THIRD DIVISION [G.R. No. 192813 : January 18, 2012] VASHDEO GAGOO A!, "ETITIONER, VS.

S"O#SES RA ON AND NATIVIDAD VI!!A$ORTA, RES"ONDENTS. DE$ISION "ER!AS%&ERNA&E, J.: Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is the Decision [1]of the Court of Appeals (CA dated !arch "# $%1% in CA&'(R( )P *o( 1%+%%4# as well as the Resolution [$] dated ,ul- .# $%1% den-in/ the 0otion for reconsideration thereof( 1he dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads2
cralaw

'HERE(ORE# pre0ises considered# the petition is GRANTED( 1he assailed 3rders dated Au/ust 5# $%%" and !arch $%# $%%+ issued 4- 5on( Danilo )( Cru6 of the Re/ional 1rial Court# 7ranch 15$# Pasi/ Cit- are here4- REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another one entered# the !otion to 8uash 9rit of Possession filed 4spouses Ra0on and *atividad :illacorta in Civil Case *o( ;.<"1 is GRANTED( A$$ORDING!)# the 9rit of Possession issued in Civil Case *o( ;.<"1 is ordered *#ASHED( SO ORDERED( T+, (a-./ Al4ert =e>arosa (=e>arosa was the re/istered owner of a parcel of land located in A-ala Ala4an/ :illa/e# Ala4an/# !untinlupa Cit-# covered 4- 1ransfer Certificate of 1itle (1C1 *o( 1.%$1<( 5e 0ort/a/ed the sa0e in favor of 7P? @a0il- )avin/s 7anA (7P? which was dul- annotated on the title on ,une .# 1++%( )u4seBuentl-# =e>arosa o4tained a loan in the a0ount of C<%%#%%%(%% fro0 RA! 5oldin/s Corporation (RA! # secured 4- a second 0ort/a/e[<] over the propert- and a Pro0issor- *ote[4]( 1he parties liAewise eDecuted a !e0orandu0 of A/ree0ent[5] (!3A dated !arch $# 1++5 where4- =e>arosa# throu/h an ?rrevoca4le )pecial Power of Attorne-# authori6ed RA!# a0on/ others# to sell the su4Eect propert- in case of his failure to pa-( =e>arosa failed to settle his o4li/ations pro0ptin/ RA! to file a Co0plaint [;] for collection of su0 of 0one- with da0a/es a/ainst hi0 and 7P? 4efore the R1C of Pasi/ Cit-# 7ranch 15$# docAeted as Civil Case *o( ;.<"1( RA! also caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens on 1C1 *o( 1.%$1< on ,une 11# 1+++( Pendin/ Civil Case *o( ;.<"1# =e>arosa failed to pa- his o4li/ation to 7P? resultin/ in the foreclosure of the su4Eect propert-( 1he certificate of sale was annotated on 1C1 *o( 1.%$1< on !arch $4# $%%%( !eanwhile# RA! sold its ri/hts and interests over the su4Eect propert- to *ew )u00it ?nternational# ?nc(# represented 4- its President# :ashdeo 'a/oo0al# herein petitioner( 1he assi/n0ent was annotated on 1C1 *o( 1.%$1< on 3cto4er 1;# $%%%( 3n Au/ust $+# $%%$# one Fuis P( Foren6o# ,r( (Foren6o filed a co0plaint for recover- of su0 of 0one- with application for a writ of preli0inar- attach0ent a/ainst =e>arosa 4efore the R1C of !aAati Cit-# 7ranch ;4# docAeted as Civil Case *o( %$&1%<"( A writ of preli0inar- attach0ent was issued on )epte04er $%# $%%$# pursuant to which the 7ranch )heriff of !aAati Cit- attached the su4Eect propert-( 1he lien was annotated on 1C1 *o( 1.%$1< on )epte04er <%# $%%$( 3n the other hand# =e>arosa redee0ed the foreclosed propert- fro0 7P? on !arch $<# $%%<( 1hereafter# he sold the propert- to a certain Patricia A( 1an (1an in whose favor 1C1 *o( 1%$%; [.]was issued on April 4# $%%<( 1he annotations of the notice of lis pendens in Civil Case *o( ;.<"1# as well as the notice of lev- on attach0ent in Civil Case *o( %$&1%<"# were carried over to her title( ?n the 0eanti0e# in Civil Case *o( %$&1%<"# Foren6o o4tained a favora4le decision which had 4eco0e final and eDecutor-( A notice of lev- and eDecution on the su4Eect attached propert- was issued and annotated on the title( 3n ,anuar- 15# $%%4# the propert- was sold at pu4lic auction to Foren6o for P+#%<4#1;;(%% and the Certificate of )ale was annotated on 1C1 *o( 1%$%; on ,anuar- <%# $%%4# /ivin/ =e>arosa until ,anuar- $+# $%%5 within which to redee0 the propert-( )u4seBuentl-# or on April <%# $%%4# the R1C rendered Eud/0ent in favor of RA! in Civil Case *o( ;.<"1 for su0 of

0one-(["] Pendin/ =e>arosaGs appeal to the CA# docAeted as CA&'(R( C: *o( "45$<# RA! filed a 0otion for eDecution pendin/ appeal# which was /ranted([+] 3n Dece04er 14# $%%4# the propert- su4Eect of notice of lis pendens was sold at pu4lic auction to petitioner# the successor&in&interest of RA!# for P1+#.+<#5%%(%%( [1%] 1he certificate of sale was annotated on 1anGs 1C1 *o( 1%$%; on Dece04er 1.# $%%4( 3n ,anuar- $+# $%%5# in view of =e>arosaGs failure to redee0 the propert- fro0 Foren6o# the title over the su4Eect propert- was consolidated in the latterGs na0e( A writ of possession was issued in favor of Foren6o# who su4seBuentl- sold the propert- to *atividad :illacorta# one of the respondents herein# for P;#%%%#%%%(%%( ?00ediatel- after purchasin/ the propert-# respondents tooA possession thereof( !eanwhile# =e>arosaGs appeal in CA&'(R( C: *o( "45$< was dis0issed# and the decision in favor of RA! 4eca0e final and eDecutor- on 3cto4er .# $%%5( 9ith a sale annotated in its favor# and without =e>arosa eDercisin/ his ri/ht of rede0ption# a final Deed of )ale was issued in favor of petitioner# the successor&in&interest of RA!# on Dece04er 14# $%%5( 7- virtue of a writ of possession[11] issued 4- the R1C on @e4ruar- 1# $%%. in Civil Case *o( ;.<"1# petitioner divested the respondents of possession of the disputed propert-( 1he fore/oin/ develop0ents pro0pted the respondents to file a !otion to 8uash 9rit of Possession [1$]in Civil Case *o( ;.<"1 4efore the R1C of Pasi/ Cit-# 7ranch 15$# on !arch $%# $%%.( 1he- also filed a case for Buietin/ of title and recover- of possession 4efore the R1C of !untinlupa Cit-# 7ranch $.;# docAeted as Civil Case *o( %"&%11( 3n Au/ust 5# $%%"# the R1C of Pasi/ Cit-# 7ranch 15$# issued an 3rder [1<] in Civil Case *o( ;.<"1 den-in/ respondentsG !otion to 8uash 9rit of Possession( ?t also directed the Re/istr- of Deeds of !untinlupa Cit- to issue a new transfer certificate of title in the na0e of petitioner :ashdeo 'a/oo0al( 1he 0otion for reconsideration[14] thereof was si0ilarl- denied([15] A//rieved# the respondents filed a petition for certiorari with pra-er for inEunctive relief [1;] 4efore the CA# ascri4in/ /rave a4use of discretion on the part of the R1C in directin/ the transfer of title over the su4Eect propert- to petitionerH in den-in/ their 0otion to Buash the writ of possessionH and in refusin/ to restore to the0 the possession of the su4Eect propert-( ?n its assailed Decision# the CA /ranted respondentsG petition# ratiocinatin/ as follows2 Records show that spouses :illacorta derived their ri/hts in the su4Eect propert- fro0 their predecessor&in& interest# Foren6o# who purchased the sa0e in a sale on eDecution on ,anuar- 15# $%%4( 1he title to the su4Eect propert- was consolidated in favor of Foren6o on ,anuar- $+# $%%5 and said annotation was reflected on the certificate of title( 'a/oo0al# on his part# 0aintains that he has a superior ri/ht over Foren6o 4ecause his predecessor&in&interest# Ra0# was a4le to cause the annotation of lis pendens ahead of Foren6oGs writ of attach0ent( 1he fact that the notice of lis pendens re/ardin/ to [sic] Civil Case *o( ;.<"1 was annotated ahead of the attach0ent of the su4Eect propert- in Civil Case *o( %$&1%<" is of no 0o0ent( 5ence# 9e a/ree with spouses :illacorta that 'a/oo0al did not acBuire an- title to the propert- since what he purchased durin/ the pu4lic auction on 3cto4er 14# $%%4 was onl- the re0ainin/ ri/ht of rede0ption of =e>arosa( DDD DDD DDD

?n the present case# the annotation of Ra0 of the lis pendens was i0proper 4ecause the case filed 4- Ra0 a/ainst =e>arosa was purel- a personal action( Civil Case *o( ;.<"1# entitled Ram Holdings Corporation vs. Albert Zearosa, et. al.# is for Collection of )u0 of !one- with Da0a/es( ?t has 4een held that the doctrine of lis pendens has no application to a proceedin/ in which the onl- o4Eect sou/ht is the recover- of a 0one- Eud/0ent# thou/h the title or ri/ht of possession to propert- 0a- 4e affected( ?t is essential that the propert- 4e directlaffected# as where the relief sou/ht in the action or suit includes the recover- of possession# or the enforce0ent of a lien# or an adEudication 4etween conflictin/ clai0s of title# possession# or ri/ht of possession to specific propert-# or reBuirin/ its transfer or sale [citation o0itted][1.] Issentiall-# the CA concluded that the R1C co00itted /rave a4use of discretion when it ordered the Re/ister of Deeds to transfer to petitioner the title and possession of the su4Eect propert- notwithstandin/ unre4utted evidence that =e>arosa# the Eud/0ent de4tor in Civil Case *o( ;.<"1# was no lon/er its owner and had onl- the re0ainin/ ri/ht of rede0ption at the ti0e the propert- was sold at pu4lic auction to petitioner on Dece04er 14# $%%4( Corollar- thereto# the CA held that the power of the R1C to eDecute its Eud/0ent eDtends onl- to propert4elon/in/ to the Eud/0ent de4tor in Civil Case *o( ;.<"1# =e>arosa in this case# and did not include the respondents( 1he CA liAewise refused to /ive 0erit to petitionerGs contentions that the respondents can no lon/er asA for the 0odification or a4ro/ation of the decision of the R1C which had alread- attained finalit-# and that since

the writ of possession had alread- 4een i0ple0ented# then it can no lon/er 4e Buashed( T+, I//u,/ 5ence# this petition advancin/ the followin/ issues for 3ur resolution# to wit2 ?( RI)P3*DI*1) D3 *31 5A:I A R?'51@JF CFA?! 13 15I PR3PIR1K( ??( RI)P3*DI*1) 5AD *3 7A)?) 13 A)L @3R 15I 8JA)5AF 3@ 15I 9R?1 3@ P3))I))?3*( ???( 15I PA)?' RI'?3*AF 1R?AF C3JR1 CA* RJFI 3* 1RA*)@IR 3@ 1?1FI( ?:( PI1?1?3*IRG) R?'51) ARI )JPIR?3R 13 15A1 3@ RI)P3*DI*1G)( :( 15I 53*3RA7FI C3JR1 3@ APPIAF)G DIC?)?3* 3:IR)1IPPID ?))JI)( [1"] T+, Ru01n2 o3 .+, $our. 1he petition is 4ereft of 0erit( A writ of possession is an order 4- which the sheriff is co00anded to place a person in possession of a real or personal propert-( 9e clarified in the case of Motos v. Real Bank (A Thrift Bank , !n".[1+] that a writ of possession 0a- 4e issued under an- of the followin/ instances2 (a land re/istration proceedin/s under )ection 1. of Act *o( 4+;[$%]H (4 Eudicial foreclosure# provided the de4tor is in possession of the 0ort/a/ed realt- and no third person# not a part- to the foreclosure suit# had intervenedH and (c eDtraEudicial foreclosure of a real estate 0ort/a/e under )ection . of Act *o( <1<5 as a0ended 4- Act *o( 411" [$1]( Corollar- thereto# )ection <<# Rule <+ of the Rules of Court provides2 )IC( <<( Deed and possession to 4e /iven at eDpiration of rede0ption periodH 4- who0 eDecuted or /iven( & ?f no rede0ption 4e 0ade within one (1 -ear fro0 the date of the re/istration of the certificate of sale# the purchaser is entitled to a conve-ance and possession of the propert-H or# if so redee0ed whenever siDt- (;% da-s have elapsed and no other rede0ption has 4een 0ade# and notice thereof /iven# and the ti0e for rede0ption has eDpired# the last rede0ptioner is entitled to the conve-ance and possessionH 4ut in all cases the Eud/0ent o4li/or shall have the entire period of one (1 -ear fro0 the date of the re/istration of the sale to redee0 the propert-( 1he deed shall 4e eDecuted 4- the officer 0aAin/ the sale or 4- his successor in office# and in the latter case shall have the sa0e validit- as thou/h the officer 0aAin/ the sale had continued in office and eDecuted it( Jpon the eDpiration of the ri/ht of rede0ption# the purchaser or rede0ptioner shall 4e su4stituted to and acBuire all the ri/hts# title# interest and clai0 of the Eud/0ent o4li/or to the propert- as of the ti0e of the lev-( 1he possession of the propert- shall 4e /iven to the purchaser or last rede0ptioner 4- the sa0e officer unless a third part- is actuall- holdin/ the propert- adversel- to the Eud/0ent o4li/or( ?n this case# the writ of possession was issued and eDecuted in favor of petitioner under the fore/oin/ provision( 5owever# a punctilious review of the records will show that its /rant and enfor"ementa/ainst the su4Eect propert-# over which the respondents M third parties to Civil Case *o( ;.<"1 M clai0 an adverse interest# are devoid of le/al 4asis( ?t is a 4asic principle of law that 0one- Eud/0ents are enforcea4le onl- a/ainst propert- incontroverti4l- 4elon/in/ to the Eud/0ent de4tor# and if propert- 4elon/in/ to an- third person is 0istaAenl- levied upon to answer for another 0anNs inde4tedness# such person has all the ri/ht to challen/e the lev- throu/h an- of the re0edies provided for under the Rules of Court( )ection 1;[$$]# Rule <+ thereof specificall- provides that a third person 0aavail hi0self of the re0edies of eitherter"eria, to deter0ine whether the sheriff has ri/htl- or wron/l- taAen hold of the propert- not 4elon/in/ to the Eud/0ent de4tor or o4li/or# or an independent separate action to vindicate

