of !is co-respondents.

DECISI!N
MEND!8A J.:

This is a petition %or re1iew o% the decision C&D o% the Court o% ppeals$ ,i%th Di1ision$ dated +ay -0$ &''-$ in C *".?. CV No. (-.&&$ a%%irmin!$ with modi%ication$ the dismissal by the ?e!ional Trial Court o% Bontoc$ +ountain Pro1ince$ Branch ()$ o% a complaint %or 3uietin! o% title$ annulment o% sale$ and reco1ery o% possession %iled by petitioners a!ainst pri1ate respondents. The %acts are as %ollowsE %ter the death o% his wi%e$ !ata B. Tait$ in &'()$ "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. li1ed in common*law relationship with +aria ,. Tait to whom on pril -$ &'./ he donated a certain parcel o% unre!istered land in Sitio Sum*at$ Bontoc$ more particularly described as %ollowsE

One <&= parcel o% unre!istered a!ricultural land situated in sitio Sumat$ Bontoc$ +t. Pro1ince$ bounded on the North by Sumat Cree4 and the rice %ield o% In!in!a >imayo!$ East by the 8ospital ?eser1ation o% Bontoc and the lots o% !ustin 6tutan and In!in!a$ South by a ,oot Trail and @est by the ?oman Catholic +ission$ Pa4eopan and the rice %ields o% Nardin! and Pappi$ pre1iously declared under Ta7 Dec. No. )::: o% Bontoc$ +t. Pro1ince5C-D
"eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. himsel% passed away on December -/$ &'... ,rom &'0- to &'0($ +aria ,. Tait sold lots included within the Sum*at property in %a1or o% pri1ate respondents Eduard O4oren$ "re!orio co4in!$ E1elyn Saclan!an$ +ary tiwa!$ 2aime T. ,ronda$ Barbara Tallon!en$ 2ulia Piyes$ "len Pa3uito$ and ,elicitas linao. Pri1ate respondents purchased the lots on the stren!th o% a Ta7 Declaration o1er the Sum*at property showin! the seller$ +aria ,. Tait$ to be the owner o% the property in 3uestion and therea%ter planted di%%erent 4inds o% %ruit trees and plants on the lots purchased by them. On 2uly -/$ &'0'$ petitioners Emilie T. Sumbad and Beatrice B. Tait brou!ht an action %or 3uietin! o% title$ nulli%ication o% deeds o% sale$ and reco1ery o% possession with dama!es a!ainst pri1ate respondents. They alle!ed that they are the children and compulsory heirs o% the spouses "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. and !ata B. Tait o% Bondoc$ +ountain Pro1ince5 that said spouses died on December -/$ &'.. and pril (:$ &'()$ respecti1ely5 that said spouses owned real property in Otucan$ Bau4o$ +ountain Pro1ince5 and that a%ter the death o% their mother$ their %ather "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. sold the Otucan property and used the proceeds thereo% to purchase a residential lot in Sum*at$ Bontoc$ +ountain Pro1ince. Petitioners %urther alle!ed that %rom &'0- to &'0($ +aria ,. Tait$ without their 4nowled!e and consent$ sold lots included within the Sum*at property to pri1ate respondents5 that prior to the sales transactions$ pri1ate respondents were warned that the Sum*at property did not belon! to +aria ,. Tait but to the heirs o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.5 that this notwithstandin!$ pri1ate respondents proceeded to purchase the lots in 3uestion %rom +aria ,. Tait5 that +aria ,. Tait had no ri!ht to sell the Sum*at property5 that the deeds o% sale are null and 1oid and did not trans%er title to pri1ate respondents5 that petitioners disco1ered the transactions only in &'00 but$ as soon as they learned o% the same$ they lost no time in communicatin! with pri1ate respondents5 and that pri1ate respondents re%used petitionersA re3uest %or a meetin!$ lea1in! the latter no other alternati1e but to %ile the case in court.

Pri1ate respondents mo1ed to dismiss the complaint$ but their motion was denied by the trial court in its Order$ dated September -)$ &'0'.C(D They then %iled their answer in which they denied they had been in%ormed o% petitionersA claim o% ownership o% the lots. They also denied that petitioners learned o% the sales to them only in &'00. They alle!ed that the Sum*at property$ co1ered by Ta7 Declaration No. (''$ did not belon! to the conBu!al partnership o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. and !ata B. Tait %or the reason that the latter died more than thirty <(:= years be%ore the issuance o% Ta7 Declaration No. ('' in &'.(5 that the late +aria ,. Tait$ second wi%e o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.$ did not need the consent o% petitioners to be able to sell the Sum*at property to pri1ate respondents5 that pri1ate respondents were purchasers in !ood %aith and %or 1alue5 that the action was barred by laches5 that they were in possession o% the lots and had introduced impro1ements thereon5 and that they had separate ta7 declarations co1erin! their respecti1e lots. s a compulsory counterclaim$ pri1ate respondents prayed that petitioners be ordered to pay P&:$:::.:: as moral dama!es$ P-$::: as attorneyAs %ees to each pri1ate respondent$ the appearance %ees$ and costs. On No1ember -&$ &'0'$ the trial court issued a pre*trial order statin! the partiesA stipulation o% %acts$ as well as the %actual and le!al issues$ as %ollowsE

B. Stipulations or dmissions o% the PartiesE &. Plainti%%s admit the %ollowin!E a. That !ata Bana!ui Tait died on pril (:$ &'()5

b. That the property in issue was bou!ht by "eor!e Tait a%ter the death o% !ata Bana!ui Tait5 c. That a deed o% donation was e7ecuted by "eor!e Tait in %a1or o% +aria with the land in dispute as the subBect matter thereo%5 d. That deeds o% sale o% the property in 3uestion were e7ecuted in %a1or o% the de%endants by +aria Tait in &'0/5 e. -. That +aria Tait died in &'00. ....