their clai0 of ownership andOor possession over the foreclosed propert-( [$<] 5owever# a person other than the Eud/0ent de4tor who clai0s ownership or ri/ht over the levied properties is not precluded fro0 taAin/ other le/al re0edies to prosecute his clai0([$4] ?n the present case# respondents filed a 0otion to Buash the writ of possession su4stantiatin/ their preferential ri/hts over the su4Eect propert- which the- had purchased fro0 Foren6o( As earlier stated# Foren6o# in Civil Case *o( %$&1%<"# caused the annotation of a writ of preli0inar- attach0ent on )epte04er <%# $%%$ and thereafter# a notice of lev- and eDecution# finall- acBuirin/ the propert- in a pu4lic auction sale on ,anuar- <%# $%%4( )i0ilarl-# respondents have instituted a separate civil action for Buietin/ of title and recover- of propert- 4efore the R1C of !untinlupa Cit-# 7ranch $.;# docAeted as Civil Case *o( %"&%11( PetitionerGs ar/u0ent that he acBuired a superior ri/ht over the su4Eect propert- 4- virtue of the earlier annotation of a notice of lis pendens on ,une 11# 1+++ 4- his predecessor&in&interest RA! on the sa0e title cannot 4e /iven credence( )ection 14# Rule 1< of the Rules of Court provides2 )ec( 14( #oti"e of lis pendens( & ?n an a-.1on a33,-.1n2 .+, .1.0, or .+, r12+. o3 4o//,//1on of real propert-# the plaintiff and the defendant# when affir0ative relief is clai0ed in his answer# 0a- record in the office of the re/istr- of deeds of the province in which the propert- is situated a notice of the pendenc- of the action( )aid notice shall contain the na0es of the parties and the o4Eect of the action or defense# and a description of the propert- in that province affected there4-( 3nl- fro0 the ti0e of filin/ such notice for record shall a purchaser# or encu04rancer of the propert- affected there4-# 4e dee0ed to have constructive notice of the pendenc- of the action# and onl- of its pendenc- a/ainst the parties desi/nated 4- their real na0es( 1he notice of lis pendens hereina4ove 0entioned 0a- 4e cancelled onl- upon order of the court# after proper showin/ that the notice is for the purpose of 0olestin/ the adverse part-# or that it is not necessar- to protect the ri/hts of the part- who caused it to 4e recorded( [e0phasis ours] 1he filin/ of a notice of lis pendens has a dual effect2 (1 to Aeep the propert- su4Eect 0atter of the liti/ation within the power of the court until the entr- of the final Eud/0ent in order to prevent the defeat of the final Eud/0ent 4successive alienationsH and ($ to 4ind a purchaser# bona fide or otherwise# of the propert- su4Eect of the liti/ation to the Eud/0ent that the court will su4seBuentl- pro0ul/ate( [$5] Relative thereto# a notice of lis pendens is proper in the followin/ actions and their conco0itant proceedin/s2 (a an action to recover possession of real estateH (4 an action to Buiet title theretoH (c an action to re0ove clouds thereonH (d an action for partitionH and (e an- other proceedin/s of an- Aind in Court directl- affectin/ the title to the land or the use or occupation thereof or the 4uildin/s thereon([$;] 1hus# a notice of lis pendens is onl- valid and effective when it affects title over or right of possession of a real propert$. ?n this case# it cannot 4e denied that Civil Case *o( ;.<"1# which RA!# predecessor&in&interest of petitioner# instituted a/ainst =e>arosa was for collection of su0 of 0one- with da0a/es M a p%rel$ personal a"tion( 5ence# the notice of lis pendens in favor of RA! annotated on the cancelled 1C1 *o( 1.%$1< and carried over to 1anGs 1C1 *o( 1%$%; conferred upon it no ri/hts over the su4Eect propert- and# as a necessar- conseBuence# upon petitioner# its successor&in&interest( 1o 4e sure# in Atlanti" &re"tors, !n". v. Herbal Cove Realt$ Corporation[$.]# 9e have previousl- eDplained that the doctrine of lis pendens has no application to a proceedin/ in which the onl- o4Eect sou/ht is the recover- of a 0one- Eud/0ent# thou/h the title or ri/ht of possession to propert- 4e incidentall- affected( ?t is essential that the propert- 4e directl- affected such as when the relief sou/ht in the action or suit includes the recover- of possession# or the enforce0ent of a lien# or an adEudication 4etween conflictin/ clai0s of title# possession# or the ri/ht of possession to specific propert-# or reBuirin/ its transfer or sale( Iven if a part- initiall- avails of a notice of lis pendens upon the filin/ of a case in court# such notice is rendered nu/ator- if the case turns out to 4e a purel- personal action( ?n such event# the notice of lis pendens 4eco0es f%n"t%s offi"io( Accordin/l-# petitioner has not created a superior ri/ht over the su4Eect propert- as a/ainst respondents 4- reason of the prior annotation in 1+++ of the notice of lis pendens 4- his predecessor RA!( 5ence# the su4seBuent lev- on

eDecution on 3cto4er 14# $%%4 arisin/ fro0 the final 0one- Eud/0ent in favor of petitioner cannot prevail over the earlier annotated attach0ent 0ade 4- Foren6o on )epte04er <%# $%%$ and its su4seBuent notice of lev- on eDecution and sale of the propert- to respondents on ,anuar- <%# $%%4# who then tooA possession( 3n 3cto4er 14# $%%4# what petitioner 0erel- levied upon on eDecution was the re0ainin/ rede0ption ri/hts of =e>arosa until ,anuar- $+# $%%5 which period eDpired without an- rede0ption havin/ 4een 0ade( ConseBuentl-# the writ of possession issued as a result of a wron/ful eDecution was not proper and cannot 4e enforced a/ainst the respondents who are third parties in possession of and clai0in/ an adverse interest on the propert- in controvers-( ?t 4ears to stress that the court issuin/ the writ of eDecution 0a- enforce its authorit- onl$ over properties or rights of the '%dgment debtor# and the sheriff acts properl- onl- when he su4Eects to eDecution propertundenia4l- 4elon/in/ to the Eud/0ent de4tor( )hould the sheriff lev- upon the assets of a third person in which the Eud/0ent de4tor has not even the re0otest interest# then he is actin/ 4e-ond the li0its of his authorit-( A Eud/0ent can onl- 4e eDecuted or issued a/ainst a part- to the action# not a/ainst one who has not -et had his da- in court([$"] *either can 9e affir0 petitionerGs contention that in seeAin/ the Buashal of the writ of possession# the respondents were# in effect# asAin/ the R1C to a4ro/ate its decision# which had alread- attained finalit-( As correctlo4served[$+] 4- the CA# the Buashal of a writ of possession does not have the effect of 0odif-in/ or a4ro/atin/ the Eud/0ent of the R1C( 1he settled rule is that a Eud/0ent which has acBuired finalit- 4eco0es i00uta4le and unaltera4le# and hence 0a- no lon/er 4e 0odified in an- respect eDcept onl- to correct clerical errors or 0istaAes M all the issues 4etween the parties 4ein/ dee0ed resolved and laid to rest( [<%] 1o reiterate# however# the courtGs power with re/ard toe(e"%tion of '%dgments eDtends onl- to properties irrefuta4l- 4elon/in/ to the Eud/0ent de4tor# which does not o4tain in this case( 1herefore# petitionerGs contention that the writ of possession had alread- 4een enforced and can no lon/er 4e Buashed deserves scant consideration( JnBuestiona4l-# the R1C has a /eneral supervisor- control over the entire eDecution process# and such authorit- carries with it the ri/ht to deter0ine ever- Buestion which 0a- 4e invaria4linvolved in the eDecution([<1] Respondents invoAed this supervisor- power when the- sou/ht the Buashal of the writ of possession( @inall-# considerin/ the circu0stances of this case# 9e cannot uphold the R1CGs directive to transfer the title over the su4Eect propert- fro0 respondents to petitioner# for utter lacA of le/al 4asis( 1o e0phasi6e# apart fro0 the 0otion to Buash the writ of possession# respondents have instituted a case for Buietin/ of title and recover- of possession 4efore the R1C of !untinlupa Cit-# docAeted as Civil Case *o( %"&%11(
cralaw

?n su0# 9e find that the R1C erred in i0ple0entin/ the writ of eDecution a/ainst the su4Eect propert- which does not irrefuta4l- 4elon/ to =e>arosa# the Eud/0ent de4tor in Civil Case *o( ;.<"1( 5ence# the writ of possession issued relative thereto was liAewise i0proper and 0ust necessaril- 4e Buashed# as correctl- ruled 4- the CA( Accordin/l-# since the respondents were undul- deprived of possession of the su4Eect propert-# the- 0ust 4e i00ediatel- restored into its possession# without preEudice to the result of Civil Case *o( %"&%11( 'HERE(ORE# the instant petition is DENIED( 1he assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are here4- A((IR ED( SO ORDERED. Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Abad, an5 Mendoza, JJ., -on-ur. Endnotes: Penned 4- Associate ,ustice ,uan 8( InriBue6# ,r(# with Associate ,ustices !ariflor P( Pun6alan Castillo and Ilihu A( K4a>e6# concurrin/H rollo# pp( 5%&;<(
[1] [$]

!d., pp( ;;&;.( !d(# AnneD C# pp( ;+&.5( !d(# AnneD D# pp( ..&."( !d(# AnneD I# pp( "%&"<( !d(# AnneD @# pp( "5&+4( !d(# AnneD '# pp( 1$.&1<1(

[<]

[4]

[5]

[;]

[.]

["]

!d(# AnneD 5# Decision dated April <%# $%%4# pp( 1<<&1<"( !d(# AnneD ?# pp( 14%&141( !d(# AnneD ,# pp( 14<&144( !d(# AnneD *# pp( 15+&1;%( !d(# AnneD 3# pp( 1;$&1.$( !d(# AnneD P# pp( 1."&1+1( !d(# AnneD 8# pp( 1+<&$%1( !d(# AnneD R# p( $%5( !d(# AnneD )# pp( $%.&$<"( )%pra note 1# at p( 5.# para/raphs 1&4( Rollo# Petition# pp( $%&$1( '(R( *o( 1.1<";# ,ul- 1.# $%%+# 5+< )CRA $1;# $$4( 1he Fand Re/istration Act# approved on *ove04er ;# 1+%$( *ernande+ v. &spino+a, '(R( *o( 15;4$1# April 14# $%%"# 551 )CRA 1<;# 144&145(

[+]

[1%]

[11]

[1$]

[1<]

[14]

[15]

[1;]

[1.]

[1"]

[1+]

[$%]

[$1]

)ec( 1;( Proceedin/s where propert- clai0ed 4- third person( ?f the propert- levied on is clai0ed 4- anperson other than the Eud/0ent o4li/or or his a/ent# and such person 0aAes an affidavit of his title thereto or ri/ht to the possession thereof# statin/ the /rounds of such ri/ht or title# and serves the sa0e upon the officer 0aAin/ the lev- and a cop- thereof upon the Eud/0ent o4li/ee# the officer shall not 4e 4ound to Aeep the propert-# unless such Eud/0ent o4li/ee# on de0and of the officer# files a 4ond approved 4- the court to inde0nifthe third&part- clai0ant in a su0 not less than the value of the propert- levied on( ?n case of disa/ree0ent as to such value# the sa0e shall 4e deter0ined 4- the court issuin/ the writ of eDecution( *o clai0 for da0a/es for the taAin/ or Aeepin/ of the propert- 0a- 4e enforced a/ainst the 4ond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twent- (1$% da-s fro0 the date of the filin/ of the 4ond( 1he officer shall not 4e lia4le for da0a/es for the taAin/ or Aeepin/ of the propert-# to an- third&part- clai0ant if such 4ond is filed( *othin/ herein contained shall prevent such clai0ant or an- third person fro0 vindicatin/ his clai0 to the propert- in a separate action# or prevent the Eud/0ent o4li/ee fro0 clai0in/ da0a/es in the sa0e or a separate action a/ainst a third&partclai0ant who filed a frivolous or plainl- spurious clai0( 9hen the writ of eDecution is issued in favor of the Repu4lic of the Philippines# or an- officer dul- representin/ it# the filin/ of such 4ond shall not 4e reBuired# and in case the sheriff or lev-in/ officer is sued for da0a/es as a result of the lev-# he shall 4e represented 4- the )olicitor 'eneral and if held lia4le therefor# the actual da0a/es adEud/ed 4- the court shall 4e paid 4- the *ational 1reasurer out of such funds as 0a- 4e appropriated for the purpose(
[$$] [$<]

,ome+ v. )ta. !nes# '(R( *o( 1<$5<.# 3cto4er 14# $%%5# 4.< )CRA $5# <"( )CRA 451#

-%pang"o Cotton Mills, !n". v. Co%rt of Appeals, et. al. # '(R( *o( 1$;<$$# ,anuar- 1;# $%%$# <.< 45+(
[$4] [$5]

)po%ses Conrado and Ma. Corona Romero v. Co%rt of Appeals # '(R( *o( 14$4%; !a- 1;# $%%5# 45" )CRA 4"<# 4+<( !d(# citin/ Magdalena Homeo.ners Asso"iation, !n". v. Co%rt of Appeals # '(R( *o( ;%<$<# April 1.# 1++%# 1"4 )CRA <$5# <<%(
[$;] [$.]

'(R( *o( 14"5;"# !arch $%# $%%<# <++ )CRA 4%+# 41+&4$%( #ag%it v. Co%rt of Appeals# '(R( *o( 1<.;.5# Dece04er 5# $%%%# <4. )CRA ;%# ;.( )%pra note 1# at p( ;%# para/raph <( /ohnson 0 /ohnson (1hils. , !n". v. Co%rt of Appeals # '(R( *o( 1%$;+$# )epte04er $<# 1++;# $;$ )CRA $+"#

[$"]

[$+]

[<%]

<%+( 2%kan !nternational Corporation v. Hon. Amor Re$es # '(R( *o( 1"$.$+# )epte04er $+# $%1%# ;%"# citin/ Carpio v. 3oro'a# '(R( *o( "451;# Dece04er 5# 1+"+# 1"% )CRA 1#.(
[<1]

;<1 )CRA 5+;#

SE$OND DIVISION [G.R. No. 183822 : January 18, 2012] R#&EN $. $OR"#6, RE"RESENTED &) ATTORNE)%IN%(A$T 'ENI(REDA $. AG#!!ANA, "ETITIONER, VS. S"S. HI!ARION AG#STIN AND J#STA AG#STIN, RES"ONDENTS. DE$ISION SERENO, J.: 1his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision [1] dated %" ,anuar$%%" of the Court of Appeals (CA in CA&'(R( )P *o( +%;45# which affir0ed the Decision of the Re/ional 1rial Court (R1C of Faoa/ Cit- and its Resolution[$] dated 15 ,ul- $%%" den-in/ the !otion for Reconsideration( 1he R1C# in the eDercise of its appellate Eurisdiction# affir0ed the Decision of the !unicipal 1rial Court (!1C of Faoa/ Cit-# which had dis0issed the unlawful detainer case filed 4- herein petitioner( The Factual Antecedents 1he Court adopts the findin/s of fact of the CA as follows2 Ru4en C( Corpu6 (Ru4en filed a co0plaint for eEect0ent a/ainst )pouses 5ilarion and ,usta A/ustin on the alle/ation that he is the re/istered owner of two parcels of land located in )anta ,oaBuina# Faoa/ Cit- covered 41C1 *o( 1$+"% issued on 3cto4er $+# 1+.; 4- the Faoa/ Cit- Re/ister of Deeds and with technical descriptions as follows2 1 A parcel of land (Fot *o( $% of the Cadastral )urve- of Faoa/ # with i0prove0ents thereon# situated in the 4arrio of )anta ,oaBuina# !unicipalit- of Faoa/( 7ounded D D D containin/ an area of five thousand seven hundred and fift- nine (5#.5+ sBuare 0eters 0ore or less D D D( $ A parcel of land (Fot *o( 11.11 of the Cadastral )urve- of Faoa/ # with the i0prove0ents thereon# situated in the 4arrio of )anta ,oaBuina# !unicipalit- of Faoa/( 7ounded D D D# containin/ an area of twent- thousand seven hundred and fort- five ($%#.45 sBuare 0eters# 0ore or less D D D( Aforesaid parcels of land were for0erl- owned 4- Ilias Duldulao in whose na0e 3ri/inal Certificate of 1itle *o( 3& 1.1. was issued( Duldulao sold said properties on Au/ust $.# 1+51 to @rancisco D( Corpu6# father of Ru4en C( Corpu6( 1he elder Corpu6 allowed spouses A/ustin to occup- su4Eect properties# the latter 4ein/ relatives( Despite de0and to vacate# the A/ustins refused to leave the pre0ises( Ru4en alle/ed further that he has the 4etter ri/ht to possess su4Eect propert- havin/ acBuired the sa0e fro0 his father# @rancisco# who eDecuted a Deed of 8uitclai0 in his favor on !arch 15# 1+.1( )pouses A/ustin# in their Answer# interposed the defense that on ,une 5# 1+.1 @rancisco Corpu6# Ru4enGs father# disposed of su4Eect propert- 4- eDecutin/ a Deed of A4solute )ale in their favor for a consideration of Ileven 1housand 3ne 5undred @ift- Pesos (P11#15%(%% ( 1he !unicipal 1rial Court found for the spouses A/ustin and dis0issed the co0plaint( ?n su0# considerin/ the evidence of the defendants which shows that the- entered into and occupied Fot *o( $% and the +#;5. sB( 0( portion of Fot *o( 11.11 as 4u-ers or owners# disprovin/ the alle/ation of the plaintiff that defendants were 0erel- allowed 4- @rancisco Corpu6 to occup- the su4Eect properties# 4ein/ his relatives# and considerin/ further the len/th of ti0e that the defendants have 4een in possession# as owners# of Fot *o( $% and the +#;5. sB( 0( portion of Fot *o( 11.11# and have 4een continuousl- eDercisin/ their ri/hts of ownership thereon# this court is of the view and holds# in so far as this case is concerned# that the defendants are the ones entitled to the possession of Fot *o( $% and the +#;5. sB( 0( portion of Fot *o( 11.11(

95IRI@3RI# pre0ises considered# this case# is here4- dis0issed( SO ORDERED. 3n appeal# 7ranch P:?# Re/ional 1rial Court of Faoa/ Cit- affir0ed said dis0issal# the dispositive portion of said decision states2 Q95IRI@3RI# pre0ises considered# the Appeal is here4- D?)!?))ID for lacA of 0erit and the ,JD'!I*1 of the !unicipal 1rial Court in Cities# 7ranch %1# Faoa/ Cit- is here4- A@@?R!ID# with costs a/ainst the plaintiff&appellant( SO ORDERED.[<] Petitioner assailed the Decision of the R1C# affir0in/ the earlier dis0issal of the case 4- the !1C# 4- institutin/ an appeal with the CA( 3n %" ,anuar- $%%"# the appellate court throu/h its @ourteenth Division dis0issed his appeal( [4] ?t noted that his father en/a/ed in a dou4le sale when he conve-ed the disputed properties to petitioner and respondents( 1he 8uitclai0 eDecuted 4- the elder Corpu6 in favor of petitioner was dated 15 !arch 1+.1# while the Deed of )ale with respondents was later# on 15 ,une 1+.1H 4oth docu0ents were notari6ed shortl- after their eDecution([5] 1he 8uitclai0# which was su4seBuentl- inscri4ed at the 4acA of 3ri/inal Certificate of 1itle (3C1 *o( 3&1.1. on $+ 3cto4er 1+.;#[;] resulted in the issuance of 1ransfer Certificate of 1itle (1C1 *o( 1&1$+"% in the na0e of petitioner( 1he Deed of )ale eDecuted with respondents was# however# not annotated at the 4acA of 3C1 *o( 3&1.1. and re0ained unre/istered([.] 7ased on the a4ove findin/s# the CA ruled that petitioner had Anowled/e of the sale of the disputed real properteDecuted 4etween @rancisco Corpu6# petitionerGs father# and respondents( Due to this conve-ance 4- the elder Corpu6 to respondents# the latterGs possession thereof was in the nature of ownership( 1hus# in the conteDt of an unlawful detainer case instituted 4- petitioner a/ainst respondents# the appellate court concluded that respondentsG possession of the propert- was not 4- 0ere tolerance of its for0er owner & petitionerGs father & 4ut was in the eDercise of ownership(["] 1he CA noted that petitioner had Anowled/e of his fatherGs sale of the properties to respondents as earl- as 1+.<( 5owever# despite Anowled/e of the sale# petitioner failed to initiate an- action to annul it and oust respondents fro0 the su4Eect properties([+] 1he appellate court reEected his contention that# as re/istered owner of the disputed properties# he had a 4etter ri/ht to possession thereof# co0pared to the unre/istered Deed of )ale relied upon 4respondents in their defense of the sa0e properties( 1he CA ruled that the inaction on his part despite Anowled/e of the sale in 1+.< was eBuivalent to re/istration of respondentsG unre/istered deed( [1%] ?n dis0issin/ his appeal# the CA concluded that respondentsG possession was Qnot ((( anchored on 0ere tolerance nor on an- of the /rounds for forci4le entr- or unlawful detainerQH hence Qthe co0plaint for eEect0ent 0ust fail(Q [11] 1he dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads2 95IRI@3RI# in view of the fore/oin/# the instant petition is here4- D?)!?))ID( 1he decision of 7ranch P:?# Re/ional 1rial Court of Faoa/ Cit- in Civil Case *o( 1<$+<&1; is here4- A@@?R!ID( SO ORDERED.[1$] The ssues Petitioner assi/ns the followin/ errors in this Petition for Review on Certiorari2 ?( 15I 53*3RA7FI C3JR1 of appeals seriousl- erred in failin/ to consider the le/al ownership of petitioner on the disputed propert- to clai0 4etter ri/ht to possession( ??( 15I 53*3RA7FI C3JR1 3@ APPIAF) )IR?3J)FK IRRID ?* 15I APPRIC?A1?3* 3@ 15I AFFI'ID )AFI ?* @A:3R 3@ RI)P3*DI*1) 13 RJFI 15A1 15IK 5A:I 7I11IR R?'51 13 P3))I))?3*( ???( 15I 53*3RA7FI C3JR1 3@ APPIAF) )IR?3J)FK IRRID ?* @A?F?*' 13 C3*)?DIR 15I CA)I 3@ ,AC?*13 C3 :)( !?F?1AR# I1 AF( (4$1 )CRA 455 95?C5 ?) )?!?FAR 13 15I ?*)1A*1 CA)I( ?:( 15I 53*3RA7FI C3JR1 3@ APPIAF) )IR?3J)FK IRRID ?* DI*K?*' 15I PI1?1?3* @3R RI:?I9 RA?)ID 7I@3RI ?1([1<] Petitioner presents to this Court for resolution the core issue of his Petition2 who 4etween the parties has the ri/ht to possession of the disputed properties && petitioner# who is the re/istered owner under 1C1 *o( 1&1$+"%H or respondents# who have a notari6ed -et unre/istered Deed of A4solute )ale over the sa0e propertiesR

The Court!s "ulin# 9e DEN) the Petition( Althou/h this case does not present a novel Buestion of law# there is a need to discuss the nature of an eEect0ent case for the recover- of ph-sical possession in relation to the 1orrens s-ste0( A resolution of the issue would 4e relevant to the deter0ination of who has the 4etter ri/ht to possession in this unlawful detainer case( 3ne of the three Ainds of action for the recover- of possession of real propert- is Q a""ion interdi"tal, or an eEect0ent proceedin/ ((( which 0a- 4e either that for forci4le entr- (detenta"ion or unlawful detainer (desah%"io # which is a su00ar- action for the recover- of ph-sical possession where the dispossession has not lasted for 0ore than one -ear# and should 4e 4rou/ht in the proper inferior court(Q [14] ?n eEect0ent proceedin/s# the courts resolve the 4asic Buestion of who is entitled to ph-sical possession of the pre0ises# possession referrin/ to possession de fa"to, and not possession de '%re([15] 9here the parties to an eEect0ent case raise the issue of ownership# the courts 0a- pass upon that issue to deter0ine who 4etween the parties has the 4etter ri/ht to possess the propert-( 5owever# where the issue of ownership is insepara4l- linAed to that of possession# adEudication of the ownership issue is not final and 4indin/# 4ut onl- for the purpose of resolvin/ the issue of possession( 1he adEudication of the issue of ownership is onlprovisional# and not a 4ar to an action 4etween the sa0e parties involvin/ title to the propert-( [1;] ?n the instant case# the position of respondents is that the- are occup-in/ the disputed properties as owners# havin/ acBuired these fro0 petitionerGs father throu/h a Deed of A4solute )ale eDecuted in 1+.1( Respondents 4elieve that the- cannot 4e dispossessed of the disputed properties# since the- are the owners and are in actual possession thereof up to this date( Petitioner# however# re4uts this clai0 of ownership# contendin/ that he has re/istered the disputed properties in his na0e and has 4een issued a land title under the 1orrens s-ste0( 5e asserts that# havin/ re/istered the properties in his na0e# he is the reco/ni6ed owner and conseBuentl- has the 4etter ri/ht to possession( ?ndeed# a title issued under the 1orrens s-ste0 is entitled to all the attri4utes of propert- ownership# which necessaril- includes possession([1.] Petitioner is correct that as a 1orrens title holder over the su4Eect properties# he is the ri/htful owner and is entitled to possession thereof( 5owever# the lower courts and the appellate court consistentl- found that possession of the disputed properties 4- respondents was in the nature of ownership# and not 4- 0ere tolerance of the elder Corpu6( ?n fact# the- have 4een in continuous# open and notorious possession of the propert- for 0ore than <% -ears up to this da-( Petitioner cites /a"into Co v. Ri+al Militar, et al.,[1"] which has facts and le/al issues identical to those of the instant case( 1he petitioner therein filed an unlawful detainer case a/ainst the respondents over a disputed propert-( 5e had a 1orrens title thereto# while the respondents as actual occupants of the propert- clai0ed ownership thereof 4ased on their unre/istered Deeds of )ale( 1he principal issue was who 4etween the two parties had the 4etter ri/ht to possess the su4Eect propert-( 1his Court resolved the issue 4- upholdin/ the title holder as the one who had the 4etter ri/ht to possession of the disputed propert- 4ased on the followin/ Eustification2 9e have# ti0e and a/ain# held that the onl- issue for resolution in an unlawful detainer case is ph-sical or 0aterial possession of the propert- involved# independent of an- clai0 of ownership 4- an- of the part- liti/ants( !oreover# an eEect0ent suit is su00ar- in nature and is not suscepti4le to circu0vention 4- the si0ple eDpedient of assertin/ ownership over the propert-( ?n forci4le entr- and unlawful detainer cases# even if the defendant raises the Buestion of ownership in his pleadin/s and the Buestion of possession cannot 4e resolved without decidin/ the issue of ownership# the lower courts and the Court of Appeals# nonetheless# have the undou4ted co0petence to provisionall- resolve the issue of ownership for the sole purpose of deter0inin/ the issue of Possession( )uch decision# however# does not 4ind the title or affect the ownership of the land nor is conclusive of the facts therein found in a case 4etween the sa0e parties upon a different cause of action involvin/ possession( ?n the instant case# the evidence showed that as 4etween the parties# it is the petitioner who has a 1orrens 1itle to the propert-( Respondents 0erel- showed their unre/istered deeds of sale in support of their clai0s( 1he !etropolitan 1rial Court correctl- relied on the transfer certificate of title in the na0e of petitioner( ?n 1enio&34seBuio v( Court of Appeals# it was held that the 1orrens )-ste0 was adopted in this countr- 4ecause it was 4elieved to 4e the 0ost effective 0easure to /uarantee the inte/rit- of land titles and to protect their indefeasi4ilit- once the clai0 of ownership is esta4lished and reco/ni6ed(