C. Issues In1ol1edE &. ,actualE a. @hether or not "eor!e Tait and !ata Bana!ui Tait owned and sold a lot at Otucan$ Bau4o$ +t. Pro1ince and the proceeds thereo% used in buyin! the property in dispute5

b. @hether or not +aria Tait sold the lot in issue to the de%endants without the 4nowled!e o% the plainti%%s5 c. @hether or not de%endants be%ore buyin! the land were %orewarned o% its contro1ersial status5 d. @hether or not plainti%%s only recently disco1ered the sale made by +aria Tait to the de%endants. &. >e!alE a. @hether or not plainti%%s are the compulsory heirs o% the deceased "eor!e Tait and !ata Bana!ui Tait5 b. @hether or not the property co1ered by TD ('' and the subBect hereo% was owned by "eor!e Tait and !ata Bana!a Tait5 c. @hether or not the deed o% donation e7ecuted by "eor!e Tait in %a1or o% +aria Tait is 1alid and e%%ecti1e5 d. @hether or not the sale made by +aria Tait to the de%endants is 1alid and e%%ecti1e5 e. %. @hether or not de%endants are buyers in !ood %aith5 @hether or not laches barred the claim o% the plainti%%s .C/D

?eali9in! that the pre*trial order included their admission that a deed o% donation was e7ecuted by "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. in %a1or o% +aria ,. Tait o% the Sum*at property$ petitioners subse3uently mo1ed %or the inclusion as one o% the %actual issues the alle!ed %or!ery o% the deed o% donation. The Court did not act on petitionersA motion. 8owe1er$ petitioners were allowed to present e1idence on the alle!ed %or!ery without obBection by the pri1ate respondents. On pril ($ &'':$ the trial court$ on motion o% petitioners$ authori9ed the cler4 o% court o% the +unicipal Trial Court in Cities$ Ba!uio City to ta4e the deposition o% one o% petitionersA witnesses$ Shirley Eillin!er. Durin! the trial$ petitioners presented the %ollowin! as witnessesE Beatrice B. Tait$ Dalino Pio$ ?osita clipen$ and tty. n!ela D. Papa. Petitioner Bea*.)0e B. Ta)*$ a ):*year*old missionary nun and resident o% Capan!an$ Ben!uet$ testi%ied that she and co*plainti%% Emilie T. Sumbad are sisters5 that their parents are "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. and !ata B. Sumbad5 that the late +aria ,. Tait was their stepmother5 that +aria ,. Tait became their stepmother some time in &'/&5 that her parents had a property in Sum*at but it was sold5 that her parents had a property in Otucan5 and that she did not 4now what

happened to the said property althou!h she thou!ht that her parents sold it in order to purchase the Sum*at property.CFD On cross*e7amination$ petitioner Beatrice Tait testi%ied that her mother$ !ata B. Tait$ died in &'()5 that she li1ed with her parents in Otucan %rom &'/: to &'/&5 and that the house at Sum* at was occupied by her !randmother <her stepmotherAs mother=.C)D Da/)no #)o$ a ): year*old %armer and resident o% Paya!*eo$ testi%ied that !ata B. Tait was her sister and "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. was the latterAs husband5 that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. and !ata B. Tait li1ed in Otucan5 that !ata B. Tait inherited the Otucan property %rom their %ather5 that "eor!e #. Tait mo1ed to Bontoc at a place near the mar4et5 and that the spouses sold the Otucan property and a%terwards purchased the Sum*at property.C.D On cross*e7amination$ Dalino Pio said that at the time that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. sold the Otucan property$ !ata B. Tait was already dead5 that she does not 4now +aria ,. Tait5 that she did not personally see the Sum*at property5 and that her sole basis %or sayin! that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. had used the proceeds o% the sale o% the Otucan property to purchase the property at Sum*at was what "eor!e #. Tait related to her.C0D Lano, Ta9a,en1$ a %armer$ testi%ied that she 4new the late "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.5 that she also 4new someone named ,ani*is5 that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. !a1e money to ,ani*is %or the purchase o% the Sum*at property5 that she does not 4now the e7act amount !i1en by "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. to ,ani*is5 that also present durin! that meetin! were three <(= other persons named Samo4i$ mo4$ and clipen5 and that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. a%terwards planted co%%ee and oran!e trees on the Sum* at property and built a house thereon.C'D On cross*e7amination$ >anoy Ta4ayen! testi%ied that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. was her uncle5 that when "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. ac3uired the Sum*at property$ he was already married to +aria ,. Tait5 and that the money used to purchase the Sum*at property came %rom the proceeds o% the sale o% the house at Bau4o.C&:D She testi%ied that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. was an educated man and a %ormer member o% Con!ress.C&&D Ro()*a A0/):en$ a /0*year*old housewi%e and resident o% Bontoc$ testi%ied that she 4new the pri1ate respondents5 that she sent a letter to pri1ate respondents on +ay (:$ &'0'5 that she was instructed by petitioners to send the letter to pri1ate respondents5 and that the letter was prepared and si!ned by petitionersA lawyer.C&-D A**,. An1e/a D. #a:a testi%ied that she had been the re!ister o% deeds o% Bontoc since ,ebruary &)$ &'0.5 that as such$ she was in char!e o% 4eepin! records o% all documents relatin! to the re!istration o% real property$ instruments$ and mort!a!es5 that she did not recall recei1in! a letter %rom Emilie T. Sumbad5 and that she issued a certi%ication$ mar4ed as E7hibit ,$ to the e%%ect that no deeds o% sale between +aria ,. Tait and co4in!$ rthur tiwa!$ Blan9a$ "lenn Pa3uito$ 2aime ,ronda$ and >olita Tolentino were re!istered in her o%%ice.C&(D ,or their documentary e1idence$ petitioners presented ta7 declarations co1erin! the Sum*at property in the name o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.5 a certi%ication showin! payment o% real estate ta7es made by "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. on the property5 o%%icial receipts5 a certi%ication by the re!ister o% deeds o% Bontoc that no deed o% sale co1erin! the Sum*at property was re!istered in her o%%ice5 a copy o% the deed o% donation$ dated pril -$ &'./5 a letter$ dated +ay (:$ &'0'$ addressed to pri1ate respondents5 and the transcripts o% the deposition o% Shirley Eillen!er.C&/D