?t is settled that a 1orrens Certificate of title is indefeasi4le and 4indin/ upon the whole world unless and until it has 4een nullified 4- a court of co0petent Eurisdiction( Jnder eDistin/ statutor- and decisional law# the power to pass upon the validit- of such certificate of title at the first instance properl- 4elon/s to the Re/ional 1rial Courts in a direct proceedin/ for cancellation of title( As the re/istered owner# petitioner had a ri/ht to the possession of the propert-# which is one of the attri4utes of his ownership( RespondentsG ar/u0ent that petitioner is not an innocent purchaser for value and was /uilt- of 4ad faith in havin/ the su4Eect land re/istered in his na0e is a collateral attacA on the title of petitioner# which is not allowed( A certificate of title cannot 4e su4Eect to a collateral attacA and can 4e altered# 0odified or cancelled onlin a direct proceedin/ in accordance with law( [1+] 1he pronounce0ent in Co v. Militar was later reiterated in )po%ses 1as"%al v. )po%ses Coronel[$%] and in )po%ses Barias v. Heirs of Bartolome Boneo, et al.#[$1] wherein we consistentl- held the a/e&old rule Qthat the person who has a 1orrens 1itle over a land is entitled to possession thereof(Q[$$] 5owever# we cannot lose si/ht of the fact that the present petitioner has instituted an unlawful detainer case a/ainst respondents( ?t is an esta4lished fact that for 0ore than three decades# the latter have 4een in continuous possession of the su4Eect propert-# which# as such# is in the concept of ownership and not 4- 0ere tolerance of petitionerGs father( Jnder these circu0stances# petitioner cannot si0pl- oust respondents fro0 possession throu/h the su00ar- procedure of an eEect0ent proceedin/( ?nstructive on this 0atter is Carbonilla v. Abiera,[$<] which reads thus2 9ithout a dou4t# the re/istered owner of real propert- is entitled to its possession( 5owever# the owner cannot si0pl- wrest possession thereof fro0 whoever is in actual occupation of the propert-( 1o recover possession# he 0ust resort to the proper Eudicial re0ed- and# once he chooses what action to file# he is reBuired to satisf- the conditions necessar- for such action to prosper( ?n the present case# petitioner opted to file an eEect0ent case a/ainst respondents( IEect0ent cases&&forci4le entrand unlawful detainer&&are su00ar- proceedin/s desi/ned to provide eDpeditious 0eans to protect actual possession or the ri/ht to possession of the propert- involved( 1he onl- Buestion that the courts resolve in eEect0ent proceedin/s is2 who is entitled to the ph-sical possession of the pre0ises# that is# to the possession de fa"to and not to the possession de '%re( ?t does not even 0atter if a part-Gs title to the propert- is Buestiona4le( (or .+1/ r,a/on, an ,7,-.8,n. -a/, 9100 no. n,-,//ar10y :, 5,-15,5 1n 3a;or o3 on, 9+o +a/ 4r,/,n.,5 4roo3 o3 o9n,r/+14 o3 .+, /u:7,-. 4ro4,r.y ( Le- Eurisdictional facts constitutive of the particular eEect0ent case filed 0ust 4e averred in the co0plaint and sufficientl- proven( 1he state0ents in the co0plaint that respondentsG possession of the 4uildin/ was 4- 0ere tolerance of petitioner clearl- 0aAe out a case for unlawful detainer( Jnlawful detainer involves the personGs withholdin/ fro0 another of the possession of the real propert- to which the latter is entitled# after the eDpiration or ter0ination of the for0erGs ri/ht to hold possession under the contract# either eDpressed or i0plied( A reBuisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case is that possession 0ust 4e ori/inall- lawful# and such possession 0ust have turned unlawful onl- upon the eDpiration of the ri/ht to possess( ?t 0ust 4e shown that the possession was initiall- lawfulH hence# the 4asis of such lawful possession 0ust 4e esta4lished( ?f# as in this case# the clai0 is that such possession is 4- 0ere tolerance of the plaintiff# the acts of tolerance 0ust 4e proved( (I0phasis supplied( ?n this case# petitioner has not proven that respondentsG continued possession of the su4Eect properties was 40ere tolerance of his father# eDcept 4- a 0ere alle/ation thereof( ?n fact# petitioner has not esta4lished when respondentsG possession of the properties 4eca0e unlawful & a reBuisite for a valid cause of action in an unlawful detainer case( ?n Canlas v. T%bil#[$4] we enu0erated the ele0ents that constitute the sufficienc- of a co0plaint for unlawful detainer# as follows2 9ell&settled is the rule that what deter0ines the nature of the action as well as the court which has Eurisdiction over the case are the alle/ations in the co0plaint( ?n eEect0ent cases# the co0plaint should e04od- such state0ent of facts as to 4rin/ the part- clearl- within the class of cases for which the statutes provide a re0ed-# as these proceedin/s are su00ar- in nature( 1he co0plaint 0ust show enou/h on its face to /ive the court Eurisdiction without resort to parol evidence( Jnlawful detainer is an action to recover possession of real propert- fro0 one who ille/all- withholds possession after the eDpiration or ter0ination of his ri/ht to hold possession under an- contract# eDpress or i0plied( 1he

possession of the defendant in unlawful detainer is ori/inall- le/al 4ut 4eca0e ille/al due to the eDpiration or ter0ination of the ri/ht to possess( An unlawful detainer proceedin/ is su00ar- in nature# Eurisdiction of which lies in the proper 0unicipal trial court or 0etropolitan trial court( 1he action 0ust 4e 4rou/ht within one -ear fro0 the date of last de0and and the issue in said case is the ri/ht to ph-sical possession( ((( ((( (((

?n Cabrera v. ,etar%ela# the Court held that a co0plaint sufficientl- alle/es a cause of action for unlawful detainer if it recites the followin/2 (1 initiall-# possession of propert- 4- the defendant was 4- contract with or :y .o0,ran-, of the plaintiffH ($ eventuall-# such possession 4eca0e ille/al upon notice 4- plaintiff to defendant of the ter0ination of the latterGs ri/ht of possessionH (< thereafter# the defendant re0ained in possession of the propert- and deprived the plaintiff of the enEo-0ent thereofH and (4 within one -ear fro0 the last de0and on defendant to vacate the propert-# the plaintiff instituted the co0plaint for eEect0ent( 7ased on the a4ove# it is o4vious that petitioner has not co0plied with the reBuire0ents sufficient to warrant the success of his unlawful detainer Co0plaint a/ainst respondents( 1he lower courts and the CA have consistentlupheld the entitle0ent of respondents to continued possession of the su4Eect properties# since their possession has 4een esta4lished as one in the concept of ownership( 1hus# the courts correctl- dis0issed the unlawful detainer case of petitioner( 9e concur in the appellate courtGs findin/s that petitionerGs father en/a/ed in a dou4le sale of the disputed properties( 1he records of the case show that it tooA petitioner 0ore or less five -ears fro0 1+.1 when he acBuired the propert- fro0 his father to 1+.; when petitioner re/istered the conve-ance and caused the issuance of the land title re/istered in his na0e under the 1orrens s-ste0( Respondents# on the other hand# continued their possession of the properties# 4ut without 4otherin/ to re/ister the0 or to initiate an- action to fortif- their ownership( 9e cannot# however# sustain the appellate courtGs conclusion that petitionerGs failure to initiate an- action to annul the sale to respondents and oust the0 fro0 the disputed properties had the effect of re/istration of respondentsG unre/istered Deed of A4solute )ale( 9e held thus in R%i+, )r. v. Co%rt of Appeals [$5]2 (7ut where a part- has Anowled/e of a prior eDistin/ interest which is unre/istered at that ti0e he acBuired a ri/ht to the sa0e land# +1/ <no90,52, o3 .+a. 4r1or unr,21/.,r,5 1n.,r,/. +a/ .+, ,33,-. o3 r,21/.ra.1on a/ .o +18( Lnowled/e of an unre/istered sale is eBuivalent to re/istration( As held in *ernande+ v. Co%rt of Appeals[1"+ )CRA ."% (1++% ]# )ection 5% of Act *o( 4+; (now )ec( 51 of P(D( 15$+ # provides that the re/istration of the deed is the operative act to 4ind or affect the land insofar as third persons are concerned( 7ut where the part- has Anowled/e of a prior eDistin/ interest which is unre/istered at the ti0e he acBuired a ri/ht to the sa0e land# his Anowled/e of that prior unre/istered interest has the effect of re/istration as to hi0( 1he 1orrens s-ste0 cannot 4e used as a shield for the co00ission of fraud ('ustillo v( !aravilla# 4" Phil( 44$ ( [I0phasis supplied(] ?n this case# the 8uitclai0 eDecuted 4- the elder Corpu6 in favor of petitioner was eDecuted ahead of the Deed of )ale of respondents( 1hus# the sale of the su4Eect properties 4- petitionerGs father to respondents cannot 4e considered as a prior interest at the ti0e that petitioner ca0e to Anow of the transaction( 9e also note that# 4ased on the records# respondents do not dispute the eDistence of 1C1 *o( 1&1$+"% re/istered in the na0e of petitioner( 1he- alle/e# thou/h# that the land title issued to hi0 was an Qact of fraudQ [$;] on his part( 9e find this ar/u0ent to 4e eBuivalent to a collateral attacA a/ainst the 1orrens title of petitioner & an attacA we cannot allow in the instant unlawful detainer case( ?t is settled in Eurisprudence that a 1orrens certificate of title cannot 4e the su4Eect of collateral attacA( [$.] )uch attacA 0ust 4e direct and not 4- a collateral proceedin/([$"] ?t is a well&esta4lished doctrine that the title represented 4- the certificate cannot 4e chan/ed# altered# 0odified# enlar/ed# or di0inished in a collateral proceedin/([$+] Considerin/ that this is an unlawful detainer case wherein the sole issue to 4e decided is

possession de fa"to rather than possession de '%re# a collateral attacA 4- herein respondents on petitionerGs title is proscri4ed( 3ur rulin/ in the present case is onl- to resolve the issue of who has the 4etter ri/ht to possession in relation to the issue of disputed ownership of the su4Eect properties( 8uestions as to the validit- of petitionerGs 1orrens title can 4e ventilated in a proper suit instituted to directl- attacA its validit-# an issue that we cannot resolve definitivel- in this unlawful detainer case( 'HERE(ORE# in view of the fore/oin/# we den- the instant Petition for lacA of 0erit( 1he Decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA&'(R( )P *o( +%;45 (dated ,anuar- %"# $%%" # of the Re/ional 1rial Court of Faoa/ Cit- in Civil Case *o( <111&1<$+<&;5# as well as of the !unicipal 1rial Court of Faoa/ Cit- in Civil Case *o( <111 && all dis0issin/ the unlawful detainer case of petitioner & are A((IR ED( 9e 0aAe no pronounce0ents as to attorne-Gs fees for lacA of evidence( SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Perez, "e$es, an5 Perlas%&ernabe, JJ.= -on-ur. Endnotes: Desi/nated as actin/ !e04er of the )econd Division vice Associate ,ustice Arturo D( 7rion per )pecial 3rder *o( 11.4 dated ,anuar- +# $%1$(
S

Penned 4- Associate ,ustice Arcan/elita !( Ro0illa&FontoA and concurred in 4- then Associate ,ustice !ariano C( del Castillo and Associate ,ustice Ro0eo @( 7ar6a(
[1] [$]

Rollo# p( 4<( Rollo, pp( <;&<"( Rollo, p( <;( CA rollo# p( 4%( ?d( Rollo# p( ""( Rollo# p( 4%( ?d( ?d( ?d( at 41( ?d( Rollo# pp( 15&1;( @loren6 D( Re/alado# Re0edial Faw Co0pendiu0 ? (.th rev( ed( $%%. ( 3avid v. Cordova# 5%$ Phil( ;$; ($%%5 (

[<]

[4]

[5]

[;]

[.]

["]

[+]

[1%]

[11]

[1$]

[1<]

[14]

[15]

Rivera v. Rivera# 45< Phil( 4%4# 41$ ($%%< as cited in 4rieta vda. de Ag%ilar v. Alfaro# '(R( *o( 1;44%$# %5 ,ul$%1%# ;$< )CRA 1<%(
[1;] [1.]

5i"ente v. Avera# '(R( no( 1;++.%# $% ,anuar- $%%+# 5.; )CRA ;<4( '((R( *o( 14++1$# $+ ,anuar- $%%4# 4$1 )CRA 455(

[1"]

)upra# citin/ &strellita )./. vda. de 5illan%eva v. Co%rt of Appeals and 6ina *. vda. de )antiago, '(R( *o( 11.+.1# 1 @e4ruar- $%%1# <51 )CRA 1$H citin/ *o4leEas and *o4leEas# Fand 1itles and Deeds# $1% (1++$ H
[1+]

citin/ Ching v. Co%rt of Appeals# 1"1 )CRA + (1++% ( (Ching v. Co%rt of Appeals was erroneousl- cited as '(R( *os( 5+5;"&.; in the ori/inal Decision in Co v. Militar (
[$%]

'(R( *o( 15+$+$# 1$ ,ul- $%%.# 5$. )CRA 4.4( '(R( *o( 1;;+41# 14 Dece04er $%%+# ;%" )CRA 1;+( ?d( '(R( *o( 1..;<.# $; ,ul- $%1%# ;$5 )CRA 4;1( '(R( *o( 1"4$"5# $5 )epte04er $%%+# ;%1 )CRA 14.( 414 Phil( <11# <$< ($%%1 ( Rollo, p( $+1( )po%ses Mar"os R. &sma7%el and 5i"toria )ordevilla v. Maria Coprada, '(R( *o( 15$4$<# 15 Dece04er $%1%( Borba'o v. Hidden 5ie. Homeo.ners, !n"., '(R( *o( 15$44%# <1 ,anuar- $%%5# 45% )CRA <15(

[$1]

[$$]

[$<]

[$4]

[$5]

[$;]

[$.]

[$"]

6egarda and 1rieto v. )aleeb$# <1 Phil( 5+% (1+15 H Maga$ v. &stiandan# '(R( *o( F&$"+.5# $. @e4ruar- 1+.;H ;+ )CRA 45; as cited in Pena# Pena# ,r( T Pena# Re/istration of Fand 1itles and Deeds ($%%" (
[$+]

(IRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 1>8239 : January 2>, 2012] "RIS$I!!A A! A JOSE, "ETITIONER, VS. RA ON $. JAVE!!ANA, ET A!., RES"ONDENTS. DE$ISION &ERSA IN, J.: 1he denial of a 0otion for reconsideration of an order /rantin/ the defendin/ part-Ns 0otion to dis0iss is not an interlocutor- 4ut a final order 4ecause it puts an end to the particular 0atter involved# or settles definitel- the 0atter therein disposed of# as to leave nothin/ for the trial court to do other than to eDecute the order( [1] Accordin/l-# the clai0in/ part- has a fresh period of 15 da-s fro0 notice of the denial within which to appeal the denial([$] An.,-,5,n./ 3n )epte04er "# 1+.+# !ar/arita !arBue6 Al0a ,ose (!ar/arita sold for consideration of P1;%#%%%(%% to respondent Ra0on ,avellana 4- deed of conditional sale two parcels of land with areas of <#;.5 and $%#+<; sBuare 0eters located in 7aran/a- !allis# 'ui/uinto# 7ulacan( 1he- a/reed that ,avellana would pa- P"%#%%%(%% upon the eDecution of the deed and the 4alance of P"%#%%%(%% upon the re/istration of the parcels of land under the 1orrens )-ste0 (the re/istration 4ein/ undertaAen 4- !ar/arita within a reasona4le period of ti0e H and that should !ar/arita 4eco0e incapacitated# her son and attorne-&in&fact# ,uvenal !( Al0a ,ose (,uvenal # and her dau/hter# petitioner Priscilla !( Al0a ,ose# would receive the pa-0ent of the 4alance and proceed with the application for re/istration([<] After !ar/arita died and with ,uvenal havin/ predeceased !ar/arita without issue# the vendorNs undertaAin/ fell on the shoulders of Priscilla# 4ein/ !ar/aritaNs sole survivin/ heir( 5owever# Priscilla did not co0pl- with the undertaAin/ to cause the re/istration of the properties under the 1orrens )-ste0# and# instead# 4e/an to i0prove the properties 4- du0pin/ fillin/ 0aterials therein with the intention of convertin/ the parcels of land into a residential or industrial su4division([4] @aced with PriscillaNs refusal to co0pl-# ,avellana co00enced on @e4ruar1%# 1++. an action for specific perfor0ance# inEunction# and da0a/es a/ainst her in the Re/ional 1rial Court in !alolos# 7ulacan (R1C # docAeted as Civil Case *o( .+&!&+. entitled Ra0on C( /avellana, represented b$Att$. ,%illermo ,. Blan"o v. 1ris"illa Alma /ose. ?n Civil Case *o( .+&!&+.# ,avellana averred that upon the eDecution of the deed of conditional sale# he had paid the initial a0ount of P"%#%%%(%% and had taAen possession of the parcels of landH that he had paid the 4alance of