In her deposition$ Shirley Eillin!er stated that she 4new Beatrice B. Tait and Emilie T. Sumbad$ dau!hters o% the late "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.5 that she personally 4new "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.5 that she also 4new a person named ?a3uel Tait who had been her boardmate at the Perpetual 8elp Dormitory in Ba!uio City when the witness was in the third year o% her colle!e education5 that ?a3uel Tait was "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.As ward5 that she saw a Deed o% Donation re!ardin! the Sum*at property and other documents containin! the si!nature o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.5 and that she was able to read the contents o% the Deed o% Donation. She identi%ied E7hibit I as a carbon copy o% the document she re%erred to. She %urther testi%ied that in &'.' or &'0: she saw ?a3uel type the Deed o% Donation at the Perpetual 8elp Dormitory5 that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. was already dead at that time$ ha1in! died in &'.) when the witness was a third year hi!h school student5 that she saw ?a3uel Tait %or!e the si!nature o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. on a piece o% paper5 that ?a3uel hersel% at %irst tried to copy the si!nature o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. on the paper then as4ed other male boarders to copy the si!nature o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.5 that she told ?a3uel Tait that it was wron! to %or!e the si!nature o% any person but ?a3uel Tait i!nored her and told her to 4eep 3uiet5 that ?a3uel Tait personally si!ned the Deed o% Donation5 that ?a3uel Tait also tried to %or!e the si!nature o% +aria Tait5 that she did not see ?a3uel Tait put +aria TaitAs si!nature on the document but only saw ?a3uel Tait %or!e +aria TaitAs si!nature on a piece o% paper5 and that the %ollowin! day$ ?a3uel Tait went to Bontoc brin!in! with her the Deed o% Donation.C&FD On cross*e7amination$ this witness stated that it too4 ?a3uel about -: to (: minutes to type the Deed o% Donation5 that ?a3uel Tait had a %orm %rom which she copied the Deed o% Donation5 that ?a3uel Tait did not re%er to a ta7 declaration in preparin! the Deed o% Donation5 and that it too4 the male boarders the entire mornin!$ %rom 0 oAcloc4 until && oAcloc4$ to copy the si!nature o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.C&)D On the other hand$ pri1ate respondents presented the %ollowin! witnessesE ,elipa Piyes$ 2ulio Saclan!en$ "lenn Pa3uito$ and Edward O4oren. "e/):a #),e($ a )&*year old businesswoman and resident o% >oc*on!$ Bontoc$ testi%ied that her son is one o% the lot purchasers o% the Sum*at property5 that ?osita clipen called %or her and demanded additional payment %or the lot purchased by her son5 that she as4ed ?osita clipen why additional payment was bein! demanded when the price o% the lot had already been %ully paid to +aria ,. Tait5 that Emilie T. Sumbad was also present when ?osita clipen demanded money %rom her5 and that Emilie T. Sumbad is the stepdau!hter o% +aria ,. Tait.C&.D On cross*e7amination$ ,elipa Piyes narrated that it was her son$ Edward Piyes$ who pro1ided the money %or the purchase o% the Sum*at lot5 that she recei1ed a letter some time in +ay or 2une$ &'0' %rom ?osita clipen5 that she a%%i7ed her si!nature on the letter5 that durin! that time$ Edward$ who was in Saudi rabia$ told her to purchase the lot %or as lon! as there was no contro1ersy o1er the same5 that +rs. Tait had a ta7 declaration under her name and on the %aith thereo%$ she purchased the lot %rom +aria ,. Tait5 that a deed o% sale was e7ecuted between +aria ,. Tait and 2ulia Piyes$ her dau!hter*in*law$ as purchaser5 that as a resident o% Bontoc$ she 4new "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. and +aria ,. Tait5 that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. was %ormerly a con!ressman %or the +ountain Pro1ince5 that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. and +aria ,. Tait li1ed to!ether as husband and wi%e but did not ha1e any children5 and that she 4new that the petitioners are stepdau!hters o% +aria ,. Tait.C&0D Ju/)o Sa0/an1en$ a resident o% Om%e!$ testi%ied that a deed o% sale was also e7ecuted between him and his wi%e E1elyn Saclan!en$ on the one hand$ and +aria ,. Tait$ on the other5