the purchase price to ,uvenal on different dates upon ,uvenalNs representation that !ar/arita had needed funds for the eDpenses of re/istration and pa-0ent of real estate taDH and that in 1++;# Priscilla had called to inBuire a4out the 0ort/a/e constituted on the parcels of landH and that he had told her then that the parcels of land had not 4een 0ort/a/ed 4ut had 4een sold to hi0([5] ,avellana pra-ed for the issuance of a te0porar- restrainin/ order or writ of preli0inar- inEunction to restrain Priscilla fro0 du0pin/ fillin/ 0aterials in the parcels of landH and that Priscilla 4e ordered to institute re/istration proceedin/s and then to eDecute a final deed of sale in his favor( [;] Priscilla filed a 0otion to dis0iss# statin/ that the co0plaint was alread- 4arred 4- prescriptionH and that the co0plaint did not state a cause of action([.] 1he R1C initiall- denied PriscillaNs 0otion to dis0iss on @e4ruar- 4# 1++"( ["] 5owever# upon her 0otion for reconsideration# the R1C reversed itself on ,une $4# 1+++ and /ranted the 0otion to dis0iss# opinin/ that ,avellana had no cause of action a/ainst her due to her not 4ein/ 4ound to co0pl- with the ter0s of the deed of conditional sale for not 4ein/ a part- theretoH that there was no evidence showin/ the pa-0ent of the 4alanceH that he had never de0anded the re/istration of the land fro0 !ar/arita or ,uvenal# or 4rou/ht a suit for specific perfor0ance a/ainst !ar/arita or ,uvenalH and that his clai0 of pa-in/ the 4alance was not credi4le( [+] ,avellana 0oved for reconsideration# contendin/ that the presentation of evidence of full pa-0ent was not necessar- at that sta/e of the proceedin/sH and that in resolvin/ a 0otion to dis0iss on the /round of failure to state a cause of action# the facts alle/ed in the co0plaint were h-potheticall- ad0itted and onl- the alle/ations in the co0plaint should 4e considered in resolvin/ the 0otion( [1%] *onetheless# he attached to the 0otion for reconsideration the receipts showin/ the pa-0ents 0ade to ,uvenal( [11] !oreover# he 0aintained that Priscilla could no lon/er succeed to an- ri/hts respectin/ the parcels of land 4ecause he had 0eanwhile acBuired a4solute ownership of the0H and that the onl- thin/ that she# as sole heir# had inherited fro0 !ar/arita was the o4li/ation to re/ister the0 under the 1orrens )-ste0([1$] 3n ,une $1# $%%%# the R1C denied the 0otion for reconsideration for lacA of an- reason to distur4 the order of ,une $4# 1+++([1<] Accordin/l-# ,avellana filed a notice of appeal fro0 the ,une $1# $%%% order# [14] which the R1C /ave due course to# and the records were elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA ( ?n his appeal (C(A(&'(R( C: *o( ;"$5+ # ,avellana su40itted the followin/ as errors of the R1C# [15] to wit2 ? 15I 1R?AF C3JR1 'R?I:3J)FK IRRID ?* *31 C3*)?DIR?*' 15I @AC1 15A1 PFA?*1?@@&APIFFA*1 5AD F3*' C3!PF?ID 9?15 15I @JFF PAK!I*1 3@ 15I C3*)?DIRA1?3* 3@ 15I )AFI 3@ 15I )J7,IC1 PR3PIR1K A*D 5AD ?!!ID?A1IFK 1ALI* AC1JAF A*D P5K)?CAF P3))I))?3* 3@ )A?D PR3PIR1K JP3* 15I )?'*?*' 3@ 15I C3*D?1?3*AF DIID 3@ )AFIH ?? 15I 1R?AF C3JR1 37:?3J)FK IRRID ?* !AL?*' 193 C3*@F?C1?*' ?*1IRPRI1A1?3*) 3@ 15I PR3:?)?3* 3@ 15I C?:?F [C3DI]# PAR1?CJFARFK AR1?CFI 1+11# ?* 15I F?'51 3@ 15I 1IR!) 3@ 15I C3*D?1?3*AF DIID 3@ )AFIH ??? 15I 1R?AF C3JR1 IRRID ?* 53FD?*' 15A1 DI@I*DA*1&APPIFFII 7I?*' *31 A PAR1K 13 15I C3*D?1?3*AF DIID 3@ )AFI IPICJ1ID 7K 5IR !315IR ?* @A:3R 3@ PFA?*1@@&APPIFFA*1 ?) *31 73J*D 15IRI7K A*D CA* *31 7I C3!PIFFID 13 D3 15I AC1 RI8J?RID ?* 15I )A?D DIID 3@ C3*D?1?3*AF )AFIH ?: 15I 1R?AF C3JR1 IRRID ?* D?)!?))?*' 15I A!I*DID C3!PFA?*1 9?153J1 5IAR?*' 15I CA)I 3* 15I !IR?1)( Priscilla countered that the ,une $1# $%%% order was not appeala4leH that the appeal was not perfected on ti0eH and that ,avellana was /uilt- of foru0 shoppin/([1;] ?t appears that pendin/ the appeal# ,avellana also filed a petition for "ertiorari in the CA to assail the ,une $4# 1+++

and ,une $1# $%%% orders dis0issin/ his co0plaint (C(A(&'(R( )P *o( ;%455 ( 3n Au/ust ;# $%%1# however# the CA dis0issed the petition for "ertiorari#[1.] findin/ that the R1C did not co00it /rave a4use of discretion in issuin/ the orders# and holdin/ that it onl- co00itted# at 0ost# an error of Eud/0ent correcti4le 4- appeal in issuin/ the challen/ed orders( 3n *ove04er $%# $%%$# the CA pro0ul/ated its decision in C(A(&'(R( C: *o( ;"$5+# [1"] reversin/ and settin/ aside the dis0issal of Civil Case *o( .+&!&+.# and re0andin/ the records to the R1C for further proceedin/s in accordance with law([1+] 1he CA eDplained that the co0plaint sufficientl- stated a cause of actionH that Priscilla# as sole heir# succeeded to the ri/hts and o4li/ations of !ar/arita with respect to the parcels of landH that !ar/aritaNs undertaAin/ under the contract was not a purel- personal o4li/ation 4ut was trans0issi4le to Priscilla# who was conseBuentl- 4ound to co0pl- with the o4li/ationH that the action had not -et prescri4ed due to its 4ein/ actuallone for Buietin/ of title that was i0prescripti4le 4rou/ht 4- ,avellana who had actual possession of the propertiesH and that 4ased on the co0plaint# ,avellana had 4een in actual possession since 1+.+# and the cloud on his title had co0e a4out onlwhen Priscilla had started du0pin/ fillin/ 0aterials on the pre0ises( [$%] 3n !a- +# $%%<# the CA denied the 0otion for reconsideration# [$1] statin/ that it decided to /ive due course to the appeal even if filed out of ti0e 4ecause ,avellana had no intention to dela- the proceedin/s# as in fact he did not even seeA an eDtension of ti0e to file his appellantNs 4riefH that current Eurisprudence afforded liti/ants the a0plest opportunit- to present their cases free fro0 the constraints of technicalities# such that even if an appeal was filed out of ti0e# the appellate court was /iven the discretion to nonetheless allow the appeal for Eustifia4le reasons( I//u,/ Priscilla then 4rou/ht this appeal# averrin/ that the CA there4- erred in not outri/htl- dis0issin/ ,avellanaNs appeal 4ecause2 (a the ,une $1# $%%% R1C order was not appeala4leH (b the notice of appeal had 4een filed 4elatedl- 4three da-sH and (" ,avellana was /uilt- of foru0 shoppin/ for filin/ in the CA a petition for "ertiorari to assail the orders of the R1C that were the su4Eect 0atter of his appeal pendin/ in the CA( )he posited that# even if the CANs decision to entertain the appeal was affir0ed# the R1CNs dis0issal of the co0plaint should nonetheless 4e upheld 4ecause the co0plaint stated no cause of action# and the action had alread- prescri4ed( 3n his part# ,avellana countered that the errors 4ein/ assi/ned 4- Priscilla involved Buestions of fact not proper for the Court to review throu/h petition for review on "ertiorariH that the ,une $1# $%%% R1C order# 4ein/ a final order# was appeala4leH that his appeal was perfected on ti0eH and that he was not /uilt- of foru0 shoppin/ 4ecause at the ti0e he filed the petition for "ertiorari the CA had not -et rendered a decision in C(A(&'(R( C: *o( ;"$5+# and 4ecause the issue of ownership raised in C(A(&'(R( C: *o( ;"$5+ was different fro0 the issue of /rave a4use of discretion raised in C(A(&'(R( )P *o( ;%455( Ru01n2 1he petition for review has no 0erit( I D,n1a0 o3 .+, 8o.1on 3or r,-on/15,ra.1on o3 .+, or5,r o3 51/81//a0 9a/ a 31na0 or5,r an5 a44,a0a:0, Priscilla su40its that the order of ,une $1# $%%% was not the proper su4Eect of an appeal considerin/ that )ection 1 of Rule 41 of the R%les of Co%rt provides that no appeal 0a- 4e taAen fro0 an order den-in/ a 0otion for reconsideration( PriscillaNs su40ission is erroneous and cannot 4e sustained( @irst of all# the denial of ,avellanaNs 0otion for reconsideration left nothin/ 0ore to 4e done 4- the R1C 4ecause it confir0ed the dis0issal of Civil Case *o( .+&!&+.( ?t was clearl- a final order# not an interlocutor- one( 1he Court has distin/uished 4etween final and interlocutor- orders in 1ahila8,arrido v. Tortogo#[$$] thuswise2 1he distinction 4etween a final order and an interlocutor- order is well Anown( 1he first disposes of the su4Eect 0atter in its entiret- or ter0inates a particular proceedin/ or action# leavin/ nothin/ 0ore to 4e done eDcept to enforce 4- eDecution what the court has deter0ined# 4ut the latter does not co0pletel- dispose of the case 4ut leaves so0ethin/ else to 4e decided upon( An interlocutor- order deals with preli0inar- 0atters and the trial on the 0erits is -et to 4e held and the Eud/0ent rendered( 1he test to ascertain whether or not an order or a

Eud/0ent is interlocutor- or final is2 does the order or '%dgment leave something to be done in the trial "o%rt .ith respe"t to the merits of the "ase9 ?f it does# the order or Eud/0ent is interlocutor-H otherwise# it is final( And# secondl-# whether an order is final or interlocutor- deter0ines whether appeal is the correct re0ed- or not( A final order is appeala4le# to accord with the final '%dgment r%le enunciated in )ection 1# Rule 41 of the R%les of Co%rt to the effect that appeal 0a- 4e taAen fro0 a Eud/0ent or final order that co0pletel- disposes of the case# or of a particular 0atter therein when declared 4- these Rules to 4e appeala4leH [$<] 4ut the re0ed- fro0 an interlocutor- one is not an appeal 4ut a special civil action for "ertiorari( 1he eDplanation for the differentiation of re0edies /iven in 1ahila8,arrido v. Tortogo is apt2 DDD 1he reason for disallowin/ an appeal fro0 an interlocutor- order is to avoid 0ultiplicit- of appeals in a sin/le action# which necessaril- suspends the hearin/ and decision on the 0erits of the action durin/ the pendenc- of the appeals( Per0ittin/ 0ultiple appeals will necessaril- dela- the trial on the 0erits of the case for a considera4le len/th of ti0e# and will co0pel the adverse part- to incur unnecessar- eDpenses# for one of the parties 0ainterpose as 0an- appeals as there are incidental Buestions raised 4- hi0 and as there are interlocutor- orders rendered or issued 4- the lower court( An interlocutor- order 0a- 4e the su4Eect of an appeal# 4ut onl- after a Eud/0ent has 4een rendered# with the /round for appealin/ the order 4ein/ included in the appeal of the Eud/0ent itself( 1he re0ed- a/ainst an interlocutor- order not su4Eect of an appeal is an appropriate special civil action under Rule ;5# provided that the interlocutor- order is rendered without or in eDcess of Eurisdiction or with /rave a4use of discretion( 1hen is "ertiorariunder Rule ;5 allowed to 4e resorted to( ?ndeed# the Court has held that an appeal fro0 an order den-in/ a 0otion for reconsideration of a final order or Eud/0ent is effectivel- an appeal fro0 the final order or Eud/0ent itselfH and has eDpressl- clarified that the prohi4ition a/ainst appealin/ an order den-in/ a 0otion for reconsideration referred onl- to a denial of a 0otion for reconsideration of an interlocutor- order( [$4] II A44,a0 9a/ 8a5, on .18, 4ur/uan. .o 'e$pes (. CA Priscilla insists that ,avellana filed his notice of appeal out of ti0e( )he points out that he received a cop- of the ,une $4# 1+++ order on ,ul- +# 1+++# and filed his 0otion for reconsideration on ,ul- $1# 1+++ (or after the lapse of 1$ da-s H that the R1C denied his 0otion for reconsideration throu/h the order of ,une $1# $%%%# a cop- of which he received on ,ul- 1<# $%%%H that he had onl- three da-s fro0 ,ul- 1<# $%%%# or until ,ul- 1;# $%%%# within which to perfect an appealH and that havin/ filed his notice of appeal on ,ul- 1+# $%%%# his appeal should have 4een dis0issed for 4ein/ tard- 4- three da-s 4e-ond the eDpiration of the re/le0entar- period( )ection < of Rule 41 of the R%les of Co%rt provides2 )ection <( 1eriod of ordinar$ appeal( U 1he appeal shall 4e taAen within fifteen (15 da-s fro0 notice of the Eud/0ent or final order appealed fro0( 9here a record on appeal is reBuired# the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirt- (<% da-s fro0 notice of the Eud/0ent or final order( T+, 4,r1o5 o3 a44,a0 /+a00 :, 1n.,rru4.,5 :y a .18,0y 8o.1on 3or n,9 .r1a0 or r,-on/15,ra.1on. No 8o.1on 3or ,?.,n/1on o3 .18, .o 310, a 8o.1on 3or n,9 .r1a0 or r,-on/15,ra.1on /+a00 :, a00o9,5 ( (n Jnder the rule# ,avellana had onl- the 4alance of three da-s fro0 ,ul- 1<# $%%%# or until ,ul- 1;# $%%%# within which to perfect an appeal due to the ti0el- filin/ of his 0otion for reconsideration interruptin/ the runnin/ of the period of appeal( As such# his filin/ of the notice of appeal onl- on ,ul- 1+# $%%% did not perfect his appeal on ti0e# as Priscilla insists( 1he see0in/l- correct insistence of Priscilla cannot 4e upheld# however# considerin/ that the Court 0eanwhile adopted the fresh period r%le in #e$pes v. Co%rt of Appeals#[$5] 4- which an a//rieved part- desirous of appealin/ an adverse Eud/0ent or final order is allowed a fresh period of 15 da-s within which to file the notice of appeal in the R1C recAoned fro0 receipt of the order den-in/ a 0otion for a new trial or 0otion for reconsideration# to wit2 1he )upre0e Court 0a- pro0ul/ate procedural rules in all courts( ?t has the sole prero/ative to a0end# repeal or even esta4lish new rules for a 0ore si0plified and ineDpensive process# and the speed- disposition of cases( ?n the rules /overnin/ appeals to it and to the Court of Appeals# particularl- Rules 4$# 4< and 45# the Court allows eDtensions of ti0e# 4ased on Eustifia4le and co0pellin/ reasons# for parties to file their appeals( 1hese eDtensions 0a- consist of 15 da-s or 0ore(