that %rom the records o% the municipal o%%ice$ they 1eri%ied that +aria ,. Tait was the owner o% the Sum*at property5 that they also 1eri%ied %rom other lot purchasers that +aria ,. Tait is the real owner o% the property5 that a%ter purchasin! the lot$ they planted camote and banana on the lot5 and that he and his wi%e caused the issuance o% a ta7 declaration in their name.C&'D G/enn #a;u)*o$ /0 years old and a resident o% Cha4cha4an$ Bontoc$ claimed that upon learnin! that lots were bein! o%%ered %or sale in Sum*at$ he 1eri%ied %rom the municipal assessorAs o%%ice that the Sum*at property was owned by +aria ,. Tait5 that he had a ta7 declaration co1erin! the lot purchased %rom +aria ,. Tait5 that he planted camote and papaya on the lot5 that he had been payin! real estate ta7es on the lot %rom the time he purchased it5 and that since ac3uirin! the lot he had ne1er been disturbed in his possession. C-:D On cross*e7amination$ he re1ealed that he also recei1ed a letter$ dated +ay (:$ &'0'$ %rom the petitionersA representati1es5 that a%ter recei1in! the letter$ a con%erence was held between the parties at the house o% ?osita clipen wherein the latter as4ed the purchasers %or additional payment %or the purchased lots5 that aside %rom them$ other lot purchasers were present at the con%erence5 and that upon in1esti!ation in the municipal assessorAs o%%ice$ he was only shown one ta7 declaration and did not as4 to be shown pre1ious ta7 declarations on the Sum*at property.C-&D Ed2a.d !9o.en$ a /)*year*old teacher and resident o% "uina*an!$ Bontoc$ testi%ied that he purchased a lot %rom +aria ,. Tait5 that he had a ta7 declaration co1erin! the lot in his name5 that the deed o% sale was re!istered with the ?e!ister o% Deeds o% Bontoc$ +ountain Pro1ince5 that a%ter purchasin! the lot$ he planted camote and constructed a stone wall thereon5 that he had ne1er been disturbed in his possession until the present5 that he paid real estate ta7es on the lot5 and that he was as4ed to attend a con%erence with petitioners but he declined because he was busy.C--D Pri1ate respondents presented copies o% the deeds o% sale e7ecuted in their %a1or by +aria ,. Tait as documentary e1idence. On pril 0$ &''&$ the trial court rendered Bud!ment dismissin! the complaint. The dispositi1e portion pro1ides as %ollowsE

@8E?E,O?E$ decision is hereby rendered dismissin! the instant action and orderin! the plainti%%s to pay each o% the de%endants herein PF::.:: by way o% attorneyAs %ees and liti!ation e7penses. Costs a!ainst plainti%%s. SO O?DE?ED.C-(D
On appeal$ the Court o% ppeals a%%irmed the trial courtAs decision with the modi%ication that the award o% attorneyAs %ees was set aside.C-/D 8ence$ this petition. Petitioners assi!n the %ollowin! errors as ha1in! been alle!edly committed by the appellate courtE

&. T8E 8ONO? B>E CO6?T O, PPE >S E??ED IN NOT DEC> ?IN" T8E DEED O, DON TION INTE? VIVOS IN , VO? O, + ?I T IT S N6>> ND VOID5 -. T8E 8ONO? B>E CO6?T O, PPE >S E??ED IN NOT DEC> ?IN" T8E DEEDS O, S >E TO T8E DE,END NTS S N6>> ND VOID IT 8 VIN" O?I"IN TED ,?O+ VOID DOC6+ENT ND T? NS CTION5 (. T8E 8ONO? B>E CO6?T O, PPE >S SE?IO6S>; E??ED IN NOT PP>;IN" ?T. &(($ NE@ CIVI> CODE$ <NO@ ?T. 0.$ , +I>; CODE= ND ?T. ./' O, T8E NE@ CIVI> CODE IN T8E BOVE*ENTIT>ED C SE5 /. T8E 8ONO? B>E CO6?T O, PPE >S E??ED IN NOT PP?ECI TIN" T8E ST? I"8T,O?@ ?D ND C TE"O?IC > DEC> ? TIONS O, S8I?>E; EI>>EN"E? ?E" ?DIN" T8E ,O?"E?; O, T8E DON TION INTE? VIVOS5 F. T8E 8ONO? B>E CO6?T O, PPE >S SE?IO6S>; E??ED IN ,INDIN" T8 T T8E > TE + ?I , S* N" T IT 8 D T8E 6T8O?IT; TO DISPOSE O, T8E > ND IN CONT?OVE?S;$ NOT@IT8ST NDIN" T8E , CT T8 T IT DID NOT BE>ON" TO 8E? ND T8E , CT T8 T T8E >>E"ED DEED O, DON TION IN 8E? , VO? IS ,O?"E?; ND VOID B INITIO5 ). T8E 8ONO? B>E CO6?T O, PPE >S E??ED IN ,INDIN" T8 T T8E DE,END NTS O@NE?S8IP O, T8E >OTS <6N> @,6>>;= SO>D TO T8E+$ NOT@IT8ST NDIN" T8E , CT T8 T T8E SE>>E? DID NOT 8 VE T8E ?I"8T O? 6T8O?IT; TO DO SO5 .. T8E 8ONO? B>E CO6?T O, PPE >S E??ED IN ,INDIN" T8 T T8E DE,END NTS 8 VE T8E BETTE? ?I"8T TO POSSESS T8E P?E+ISES IN G6ESTION5 0. T8E 8ONO? B>E CO6?T O, PPE >S E??ED IN ,INDIN" T8 T T8E P> INTI,,S*PETITIONE?S , I>ED TO P?OVE T8EI? ?I"8T O, S6CCESSION TO T8E P?OPE?T; IN G6ESTION5 '. T8E 8ONO? B>E CO6?T O, PPE >S E??ED IN ,INDIN" T8 T P> INTI,,S 8 VE NO TIT>E$ >E" > O@NE?S8IP O? EG6IT B>E$ TO T8E P?OPE?T; IN G6ESTION5

&:. T8E 8ONO? B>E CO6?T O, PPE >S SE?IO6S>; E??ED IN ,INDIN" T8 T T8E CTION IS B ??ED B; > C8ES.C-FD
Petitioners contend that the deed o% donation$ dated pril -$ &'./$ is 1oid %or the %ollowin! reasonsE <&= it is a %or!ery5 <-= it was made in 1iolation o% rt. &(( o% the Ci1il Code$ now rt. 0. o% the ,amily Code5 and <(= it was notari9ed by a person who had no authority to act as a notary public. They %urther contend that +aria ,. Tait had no authority to sell the Sum*at property and$ there%ore$ the sales in %a1or o% pri1ate respondents are null and 1oid5 that as heirs o% "eor!e #. Tait$ they are entitled to the Sum*at property5 and that since they only learned o% the sales transactions sometime in &'00 when +aria ,. Tait became seriously ill$ they are not barred %rom brin!in! the present action. The petition has no merit. It is settled that %actual %indin!s o% the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has o1erloo4ed or i!nored some %act or circumstance o% su%%icient wei!ht or si!ni%icance$ which$ i% considered$ would alter the result o% the case. C-)D @hen there is no con%lict between the %indin!s o% the trial and appellate courts$ a re1iew o% the %acts %ound by the appellate court is unnecessary. C-.D In the case at bar$ e1en a re1iew o% the e1idence %ails to yield any reason %or us to disre!ard the %actual %indin!s o% the trial court and the appellate court. ").(*. Petitioners %ault both the trial and appellate courts %or not !i1in! credence to the testimony o% Shirley Eillen!er with respect to the %or!ery o% the deed o% donation. s the Court o% ppeals ruled$ howe1erE

The plainti%%s assail the 1alidity o% the deed o% donation in 3uestion on the !round that it is a %or!ery. On this point$ the plainti%%s presented a witness who testi%ied in a deposition ta4en be%ore the Cler4 o% Court o% the +unicipal Trial Court in Ba!uio City on pril &&$ &'': H a certain Shirley Eillen!er. .... ?emar4in! on this testimony o% Shirley Eillen!er$ the trial court had saidE . . . nent the deed o% donation )n*e. <)<o( the 1alidity o% which is put in issue by plainti%%s$ the deposition o% Shirley Eillen!er to the e%%ect that she personally saw one ?a3uel Tait dra%t the document and %or!e the si!nature o% "eor!e #. Tait now appearin! therein is incredible and !rossly uncon1incin!. ,or considerations di%%icult to pin down$ the statements o% the witness on the point somehow does not rin! true and appear to ha1e been rehearsed. It is too pat to be credible. @e a!ree with the lower court when it said that this testimony o% Eillen!er is I1a!ue and incredible.J @e ha1e studied with care the deed o% donation in 3uestion and %ind unworthy o% credence the claim o% Eillen!er that ?a3uel Tait$ who must ha1e been a youn! !irl about -: years o% a!e in &'.' or &'0: <she !a1e her a!e as (: on pril &&$ &'':=$ could ha1e$ in -: to (: minutes$ prepared the document in all its le!al %orm

supposedly copyin! only %rom a I%ormatJ. It also ta7es the mind to belie1e that ?a3uel Tait had called the boys in the boardin! house and$ within the 1iew o% e1ery one$ as4ed them to %or!e the si!nature o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. and$ with the boys %ailin! to accomplish the tas4$ hersel% %or!ed the si!nature not only o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. but also o% +aria Tait in that one sittin! and in that short span o% time. The alle!ed %or!ery could ha1e been pro1en with more competent e1idence$ such as by handwritin! e7perts. This$ the plainti%%s %ailed to do. s stated by the trial court$ the 1alidity o% the public document cannot be impu!ned or o1ercome by the testimony o% the witness Eillen!er.C-0D
,or!ery should be pro1ed by clear and con1incin! e1idence$ and whoe1er alle!es it has the burden o% pro1in! the same.C-'D Not only is Shirley Eillen!erAs testimony di%%icult to belie1e$ it shows it had been rehearsed as she anticipated the 3uestions o% petitionerAs counsel$ and sometimes said more than was called %or by the 3uestion. This is illustrated by the %ollowin! portions o% her testimonyE
G @hen you were boardmates with ?a3uel Tait at Perpetual 8elp$ alon! "en. >una$ Ba!uio City$ do you recall i% you ha1e seen any document re!ardin! that Sum*at property o% "eor!e Tait$ Sr.K ;es$ sir$ I saw it. G nd$ what document is that i% you could still recallK I saw a Deed o% Donation... and other documents where the si!nature o% "eor!e Tait$ Sr. was written. TT;. SO#O#ENE There was an Ilocano word. TT;. >OC#E;E +ay we put it in IlocanoK @ITNESSE nia da!uidiay n!a documento tattayenK TT;. >OC#E;E G ;ou mentioned about a Deed o% Donation. @ere you able to read or see that Deed o% DonationK ;es$ sir. G I ha1e here a duplicate ori!inal o% a Deed o% Donation Inter1i1os dated !o o1er that documentK pril -$ &'./. @ill you

8E ?IN" O,,ICE?E @itness is !oin! o1er the document handed to her by counsel. TT;. >OC#E;E G 8a1e you !one o1er the documentK