1o standardi6e the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford liti/ants fair opportunit- to appeal their cases# the Court dee0s it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 da-s within which to file the notice of appeal in the Re/ional 1rial Court# counted fro0 receipt of the order dis0issin/ a 0otion for a new trial or 0otion for reconsideration( 5enceforth# this fresh period rule shall also appl- to Rule 4% /overnin/ appeals fro0 the !unicipal 1rial Courts to the Re/ional 1rial CourtsH Rule 4$ on petitions for review fro0 the Re/ional 1rial Courts to the Court of AppealsH Rule 4< on appeals fro0 Buasi&Eudicial a/encies to the Court of Appeals and Rule 45 /overnin/ appeals 4- certiorari to the )upre0e Court( 1he new rule ai0s to re/i0ent or 0aAe the appeal period unifor0# to 4e counted fro0 receipt of the order den-in/ the 0otion for new trial# 0otion for reconsideration (whether full or partial or anfinal order or resolution([$;] 1he fresh period r%le 0a- 4e applied to this case# for the Court has alread- retroactivel- eDtended the fresh period r%le to actions pendin/ and undeter0ined at the ti0e of their passa/e and this will not violate an- ri/ht of a person who 0a- feel that he is adversel- affected# inas0uch as there are no vested ri/hts in rules of procedure([$.] Accordin/ to 3e los )antos v. 5da. de Mang%bat2[$"] Procedural law refers to the adEective law which prescri4es rules and for0s of procedure in order that courts 0a4e a4le to ad0inister Eustice( Procedural laws do not co0e within the le/al conception of a retroactive law# or the /eneral rule a/ainst the retroactive operation of statues U the- 0a- 4e /iven retroactive effect on actions pendin/ and undeter0ined at the ti0e of their passa/e and this will not violate an- ri/ht of a person who 0a- feel that he is adversel- affected# inso0uch as there are no vested ri/hts in rules of procedure( 1he fresh period rule is a procedural law as it prescri4es a fresh period of 15 da-s within which an appeal 0a- 4e 0ade in the event that the 0otion for reconsideration is denied 4- the lower court( @ollowin/ the rule on retroactivit- of procedural laws# the Qfresh period ruleQ should 4e applied to pendin/ actions# such as the present case( Also# to den- herein petitioners the 4enefit of the fresh period rule will a0ount to inEustice# if not a4surdit-# since the su4Eect notice of Eud/0ent and final order were issued two -ears later or in the -ear $%%%# as co0pared to the notice of Eud/0ent and final order in *e-pes which were issued in 1++"( ?t will 4e incon/ruous and illo/ical that parties receivin/ notices of Eud/0ent and final orders issued in the -ear 1++" will enEo- the 4enefit of the fresh period rule while those later rulin/s of the lower courts such as in the instant case# will not( [$+] ConseBuentl-# we rule that ,avellanaNs notice of appeal was ti0el- filed pursuant to the fresh period rule( III No 3oru8 /+o441n2 9a/ -o881..,5 Priscilla clai0s that ,avellana en/a/ed in foru0 shoppin/ 4- filin/ a notice of appeal and a petition for"ertiorari a/ainst the sa0e orders( As earlier noted# he denies that his doin/ so violated the polic- a/ainst foru0 shoppin/( 1he Court eDpounded on the nature and purpose of foru0 shoppin/ in !n Re: Re"onstit%tion of Transfer Certifi"ates of Title #os. ;<;=>? and ;<;=>@ and !ss%an"e of A.nerBs 3%pli"ate Certifi"ates of Title !n 6ie% of Those 6ost, Rolando &d.ard ,. 6im, 1etitioner2[<%] @oru0 shoppin/ is the act of a part- liti/ant a/ainst who0 an adverse Eud/0ent has 4een rendered in one foru0 seeAin/ and possi4l- /ettin/ a favora4le opinion in another foru0# other than 4- appeal or the special civil action of "ertiorari# or the institution of two or 0ore actions or proceedin/s /rounded on the sa0e cause or supposition that one or the other court would 0aAe a favora4le disposition( @oru0 shoppin/ happens when# in the two or 0ore pendin/ cases# there is identit- of parties# identit- of ri/hts or causes of action# and identit- of reliefs sou/ht( 9here the ele0ents of litis pendentia are present# and where a final Eud/0ent in one case will a0ount to res '%di"ata in the other# there is foru0 shoppin/( @or litis pendentia to 4e a /round for the dis0issal of an action# there 0ust 4e2 (a identit- of the parties or at least such as to represent the sa0e interest in 4oth actionsH (4 identit- of ri/hts asserted and relief pra-ed for# the relief 4ein/ founded on the sa0e actsH and (c the identit- in the two cases should 4e such that the Eud/0ent which 0a- 4e rendered in one would# re/ardless of which part- is successful# a0ount to res Eudicata in the other( @or foru0 shoppin/ to eDist# 4oth actions 0ust involve the sa0e transaction# sa0e essential facts and circu0stances and 0ust raise identical causes of action# su4Eect 0atter and issues( Clearl-# it does not eDist where different orders were Buestioned# two distinct causes of action and issues were raised# and two o4Eectives were sou/ht(

)hould ,avellanaNs present appeal now 4e held 4arred 4- his filin/ of the petition for certiorari in the CA when his appeal in that court was -et pendin/R 9e are aware that in -o%ng v. )$,[<1] in which the petitioner filed a notice of appeal to elevate the orders concernin/ the dis0issal of her case due to non&suit to the CA and a petition for "ertiorari in the CA assailin/ the sa0e orders four 0onths later# the Court ruled that the successive filin/s of the notice of appeal and the petition for "ertiorari to attain the sa0e o4Eective of nullif-in/ the trial courtNs dis0issal orders constituted foru0 shoppin/ that warranted the dis0issal of 4oth cases( 1he Court said2 ?nelucta4l-# the petitioner# 4- filin/ an ordinar- appeal and a petition for "ertiorari with the CA# en/a/ed in foru0 shoppin/( 9hen the petitioner co00enced the appeal# onl- four 0onths had elapsed prior to her filin/ with the CA the Petition for Certiorari under Rule ;5 and which eventuall- ca0e up to this Court 4- wa- of the instant Petition (re2 *on&)uit ( 1he ele0ents of litis pendentia are present 4etween the two suits( As the CA# throu/h its 1hirteenth Division# correctl- noted# 4oth suits are founded on eDactl- the sa0e facts and refer to the sa0e su4Eect 0atterUthe R1C 3rders which dis0issed Civil Case *o( )P&5.%< ($%%% for failure to prosecute( ?n 4oth cases# the petitioner is seeAin/ the reversal of the R1C orders( 1he parties# the ri/hts asserted# the issues professed# and the reliefs pra-ed for# are all the sa0e( ?t is evident that the Eud/0ent of one foru0 0a- a0ount to res '%di"ata in the other( DDDD 1he re0edies of appeal and "ertiorari under Rule ;5 are 0utuall- eDclusive and not alternative or cu0ulative( 1his is a fir0 Eudicial polic-( 1he petitioner cannot hed/e her case 4- wa/erin/ two or 0ore appeals# and# in the event that the ordinar- appeal la/s si/nificantl- 4ehind the others# she cannot post fa"to validate this circu0stance as a de0onstration that the ordinar- appeal had not 4een speed- or adeBuate enou/h# in order to Eustif- the recourse to Rule ;5( 1his practice# if adopted# would sanction the filin/ of 0ultiple suits in 0ultiple fora# where each one# as the petitioner couches it# 4eco0es a precautionar- 0easure for the rest# there4- increasin/ the chances of a favora4le decision( 1his is the ver- evil that the proscription on foru0 shoppin/ seeAs to put ri/ht( ?n ,%aranteed Hotels, !n". v. Baltao, the Co%rt stated that the /rave evil sou/ht to 4e avoided 4- the rule a/ainst foru0 shoppin/ is the rendition 4- two co0petent tri4unals of two separate and contradictor- decisions( Jnscrupulous partliti/ants# taAin/ advanta/e of a variet- of co0petent tri4unals# 0a- repeatedl- tr- their lucA in several different fora until a favora4le result is reached( 1o avoid the resultant confusion# the Court adheres strictl- to the rules a/ainst foru0 shoppin/# and an- violation of these rules results in the dis0issal of the case( [<$] 1he sa0e result was reached in Zosa v. &strella,[<<] which liAewise involved the successive filin/ of a notice of appeal and a petition for "ertiorari to challen/e the sa0e orders# with the Court upholdin/ the CANs dis0issals of the appeal and the petition for "ertiorari throu/h separate decisions( Ket# the outco0e in -o%ng v. )$ and Zosa v. &strella is unEust here even if the orders of the R1C 4ein/ challen/ed throu/h appeal and the petition for "ertiorari were the sa0e( 1he unEustness eDists 4ecause the appeal and the petition for certiorari actuall- sou/ht different o4Eectives( ?n his appeal in C(A(&'(R( C: *o( ;"$5+# ,avellana ai0ed to undo the R1CNs erroneous dis0issal of Civil Case *o( .+&!&+. to clear the wa- for his Eudicial de0and for specific perfor0ance to 4e tried and deter0ined in due course 4- the R1CH 4ut his petition for "ertiorari had the ostensi4le o4Eective to prevent (Priscilla fro0 developin/ the su4Eect propert- and fro0 proceedin/ with the eEect0ent case until his appeal is finall- resolved# as the CA eDplicitl- deter0ined in its decision in C(A(&'(R( )P *o( ;%455([<4] *or were the dan/ers that the adoption of the Eudicial polic- a/ainst foru0 shoppin/ desi/ned to prevent or to eli0inate attendant( 1he first dan/er# i.e(# the 0ultiplicit- of suits upon one and the sa0e cause of action# would not 0ateriali6e considerin/ that the appeal was a continuit- of Civil Case *o( .+&!&+.# whereas C(A(&'(R( )P *o( ;%455 dealt with an independent /round of alle/ed /rave a4use of discretion a0ountin/ to lacA or eDcess of Eurisdiction on the part of the R1C( 1he second dan/er# i.e(# the unethical 0alpractice of shoppin/ for a friendlcourt or Eud/e to ensure a favora4le rulin/ or Eud/0ent after not /ettin/ it in the appeal# would not arise 4ecause the CA had not -et decided C(A(&'(R( C: *o( ;"$5+ as of the filin/ of the petition for "ertiorari( ?nstead# we see the situation of resortin/ to two inconsistent re0edial approaches to 4e the result of the tactical 0isEud/0ent 4- ,avellanaNs counsel on the efficac- of the appeal to stave off his caretaAerNs eviction fro0 the parcels of land and to prevent the develop0ent of the0 into a residential or co00ercial su4division pendin/ the appeal( ?n the petition for "ertiorari, ,avellana eDplicitl- averred that his appeal was inadeBuate and not speed- to prevent private respondent Al0a ,ose and her transfereeOassi/nee DDD fro0 developin/ and disposin/ of the su4Eect propert- to other parties to the total deprivation of petitionerNs ri/hts of possession and ownership over the su4Eect propert-# and that the dis0issal 4- the R1C had e04oldened private respondents to full- develop the propert- and for respondent Al0a ,ose to file an eEect0ent case a/ainst petitionerNs overseer DDD( [<5] 1here4-# it 4eca0e far&fetched that ,avellana 4rou/ht the petition for "ertiorari in violation of the polic- a/ainst foru0

shoppin/( 'HERE(ORE# the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorariH A((IR S the decision pro0ul/ated on *ove04er $%# $%%$H and 3RDIR) the petitioner to pa- the costs of suit( SO ORDERED. $orona, $.J., @$+a1r4,r/onA, !,onar5o%D, $a/.ro, =A:a5, an5 V100ara8a, Jr., JJ., -on-ur Endnotes: :ice Associate ,ustice !ariano C( del Castillo# who concurred in the decision of the Court of Appeals# per raffle of ,anuar-1"# $%1$(
S [1]

C%elnan v. 5H* 1hilippines, !n"., '(R( *o( 145+11# ,ul- .# $%%4# 4<< )CRA ;<1( #e$pes v. Co%rt of Appeals, '(R( *o( 1415$4# )epte04er 14# $%%5# ;%% )CRA 1( Records# pp( $5&$;( !d.# pp( 1"&1+ and CA decision# p( <( Records# pp( 1.&1" (the co0plaint was a0ended ( !d.# p( $%( !d.# p( 4%( !d.# pp( ;"&.%( !d.# pp( "<&"4( !d.# pp( 1%1&1%$( Records# pp( "+&+4( !d.# pp( 1%<&1%5( !d.# pp( 1$"&1$+( !d.# p( 1<4( CA rollo# p( +( !d.# pp( .+&"1( Rollo# pp( .5&"%(

[$]

[<]

[4]

[5]

[;]

[.]

["]

[+]

[1%]

[11]

[1$]

[1<]

[14]

[15]

[1;]

[1.]

!d.# pp( $;&<.H penned 4- Associate ,ustice !ercedes 'o6o&Dadole (retired # with Associate ,ustice 7ennie Adefuin&de la Cru6 (retired and Associate ,ustice !ariano del Castillo (now a 0e04er of the Court concurrin/(
[1"] [1+]

!d.# p( <;( !d.# pp( <5&<;( !d.# pp( <+&4%( '(R( *o( 15;<5"# Au/ust 1.# $%11 (the italics are part of the ori/inal teDt (

[$%]

[$1]

[$$]

7ersa0in# Appeal and Review in the Philippines# $nd Idition# Central Professional 7ooAs# ?nc(# 8ue6on Cit-# p( 11.H citin/ @riedenthal# et al(# Civil Procedure# $nd Idition# 1++<# 9est 'roup# pp( 5"$&5"<(
[$<] [$4]

C%elnan v. 5H* 1hilippines, !n"(# '(R( *o( 145+11# ,ul- .# $%%4# 4<< )CRA ;<1# where the Court stated2

?f the proscription a/ainst appealin/ an order den-in/ a 0otion for reconsideration is applied to an- order# then there would have 4een no need to specificall- 0ention in 4oth a4ove&Buoted sections of the Rules final orders or Eud/0ents as su4Eect of appeal( ?n other words# fro0 the entire provisions of Rules <+ and 41# there can 4e no 0istaAin/ that what is proscri4ed is to appeal fro0 a denial of a 0otion for reconsideration of an interlocutororder(

C%elnan v. 5H* 1hilippines, !n". has 4een cited in Ap%$an v. Haldeman# '(R( *o( 1$++"%# )epte04er $%# $%%4# 4<" )CRA 4%$ and )ilverio, /r. v. Co%rt of Appeals, '(R( *o( 1."+<<# )epte04er 1;# $%%+# ;%% )CRA 1(
[$5]

'(R( *o( 1415$4# )epte04er 14# $%%5# 4;+ )CRA ;<<( !d.# pp( ;4<&;45(

[$;]

)antiago v. Bergensen 3.-. 1hilippines, '(R( *o( 14"<<<# *ove04er 1.# $%%4# 44$ )CRA 4";# 4+%H )%ma.a$ v. 4rban Bank, !n"., '(R( *o( 14$5<4# ,une $.# $%%;# 4+< )CRA ++(
[$.] [$"]