;es$ sir. G @hat relation has that document to the Deed o% Donation which you claim to ha1e been typewritten by ?a3uel Tait in your boardin!house at Perpetual 8elp$ alon! "en. >una$ Ba!uio CityK It was the carbon copy o% the Deed o% Donation that ?a3uel Tait typed in our boardin!house. G By the way$ +rs. @itness$ what year was that when you saw ?a3uel Tait typewritin! the Deed o% Donation$ i% you could still recallK s %ar as I can recall$ it was in the year &'.' to &'0:. G nd$ at that time$ do you recall where "eor!e Tait$ Sr. wasK "eor!e Tait$ Sr. is already dead durin! that time. G @hen did "eor!e Tait$ Sr. die$ i% you could still recallK s %ar as I can recall$ he died in the year &'.) when I was in ( rd year hi!h school. G "oin! bac4 to the Deed o% Donation which you ha1e Bust identi%ied$ what was the condition o% this document to that Deed you saw bein! typewritten by ?a3uel TaitK

TT;. SO#O#ENE +ay we interpose an obBectionK The 3uestion maybe ambi!uous inso%ar as to the condition o% the document when it was typed. TT;. >OC#E;E @e will re%orm the 3uestion$ your 8onor. G I noticed that in this Deed o% Donation there are written entries as well as si!natures. t the time you saw this Deed o% Donation bein! typewritten by ?a3uel Tait$ were the written entries and si!natures already thereK The si!natures were not yet there when ?a3uel Tait typed this Deed o% Donation. 8owe1er$ the %ollowin! day .... TT;. SO#O#ENE +ay we re3uest that the 3uestion be Bust answered. 8E ?IN" O,,ICE?E +a4e it o% record that there is an obBection o% the de%endantsA counsel$ as4in! that the deponent will only answer the 3uestion as4ed. .... TT;. >OC#E;E G %ter seein! the document already mar4ed as E7h. IIJ bein! typewritten by ?a3uel Tait$ was there any occasion wherein you ha1e seen a!ain that document aside %rom todayAs hearin!K

@ITNESSE ;es$ sir. G @hen was that$ i% you can still recallK

>ast pril. TT;. SO#O#ENE +ay I mani%est$ +r. 8earin! O%%icer$ that the witness is ta4in! time to remember the answer. 8E ?IN" O,,ICE?E +a4e that o% record. @ITNESSE pril )$ &'':. TT;. >OC#E;E G @hereatK t the o%%ice o% tty. >oc4ey. G nd how come that you went there in the o%%ice o% tty. >oc4ey on pril )$ &'':K tty. >oc4ey as4ed %or me to !o there. G Do you 4now %or what purpose that you were as4ed to !o thereK ;es$ sir. G Please tell the Court. To in3uire about that Deed o% Donation. G nd was there really an in3uiry about what was done or made in the O%%ice o% re!ardin! that Deed o% DonationK ;es$ sir. .... TT;. >OC#E;E G @hat else did ?a3uel Tait do$ i% any$ a%ter typewritin! that Deed o% Donation in your boardin!house at Perpetual 8elpK tty. >oc4ey

@ITNESSE I saw her %or!in! the si!nature o% "eor!e Tait$ Sr. on a piece o% bond paper. G nd how did you see her %or!in! the si!nature o% "eor!e Tait$ sr. on that bond paperK I saw her try to copy the si!nature o% "eor!e Tait$ Sr. and callin! some boys$ our boardmates$ to copy the si!nature o% "eor!e Tait$ Sr. in that bond paper also. G ,rom where was ?a3uel Tait copyin! the si!nature o% "eor!e Tait$ Sr.K In a separate document. G ;ou said that ?a3uel Tait was also re3uirin! the boys to copy. Did the boys accede to the re3uest o% ?a3uel TaitK Some boys tried to %or!e it$ but they did not %ollow it.

Seein! this situation H meanin! ?a3uel Tait tryin! to %or!e the si!nature o% "eor!e Tait$ what step or steps did you ta4e$ i% anyK I warned her by sayin! that she is ma4in! I4alo4ohanJ out o% that Deed o% Donation.

8E ?IN" O,,ICE?E +a4e it o% record also that the witness made use o% the word I4alo4ohanJ in ,ilipino lan!ua!e. >et that term be put on record. TT;. >OC#E;E G nd$ what did ?a3uel Tait tell you$ i% any$ in connection with your commentK She said I will Bust 4eep 3uiet. G @hat else did ?a3uel Tait do in connection with the Deed o% Donation you ha1e earlier identi%ied aside %rom what you ha1e already stated$ i% anyK She personally si!ned this one. 8E ?IN" O,,ICE?E @itness pointin! to the document earlier mar4ed as E7h. IIJ particularly to the si!nature abo1e the typewritten name "eor!e #. Tait$ Donor. TT;. >OC#E;E Perhaps it would not be remiss %or us to say that the si!nature pointed to by the witness be encircled and be mar4ed as E7h. II*&J. 8E ?IN" O,,ICE?E +ar4 it. TT;. >OC#E;E G side %rom that$ what else did she do$ i% anyK She wants to try to %or!e the si!nature o% +aria Tait. G @as she able to do itK ;es$ sir.C(:D

Petitioners should ha1e presented handwritin! e7perts to support their claim that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.As si!nature on the deed o% donation was indeed a %or!ery. Se0ond. Petitioners ar!ue that the deed o% donation is in1alid under rt. ./' o% the Ci1il Code$ which re3uires a public instrument as a re3uisite %or the 1alidity o% donations o% immo1able property. They contend that the person who notari9ed the deed had no authority to do so. 8owe1er$ petitioners ha1e not shown this to be the case. The ac4nowled!ment clause states that the person who notari9ed it was the deputy cler4 o% court$ "on9alo ?eyes$ who acted I,or and in the absence o% the Cler4 o% Court.J Sec. -& o% the ?e1ised dministrati1e Code o% &'&.$ as amended by C. . Nos. -.: and )/&$ pro1idesE

SEC. -&. Officials aut!ori#ed to administer oat!s. The %ollowin! o%%icers ha1e !eneral authority to administer oaths$ to witE

Notaries public5 Bustices o% the peace and au7iliary Bustices o% the peace5 cler4s o% court5 the Secretary o% the National ssembly5 bureau directors5 re!isters o% deeds5 pro1incial !o1ernors and lieutenant*!o1ernors5 city mayors5 municipal mayors$ municipal district mayors5 any other o%%icer in the Philippine ser1ice whose appointment is 1ested in the President o% the Philippines$ Secretary o% @ar$ or President o% the 6nited States. person who by authority o% law shall act in the capacity o% the o%%icers mentioned abo1e shall possess the same power . <Emphasis added=.C(&D
In accordance with the presumption that o%%icial duty has been re!ularly per%ormed$ it is to be presumed that the deputy cler4 o% court who notari9ed the deed o% donation in this case was duly authori9ed by the cler4 o% court. T-).d. Petitioners ar!ue that the deed o% donation contra1enes which pro1idesE rt. &(( o% the Ci1il Code

rt. &((. E1ery donation between the spouses durin! the marria!e shall be 1oid. This prohibition does not apply when the donation ta4es e%%ect a%ter the death o% the donor. Neither does this prohibition apply to moderate !i%ts which the spouses may !i1e each other on the occasion o% any %amily reBoicin!.
in 1iew o% our rulin! in $ata"uena %. Cer%antesC(-D that the prohibition in rt. &(( e7tends to common*law relations. Indeed$ it is now pro1ided in rt. 0. o% the ,amily CodeE

rt. 0.. E1ery donation or !rant o% !ratuitous ad1anta!e$ direct or indirect between the spouses durin! the marria!e shall be 1oid$ e7cept moderate !i%ts which the spouses may !i1e each other on the occasion o% any %amily reBoicin!. The prohibition shall apply to persons li1in! to!ether as husband and wi%e without a 1alid marria!e. <Emphasis added=.
This point is bein! raised %or the %irst time in this Court. The records show that in the trial court$ petitionersA attac4 on the 1alidity o% the deed o% donation centered solely on the alle!ation that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.As si!nature had been %or!ed and that the person who notari9ed the deed had no authority to do so. But petitioners ne1er in1o4ed rt. &(( o% the Ci1il Code as a !round to in1alidate the deed o% donation. Time and a!ain$ this Court has ruled that liti!ants cannot raise an issue %or the %irst time on appeal as this would contra1ene the basic rules o% %air play and Bustice. E1en assumin! that they are not thus precluded$ petitioners were unable to present e1idence in support o% such a claim. The e1idence on record does not show whether "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. was married to +aria ,. Tait and$ i% so$ when the marria!e too4 place. I%$ as petitioners claim$ +aria ,. Tait was not married to their %ather$ e1idence should ha1e been presented to show that at the time the deed o% donation was e7ecuted$ their %ather and +aria ,. Tait were still maintainin! common*law relations. Beatrice TaitAs testimony is only to the e%%ect that in &'/& +aria ,. Tait became their

stepmother. There is no e1idence on record that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. and +aria ,. Tait continuously maintained common*law relations until pril -$ &'./ when the donation was made. "ou.*-. Petitioners claim that they only learned o% the sales to pri1ate respondents o% lots included in the Sum*at property in &'00 when they 1isited +aria ,. Tait in Bontoc because she was seriously ill. s admitted by petitioners$ their mother$ !ata B. Tait$ died on pril (:$ &'()$ while their %ather$ "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.$ died on December -/$ &'... C((D ;et$ petitioners waited %or twel1e <&-= years be%ore claimin! their inheritance$ ha1in! brou!ht their present action only on 2uly -/$ &'0'. Petitioners are thus !uilty o% laches which precludes them %rom assailin! the donation made by their %ather in %a1or o% +aria ,. Tait. >aches is the %ailure or ne!lect %or an unreasonable len!th o% time to do that which$ by e7ertin! due dili!ence$ could or should ha1e been done earlier.C(/D ,inally$ >anoy Ta4ayen!As testimony that "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. !a1e ,ani*is money to purchase the Sum*at property does not necessarily mean that the money came %rom the proceeds o% the sale o% the Otucan property. ,or one$ >anoy Ta4ayen! could not state with certainty when the alle!ed meetin! too4 place. Second$ this witness could not e1en remember the amount o% money alle!edly !i1en by "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. to ,ani*is. Third$ Ta4ayen! did not state when the purchase supposedly too4 place or i% the sale was consummated in accordance with "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr.As instructions. It is anybodyAs !uess whether "eor!e #. TaitAs orders were carried out by ,ani*is and whether "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. tapped other %unds to purchase the Sum*at property. In sum$ petitioners ha1e not su%%iciently shown the nullity o% pri1ate respondentsA title to the lots purchased by them. To the contrary$ as the Court o% ppeals well obser1edE

The deed o% donation in 3uestion was e7ecuted by their %ather in &'./. ssumin! that the plainti%%s were not aware o% the e7istence o% said document$ as they now claim$ they could not ha1e %ailed to notice that the land in 3uestion had been occupied by +aria ,. Tait and later by de%endants who bou!ht portions thereo% and that said de%endants$ numberin! nine <'=$ and their %amilies$ had built their respecti1e houses and introduced other impro1ements on the portions they had purchased %rom +aria ,. Tait and had resided therein since &'0- and &'0(. s stated by the trial court$ the plainti%%s o%%ered no plausible e7cuse %or their %ailure to assert their ri!hts sooner. They apparently waited until +aria ,. Tait died in &'00 be%ore assailin! the 1alidity o% the sales made by the latter in %a1or o% the de%endants. @e belie1e that the de%endants herein bou!ht their respecti1e portions they now possess in !ood %aith. The land is not re!istered under the Torrens system and they chec4ed with the ssessorAs O%%ice and %ound that the same was declared in the name o% +aria ,. Tait. ,urther$ it was the said +aria ,. Tait and not the plainti%%s who was in possession thereo%. The claim o% the plainti%%s that the de%endants were %orewarned Cprior to the sales transactionsD that the property was not owned by +aria ,. Tait but by the heirs o% "eor!e #. Tait$ Sr. was not pro1en in these proceedin!s.