'(R( *o( 14+5%"# 3cto4er 1%# $%%.# 5<5 )CRA 411( )%pra# at pp( 4$$&4$<( '(R( *o( 15;.+.# ,ul- ;# $%1%# ;$4 )CRA "1# pp( ""&"+( '(R( *o( 15..45# )epte04er $;# $%%;# 5%< )CRA 151( !d.# pp( 1;;&1;+( '(R( *o( 14++"4# *ove04er $"# $%%"# 5.$ )CRA 4$"( Rollo# p( ."( !d. (Buotes are fro0 the decision in C(A(&'(R( )P *o( ;%455# p( 4 (

[$+]

[<%]

[<1]

[<$]

[<<]

[<4]

[<5]

(IRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 18B>CB : (,:ruary 1>, 2012] THE RE"#&!I$ O( THE "HI!I""INES, "ETITIONER, VS. NORA (E SAG#N, RES"ONDENT. DE$ISION VI!!ARA A, JR., J.: 7efore us is a petition for review on certiorari filed 4- the )olicitor 'eneral on 4ehalf of the Repu4lic of the Philippines# seeAin/ the reversal of the April <# $%%+ Decision [1] of the Re/ional 1rial Court (R1C # 7ranch <# of 7a/uio Cit- in )pcl( Pro( Case *o( 1.&R( 1he R1C /ranted the petition[$] filed 4- respondent *ora @e )a/un entitled !n re: /%di"ial 3e"laration of &le"tion of *ilipino Citi+enship, #ora *e )ag%n v. The 6o"al Civil Registrar of Bag%io Cit$(
cralaw

1he facts follow2 Respondent is the le/iti0ate child of Al4ert )( Chan# a Chinese national# and !arta 7orro0eo# a @ilipino citi6en( )he was 4orn on Au/ust "# 1+5+ in 7a/uio Cit-[<] and did not elect Philippine citi6enship upon reachin/ the a/e of 0aEorit-( ?n 1++$# at the a/e of << and after /ettin/ 0arried to AleD )a/un# she eDecuted an 3ath of Alle/iance[4] to the Repu4lic of the Philippines( )aid docu0ent was notari6ed 4- Att-( Cristeta Feun/ on Dece04er 1.# 1++$# 4ut was not recorded and re/istered with the Focal Civil Re/istrar of 7a/uio Cit-( )o0eti0e in )epte04er $%%5# respondent applied for a Philippine passport( 5er application was denied due to the citi6enship of her father and there 4ein/ no annotation on her 4irth certificate that she has elected Philippine citi6enship( ConseBuentl-# she sou/ht a Eudicial declaration of her election of Philippine citi6enship and pra-ed that the Focal Civil Re/istrar of 7a/uio Cit- 4e ordered to annotate the sa0e on her 4irth certificate(

?n her petition# respondent averred that she was raised as a @ilipino# speaAs ?locano and 1a/alo/ fluentl- and attended local schools in 7a/uio Cit-# includin/ 5ol- @a0il- Acade0- and the )aint Fouis Jniversit-( Respondent clai0ed that despite her part&Chinese ancestr-# she alwa-s thou/ht of herself as a @ilipino( )he is a re/istered voter of Precinct *o( %41+A of 7aran/a- !anuel A( RoDas in 7a/uio Cit- and had voted in local and national elections as shown in the :oter Certification[5] issued 4- Att-( !ari4elle J0in/a of the Co00ission on Ilections of 7a/uio Cit-( )he asserted that 4- virtue of her positive acts# she has effectivel- elected Philippine citi6enship and such fact should 4e annotated on her record of 4irth so as to entitle her to the issuance of a Philippine passport( 3n Au/ust .# $%%.# the 3ffice of the )olicitor 'eneral (3)' entered its appearance as counsel for the Repu4lic of the Philippines and authori6ed the Cit- Prosecutor of 7a/uio Cit- to appear in the a4ove 0entioned case( [;] 5owever# no co00ent was filed 4- the Cit- Prosecutor( After conductin/ a hearin/# the trial court rendered the assailed Decision on April <# $%%+ /rantin/ the petition and declarin/ respondent a @ilipino citi6en( 1he fallo of the decision reads2 95IRI@3RI# the instant petition is here4- 'RA*1ID( Petitioner *ora @e )a/un - Chan is here4- DICFARID [a] @?F?P?*3 C?1?=I*# havin/ chosen or elected @ilipino citi6enship( Jpon pa-0ent of the reBuired fees# the Focal Civil Re/istrar of 7a/uio Cit- is here4- directed to annotate [on] her 4irth certificate# this Eudicial declaration of @ilipino citi6enship of said petitioner( IT IS SO ORDERED.[.] Contendin/ that the lower court erred in so rulin/# petitioner# throu/h the 3)'# directl- filed the instant recourse via a petition for review on certiorari 4efore us( Petitioner raises the followin/ issues2 ? 9hether or not an action or proceedin/ for Eudicial declaration of Philippine citi6enship is procedurall- and Eurisdictionall- per0issi4leH and# ?? 9hether or not an election of Philippine citi6enship# 0ade twelve (1$ -ears after reachin/ the a/e of 0aEorit-# is considered to have 4een 0ade within a reasona4le ti0e as interpreted 4- Eurisprudence( ["] Petitioner ar/ues that respondentNs petition 4efore the R1C was i0proper on two counts2 for one# law and Eurisprudence clearl- conte0plate no Eudicial action or proceedin/ for the declaration of Philippine citi6enshipH and for another# the pleaded re/istration of the oath of alle/iance with the local civil re/istr- and its annotation on respondentNs 4irth certificate are the 0inisterial duties of the re/istrarH hence# the- reBuire no court order( Petitioner asserts that respondentNs petition 4efore the trial court seeAin/ a Eudicial declaration of her election of Philippine citi6enship undenia4l- entails a deter0ination and conseBuent declaration of her status as a @ilipino citi6en which is not allowed under our le/al s-ste0( Petitioner also ar/ues that if respondentNs intention in filin/ the petition is ulti0atel- to have her oath of alle/iance re/istered with the local civil re/istr- and annotated on her 4irth certificate# then she does not have to resort to court proceedin/s( Petitioner further ar/ues that even assu0in/ that respondentNs action is sanctioned# the trial court erred in findin/ respondent as havin/ dul- elected Philippine citi6enship since her purported election was not in accordance with the procedure prescri4ed 4- law and was not 0ade within a reasona4le ti0e( Petitioner points out that while respondent eDecuted an oath of alle/iance 4efore a notar- pu4lic# there was no affidavit of her election of Philippine citi6enship( Additionall-# her oath of alle/iance which was not re/istered with the nearest local civil re/istr- was eDecuted when she was alread- << -ears old or 1$ -ears after she reached the a/e of 0aEorit-( Accordin/l-# it was 0ade 4e-ond the period allowed 4- law( ?n her Co00ent#[+] respondent avers that notwithstandin/ her failure to for0all- elect @ilipino citi6enship upon reachin/ the a/e of 0aEorit-# she has in fact effectivel- elected @ilipino citi6enship 4- her perfor0ance of positive acts# a0on/ which is the eDercise of the ri/ht of suffra/e( )he clai0s that she had voted and participated in all local and national elections fro0 the ti0e she was of le/al a/e( )he also insists that she is a @ilipino citi6en despite the fact that her election of Philippine citi6enship was dela-ed and unre/istered( ?n repl-#[1%] petitioner ar/ues that the special circu0stances invoAed 4- respondent# liAe her continuous and uninterrupted sta- in the Philippines# her havin/ 4een educated in schools in the countr-# her choice of sta-in/

here despite the naturali6ation of her parents as A0erican citi6ens# and her 4ein/ a re/istered voter# cannot confer on her Philippine citi6enship as the law specificall- provides the reBuire0ents for acBuisition of Philippine citi6enship 4- election( Issentiall-# the issues for our resolution are2 (1 whether respondentNs petition for declaration of election of Philippine citi6enship is sanctioned 4- the Rules of Court and EurisprudenceH ($ whether respondent has effectivelelected Philippine citi6enship in accordance with the procedure prescri4ed 4- law( 1he petition is 0eritorious( At the outset# it is necessar- to stress that a direct recourse to this Court fro0 the decisions# final resolutions and orders of the R1C 0a- 4e taAen where onl- Buestions of law are raised or involved( 1here is a Buestion of law when the dou4t or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts# which does not call for an eDa0ination of the pro4ative value of the evidence presented 4- the parties&liti/ants( 3n the other hand# there is a Buestion of fact when the dou4t or controvers- arises as to the truth or falsit- of the alle/ed facts( )i0pl- put# when there is no dispute as to fact# the Buestion of whether the conclusion drawn therefro0 is correct or not# is a Buestion of law([11] ?n the present case# petitioner assails the propriet- of the decision of the trial court declarin/ respondent a @ilipino citi6en after findin/ that respondent was a4le to su4stantiate her election of @ilipino citi6enship( Petitioner contends that respondentNs petition for Eudicial declaration of election of Philippine citi6enship is procedurall- and Eurisdictionall- i0per0issi4le( :eril-# petitioner has raised Buestions of law as the resolution of these issues rest solel- on what the law provides /iven the attendant circu0stances( ?n /rantin/ the petition# the trial court stated2 1his Court 4elieves that petitioner was a4le to full- su4stantiate her petition re/ardin/ her election of @ilipino citi6enship# and the Focal Civil Re/istrar of 7a/uio Cit- should 4e ordered to annotate in her 4irth certificate her election of @ilipino citi6enship( 1his Court adds that the petitionerNs election of @ilipino citi6enship should 4e welco0ed 4- this countr- and people 4ecause the petitioner has the choice to elect citi6enship of powerful countries liAe the Jnited )tates of A0erica and China# however# petitioner has chosen @ilipino citi6enship 4ecause she /rew up in this countr-# and has learned to love the Philippines( 5er choice of electin/ @ilipino citi6enship is# in fact# a testi0on- that 0an- of our people still wish to live in the Philippines# and are ver- proud of our countr-( 95IRI@3RI# the instant petition is here4- 'RA*1ID( Petitioner *ora @e )a/un - Chan is here4- DICFARID as @?F?P?*3 C?1?=I*# havin/ chosen or elected @ilipino citi6enship( [1$] @or sure# this Court has consistentl- ruled that there is no proceedin/ esta4lished 4- law# or the Rules for the Eudicial declaration of the citi6enship of an individual( [1<] 1here is no specific le/islation authori6in/ the institution of a Eudicial proceedin/ to declare that a /iven person is part of our citi6enr-( [14] 1his was our rulin/ in -%ng 4an Ch% v. Rep%bli"[15] citin/ the earl- case of Tan v. Rep%bli" of the 1hilippines#[1;] where we clearl- stated2 Jnder our laws# there can 4e no action or proceedin/ for the Eudicial declaration of the citi6enship of an individual( Courts of Eustice eDist for settle0ent of Eusticia4le controversies# which i0pl- a /iven ri/ht# le/all- de0anda4le and enforcea4le# an act or o0ission violative of said ri/ht# and a re0ed-# /ranted or sanctioned 4- law# for said 4reach of ri/ht( As an incident onl- of the adEudication of the ri/hts of the parties to a controvers-# the court 0a- pass upon# and 0aAe a pronounce0ent relative to their status( 3therwise# such a pronounce0ent is 4e-ond Eudicial power( D D D Clearl-# it was erroneous for the trial court to 0aAe a specific declaration of respondentNs @ilipino citi6enship as such pronounce0ent was not within the courtNs co0petence( As to the propriet- of respondentNs petition seeAin/ a Eudicial declaration of election of Philippine citi6enship# it is i0perative that we deter0ine whether respondent is reBuired under the law to 0aAe an election and if so# whether she has co0plied with the procedural reBuire0ents in the election of Philippine citi6enship( 9hen respondent was 4orn on Au/ust "# 1+5+# the /overnin/ charter was the 1+<5 Constitution# which declares as citi6ens of the Philippines those whose 0others are citi6ens of the Philippines and elect Philippine citi6enship upon reachin/ the a/e of 0aEorit-( )ec( 1# Art( ?: of the 1+<5 Constitutionreads2 )ection 1( 1he followin/ are citi6ens of the Philippines2 DDDD

(4 1hose whose 0others are citi6ens of the Philippines and# upon reachin/ the a/e of 0aEorit-# elect Philippine citi6enship( Jnder Article ?:# )ection 1(4 of the 1+<5 Constitution# the citi6enship of a le/iti0ate child 4orn of a @ilipino 0other and an alien father followed the citi6enship of the father# unless# upon reachin/ the a/e of 0aEorit-# the child elected Philippine citi6enship( 1he ri/ht to elect Philippine citi6enship was reco/ni6ed in the 1+.< Constitution when it provided that [t]hose who elect Philippine citi6enship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirt-&five are citi6ens of the Philippines( [1.] FiAewise# this reco/nition 4the 1+.< Constitution was carried over to the 1+". Constitution which states that [t]hose 4orn 4efore ,anuar- 1.# 1+.< of @ilipino 0others# who elect Philippine citi6enship upon reachin/ the a/e of 0aEorit- are Philippine citi6ens( [1"] ?t should 4e noted# however# that the 1+.< and 1+". Constitutional provisions on the election of Philippine citi6enship should not 4e understood as havin/ a curative effect on an- irre/ularit- in the acBuisition of citi6enship for those covered 4- the 1+<5 Constitution( ?f the citi6enship of a person was su4Eect to challen/e under the old charter# it re0ains su4Eect to challen/e under the new charter even if the Eudicial challen/e had not 4een co00enced 4efore the effectivit- of the new Constitution( [1+] 7ein/ a le/iti0ate child# respondentNs citi6enship followed that of her father who is Chinese# unless upon reachin/ the a/e of 0aEorit-# she elects Philippine citi6enship( ?t is a settled rule that onl- le/iti0ate children follow the citi6enship of the father and that ille/iti0ate children are under the parental authorit- of the 0other and follow her nationalit-([$%] An ille/iti0ate child of @ilipina need not perfor0 an- act to confer upon hi0 all the ri/hts and privile/es attached to citi6ens of the PhilippinesH he auto0aticall- 4eco0es a citi6en hi0self( [$1] 7ut in the case of respondent# for her to 4e considered a @ilipino citi6en# she 0ust have validl- elected Philippine citi6enship upon reachin/ the a/e of 0aEorit-( Co00onwealth Act (C(A( *o( ;$5#[$$] enacted pursuant to )ection 1(4 # Article ?: of the 1+<5 Constitution# prescri4es the procedure that should 4e followed in order to 0aAe a valid election of Philippine citi6enship# to wit2 )ection 1( 1he option to elect Philippine citi6enship in accordance with su4section (4 # [)]ection 1# Article ?:# of the Constitution shall 4e eDpressed in a state0ent to 4e si/ned and sworn to 4- the part- concerned 4efore anofficer authori6ed to ad0inister oaths# and shall 4e filed with the nearest civil re/istr-( 1he said part- shall acco0pan- the aforesaid state0ent with the oath of alle/iance to the Constitution and the 'overn0ent of the Philippines( 7ased on the fore/oin/# the statutor- for0alities of electin/ Philippine citi6enship are2 (1 a state0ent of election under oathH ($ an oath of alle/iance to the Constitution and 'overn0ent of the PhilippinesH and (< re/istration of the state0ent of election and of the oath with the nearest civil re/istr-( [$<] @urther0ore# no election of Philippine citi6enship shall 4e accepted for re/istration under C(A( *o( ;$5 unless the part- eDercisin/ the ri/ht of election has co0plied with the reBuire0ents of the Alien Re/istration Act of 1+5%( ?n other words# he should first 4e reBuired to re/ister as an alien( [$4] Pertinentl-# the person electin/ Philippine citi6enship is reBuired to file a petition with the Co00ission of ?00i/ration and Deportation (now 7ureau of ?00i/ration for the cancellation of his alien certificate of re/istration 4ased on his aforesaid election of Philippine citi6enship and said 3ffice will initiall- decide# 4ased on the evidence presented the validit- or invalidit- of said election([$5] Afterwards# the sa0e is elevated to the !inistr- (now Depart0ent of ,ustice for final deter0ination and review([$;] ?t should 4e stressed that there is no specific statutor- or procedural rule which authori6es the direct filin/ of a petition for declaration of election of Philippine citi6enship 4efore the courts( 1he special proceedin/ provided under )ection $# Rule 1%" of the Rules of Court on Can"ellation or Corre"tion of &ntries in the Civil Registr$ # 0erelallows an- interested part- to file an action for cancellation or correction of entr- in the civil re/istr-# i(e(# election# loss and recover- of citi6enship# which is not the relief pra-ed for 4- the respondent( 7e that as it 0a-# even if we set aside this procedural infir0it-# still the trial courtNs conclusion that respondent dul- elected Philippine citi6enship is erroneous since the records undisputa4l- show that respondent failed to co0pl- with the le/al reBuire0ents for a valid election( )pecificall-# respondent had not eDecuted a sworn state0ent of her election of Philippine citi6enship( 1he onl- docu0entar- evidence su40itted 4- respondent in support of her clai0 of alle/ed election was her oath of alle/iance# eDecuted 1$ -ears after she reached the a/e of 0aEorit-# which was unre/istered( As aptl- pointed out 4- the petitioner# even assu0in/ arg%endo that respondentNs oath of alle/iance suffices# its eDecution was not within a reasona4le ti0e after respondent attained the a/e of 0aEorit- and was not re/istered with the nearest civil re/istr- as reBuired under )ection 1 of C(A( *o( ;$5( 1he phrase reasona4le ti0e has 4een interpreted to 0ean that the election should 4e 0ade /enerallwithin three (< -ears fro0 reachin/ the a/e of 0aEorit-([$.] !oreover# there was no satisfactor- eDplanation proffered 4- respondent for the dela- and the failure to re/ister with the nearest local civil re/istr-( 7ased on the fore/oin/ circu0stances# respondent clearl- failed to co0pl- with the procedural reBuire0ents for a