Indeed$ the plainti%%s ha1e %ailed in the duty to pro1e their alle!ations in their complaint as re3uired by the ?ules o% Court. @e %ind their e1idence too inade3uate to be considered as preponderantly in their %a1or. In %ine$ there is no reason %or this Court to set aside the %indin!s o% the trial court$ e7cept inso%ar as it orders the plainti%%s to pay the de%endants attorneyAs %ees. s aptly pointed out by the plainti%%s*appellants there should be no premium on the ri!ht to liti!ate. @e %ind that the plainti%%s %iled this complaint in !ood %aith and that the de%endantsA claim %or attorneyAs %ees was not ade3uately established.
' ERE"!RE$ the decision o% the Court o% ppeals is ,,I?+ED. S! !RDERED. Bellosillo &C!airman', and (uisum"ing, ))., concur. *uno, )., no part. In1ol1ed in C decision. Buena, )., no part. On lea1e.

C&D

Penned by Associate Justice Salome A. Montoya, with Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno and Associate Justice Celso L. Magsino, concurring.
C-D C(D C/D CFD C)D C.D C0D C'D C&:D C&&D C&-D C&(D C&/D C&FD C&)D C&.D C&0D C&'D

Records, p. 121, Exhibit I. Id., p. 18; Order, dated September 26, 1989, p. 1. Id., pp. 46-47; Pre-trial Order, dated November 21, 1989, pp. 2-3. TSN, pp. 2-6, Feb. 20, 1990. Id., pp. 6-7. TSN, pp. 1-14, March 14, 1990. Id., pp. 11-20. Id., pp. 20-24. Id., pp. 24-28. Id., pp. 28-29. TSN, pp. 5-7, March 15, 1990. Id., pp. 7-9. Records, pp. 104-110; Plaintiffs Offer of Exhibits, pp. 1-7. TSN, pp. 3-14, April 11, 1990. Id., pp. 15-19. TSN, pp. 2-6, May 29, 1990. Id., pp. 7-11. Id., pp. 17-20.

C-:D C-&D C--D C-(D C-/D C-FD C-)D C-.D C-0D C-'D C(:D

Id., pp. 25-30. Id., pp. 30-38. Id., pp. 38-42. CA Rollo, pp. 40-41. Rollo, p. 41; Petition, Annex A, p. 9. Id., pp. 3-4; Id., pp. 3-4. 8eirs o% ,elicidad Can3ue 1. Court o% ppeals, 275 SCRA 741 (1997). #ierul% 1. Court o% ppeals, 269 SCRA 433 (1997). Rollo, pp. 37-39. Veloso 1. Court o% ppeals$ -): SC? F'( <&'')=. ?ecords$ pp. 0.*'/5 TSN$ pril &&$ &'':$ pp. F*&- <emphasis added=. ?epublic ct No. ).(($ LL& and -$ pro1ideE

C(&D

Section &. Section -& o% the ?e1ised dministrati1e Code is hereby amended to read as %ollowsE Sec. -&. Officials aut!ori#ed to administer oat!. The %ollowin! o%%icers ha1e !eneral authority to administer oaths$ to witE President5 Vice*President5 +embers and Secretaries o% both 8ouses o% the Con!ress5 +embers o% the 2udiciary5 Secretaries o% Departments5 pro1incial !o1ernors and lieutenant*!o1ernors5 city mayors5 municipal mayors5 bureau directors5 re!ional directors5 cler4 o% courts5 re!istrars o% deeds5 and other ci1ilian o%%icers in the Philippine public ser1ice whose appointments are 1ested in the President o% the Philippines and are subBect to con%irmation by the Commission on ppointments5 all other constitutional o%%icers5 and notaries public. person who by authority o% law shall ser1e in the capacity o% the o%%icers mentioned abo1e shall possess the same power. Sec. -. Section /& o% the dministrati1e Code o% &'0. is hereby to read as %ollowsE Sec. /&. Officers Aut!ori#ed to Administer Oat!. The %ollowin! o%%icers ha1e !eneral authority to administer oathsE President5 Vice*President5 +embers and Secretaries o% both 8ouses o% the Con!ress5 +embers o% the 2udiciary5 Secretaries o% Departments5 Pro1incial !o1ernors and lieutenant*!o1ernors5 city mayors5 municipal mayors5 bureau directors5 re!ional directors5 cler4s o% courts5 re!istrars o% deeds5 other ci1ilian o%%icers in the public ser1ice o% the !o1ernment o% the Philippines whose appointments are 1ested in the President and are subBect to con%irmation by the Commission on ppointments5 all other constitutional o%%icers5 and notaries public.
C(-D C((D C(/D

(0 SC? -0/ <&'.&=. ?ecords$ p. &5 Complaint$ p. &. ?eyes 1. Court o% ppeals$ -)/ SC? (F <&'')=.