valid and effective election of Philippine citi6enship( Respondent cannot assert that the eDercise of suffra/e and the participation in election eDercises constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine citi6enship since the law specificall- la-s down the reBuire0ents for acBuisition of citi6enship 4- election( 1he 0ere eDercise of suffra/e# continuous and uninterrupted sta- in the Philippines# and other si0ilar acts showin/ eDercise of Philippine citi6enship cannot taAe the place of election of Philippine citi6enship( 5ence# respondent cannot now 4e allowed to seeA the intervention of the court to confer upon her Philippine citi6enship when clearl- she has failed to validlelect Philippine citi6enship( As we held in Chin/#[$"] the prescri4ed procedure in electin/ Philippine citi6enship is certainl- not a tedious and painstaAin/ process( All that is reBuired of the elector is to eDecute an affidavit of election of Philippine citi6enship and# thereafter# file the sa0e with the nearest civil re/istr-( 5avin/ failed to co0pl- with the fore/oin/ reBuire0ents# respondentNs petition 4efore the trial court 0ust 4e denied(
cralaw

'HERE(ORE# the petition is GRANTED( 1he Decision dated April <# $%%+ of the Re/ional 1rial Court# 7ranch < of 7a/uio Cit- in )pcl( Pro( Case *o( 1.&R is REVERSED and SET ASIDE( 1he petition for Eudicial declaration of election of Philippine citi6enship filed 4- respondent *ora @e )a/un is here4- DIS ISSED for lacA of 0erit( *o costs( SO ORDERED. Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), )eonardo%*e Castro, &ersa+in, an5 *el Castillo, JJ., -on-ur. Endnotes:
[1]

Rollo# pp( $.&<$( Penned 4- Presidin/ ,ud/e @ernando :il Pa0intuan( Records# pp( 1& 4( ?d( at ;%( ?d( at .( ?d( at "( ?d( at $"( Rollo# p( <$( ?d( at 5+( ?d( at 4<&44( ?d( at 4"&4+( )arsaba v. 5da. de Te# '(R( *o( 1.5+1%# ,ul- <%# $%%+# 5+4 )CRA 41%# 4$%( Rollo# pp( <1&<$(

[$]

[<]

[4]

[5]

[;]

[.]

["]

[+]

[1%]

[11]

[1$]

-%ng 4an Ch% v. Rep%bli"# *o( F&<4+.<# April 14# 1+""# 15+ )CRA 5+<# 5+.H Board of Commissioners v. 3omingo# *o( F&$1$.4# ,ul- <1# 1+;<# " )CRA ;;1# ;;4(
[1<] [14]

?d( at 5+"H Tan v. Rep%bli" of the 1hilippines, 1%. Phil( ;<$# ;<4 (1+;% ( ?d( at 5+.( )upra note 14 at ;<<H Rep%bli" v. Maddela# *os( F& $1;;4 and F& $1;;5# !arch $"# 1+;+# $. )CRA .%$# .%5( )ec( 1(< # Art( ???# 1+.< Constitution( )ec( 1(< # Art( ?:# 1+". Constitution(

[15]

[1;]

[1.]

[1"]

Re2 Application @or Ad0ission to the Philippine 7ar( :icente D( Chin/# 7ar !atter *o( +14# 3cto4er 1# 1+++# <1; )CRA 1# .&"(
[1+] [$%]

,o, )r. v. Ramos, '(R( *os( 1;.5;+&.% and 1.1+4;# )epte04er 4# $%%+# 5+" )CRA $;;# $+4&$+5(

[$1]

?d( at $+5(

An Act Providin/ for the !anner in 9hich the 3ption to Ilect Philippine Citi6enship shall 4e Declared 4- Person 9hose !other is a @ilipino Citi6en# approved on ,une .# 1+41(
[$$] [$<]

Ma v. *ernande+, /r.# '(R( *o( 1"<1<<# ,ul- $;# $%1%# ;$5 )CRA 5;;# 5..( Ronaldo P( Fedes0a# An 3utline of Philippine ?00i/ration and Citi6enship Faws# :ol( ?# $%%; ed(# pp( 5$;( ?d( at 5$.# citin/ !e0orandu0 3rder dated Au/ust 1"# 1+5; of the C?D( ?d(# citin/ D3, 3pinion *o( 1"$ dated Au/ust 1+# 1+"$(

[$4]

[$5]

[$;]

Re2 Application @or Ad0ission to the Philippine 7ar( :icente D( Chin/# supra note 1+ at +H Ma v. *ernande+, /r.# supra note $< at 5."(
[$.] [$"]

?d( at 1$(

(IRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 1B>02> : (,:ruary 1>, 2012] ROGE!IO J. JADOSA!E AND GODO(REDO &. D#!(O "ETITIONERS, VS. RO&ERTO S. &ARANGAN, RES"ONDENT. DE$ISION DE! $ASTI!!O, J.: 1his case eDe0plifies the a/e&old rule that the one who holds a 1orrens title over a lot is the one entitled to its possession([1]
cralaw

1his Petition for Review on Certiorari[$] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision [<]dated Au/ust <# $%%; and the Resolution[4] dated 3cto4er 4# $%%; of the Court of Appeals (CA in CA&'(R( C: *o( .+$"<( Factual Antecedents 3n Au/ust 1<# 1+;;# respondent Col( Ro4erto )( 7aran/an (respondent 7aran/an entered into a Fand Purchase A/ree0ent[5] with ?reneo )( Fa4silica of Citadel Realt- Corporation where4- respondent 7aran/an a/reed to purchase on install0ent a <%% sBuare 0eter parcel of land# covered 4- 1ransfer Certificate of 1itle (1C1 *o( 1;545;#[;] located in Antipolo# Ri6al([.] Jpon full pa-0ent of the purchase price# a Deed of A4solute )ale ["] was eDecuted on Au/ust <1# 1+.; in his favor([+] ConseBuentl-# the old title# 1C1 *o( 1.145<#[1%] which was a transfer fro0 1C1 *o( 1;545;#[11] was cancelled and a new one# 1C1 *o( *&1%..$#[1$] was issued in his na0e([1<] )ince then# he has 4een dutifull- pa-in/ real propert- taDes for the said propert-( [14] 5e was not# however# a4le to ph-sicall- occup- the su4Eect propert- 4ecause as a 0e04er of the Philippine Air @orce# he was often assi/ned to various stations in the Philippines( [15] 3n Dece04er $<# 1++<# when he was a4out to retire fro0 the /overn0ent service# respondent 7aran/an went to visit his propert-# where he was plannin/ to 4uild a retire0ent ho0e( ?t was onl- then that he discovered that it was 4ein/ occupied 4- petitioner 'odofredo Dulfo (petitioner Dulfo and his fa0il-( [1;] 3n @e4ruar- 4# 1++4# respondent 7aran/an sent a letter[1.] to petitioner Dulfo de0andin/ that he and his fa0ilvacate the su4Eect propert- within <% da-s( ?n repl-# petitioner Att-( Ro/elio ,( ,aAosale0 (petitioner ,aAosale0 # the son&in&law of petitioner Dulfo# sent a letter[1"] clai0in/ ownership over the su4Eect propert-( 3n @e4ruar- 1+# 1++4# respondent 7aran/an filed with 7aran/a- )an Fuis# Antipolo# Ri6al# a co0plaint for :iolation of Presidential Decree *o( ..$ or the Anti&)Buattin/ Faw a/ainst petitioners( [1+] *o settle0ent was reachedH hence# the co0plaint was filed 4efore the ProsecutorNs 3ffice of Ri6al( [$%] 1he case# however# was dis0issed 4ecause the issue of ownership 0ust first 4e resolved in a civil action( [$1] 3n !a- $"# 1++4# respondent 7aran/an co00issioned 'eodetic In/ineer Fope C( ,onco (In/r( ,onco of ,( )urve-in/ )ervices to conduct a relocation surve- of the su4Eect propert- 4ased on the technical description

appearin/ on respondent 7aran/anNs 1C1( [$$] 1he relocation surve- revealed that the propert- occupied 4petitioner Dulfo and his fa0il- is the sa0e propert- covered 4- respondent 7aran/anNs title( [$<] 3n *ove04er 1.# 1++4# respondent 7aran/an filed a Co0plaint [$4] for Recover- of Possession# docAeted as Civil Case *o( +4&<4$<# a/ainst petitioners Dulfo and ,aAosale0 with the Re/ional 1rial Court (R1C # 7ranch .<# Antipolo Cit-( Respondent 7aran/an pra-ed that petitioners Dulfo and ,aAosale0 4e ordered to vacate the su4Eect propert- and pa- a 0onthl- rental of P<#%%%(%% for the use and occupanc- of the su4Eect propert- fro0 !a- 1+.+ until the ti0e the su4Eect propert- is vacated# plus 0oral and eDe0plar- da0a/es and cost of suit( [$5] ?n their Answer with Counterclai0#[$;] petitioners Dulfo and ,aAosale0 clai0ed that the su4Eect propert- was assi/ned to petitioner ,aAosale0 4- !r( *icanor )a0son ()a0son H [$.] that the- have 4een in possession of the su4Eect propert- since !a- "# 1+.+H[$"] and that the propert- covered 4- respondent 7aran/anNs title is not the propert- occupied 4- petitioner Dulfo and his fa0il-( [$+] Durin/ the trial# respondent 7aran/an testified for hi0self and presented three witnesses2 (1 're/orio Istardo (Istardo # the caretaAer of :illa Iditha )u4division and Rodville )u4division [<%] e0plo-ed 4- Citadel RealtCorporation# who stated under oath that petitioner Dulfo used to rent the lot owned 4- Dionisia 3rdiale6 (IstardoNs Aunt and that when petitioner Dulfo could no lon/er pa- the rent# he and his fa0il- sBuatted on the propert- of respondent 7aran/anH[<1] ($ Candida Fawis# a representative of the !unicipal Assessor of Antipolo# Ri6al# who confir0ed that respondent 7aran/an is included in the list of re/istered owners of lots in :illa Iditha )u4division ??? and Rodville )u4division[<$] andH (< In/r( ,onco# who testified that the propert- occupied 4- petitioner Dulfo and his fa0il- and the propert- owned 4- respondent 7aran/an are one and the sa0e( [<<] 1he defense 0oved for the dis0issal of the case on de0urrer to evidence 4ut was denied 4- the R1C( [<4] 1hus# the defense presented petitioner ,aAosale0 who 0aintained that he acBuired the su4Eect propert- 4- assi/n0ent fro0 its previous owner# )a0son([<5] 1he defense liAewise reBuested an ocular inspection of the su4Eect propert- to show that it is not the propert- covered 4- respondent 7aran/anNs title( [<;] 5owever# instead of /rantin/ the reBuest# the R1C issued an 3rder[<.] dated )epte04er 15# $%%% directin/ In/r( Ro0ulo Jnciano of the Depart0ent of Inviron0ent and *atural Resources (DI*R Antipolo Cit- to conduct a resurve- or replottin/ of land 4ased on the title of respondent 7aran/an and to su40it a report within 15 da-s( [<"] 1he resurve-# however# did not push throu/h 4ecause the defense in an 30ni4us !otion[<+] dated )epte04er $%# $%%% a4andoned its reBuest for an ocular inspection clai0in/ that it was no lon/er necessar-( [4%] "ulin# o, the "e#ional Trial Court 3n !arch 1+# $%%<# the R1C rendered a Decision[41]a/ainst respondent 7aran/an for failure to present sufficient evidence to prove his clai0([4$] 1he R1C further said that even if the su4Eect propert- is owned 4- respondent 7aran/an# prescription and laches have alread- set inH thus# respondent 7aran/an 0a- no lon/er recover the sa0e([4<] 1he dispositive portion reads2 95IRI@3RI# pre0ises considered# for insufficienc- of evidence Eud/0ent is here4- rendered in favor of the defendant and a/ainst the plaintiff( 7- wa- of counterclai0# the plaintiff is here4- ordered to pa- defendant ,aAosale0 the followin/ a0ounts2 a( 4( c( d( e( P1%%#%%% for 0oral da0a/esH P5%#%%% as actual da0a/esH P$5#%%% as eDe0plar- da0a/esH P$%#%%% for liti/ation eDpensesH and Costs of suit(

SO ORDERED.[44] "ulin# o, the Court o, Appeals 3n appeal# the CA reversed the findin/s of the R1C( ?t found respondent 7aran/an entitled to recover possession of the su4Eect propert- 4ecause he was a4le to sufficientl- prove the identit- of the su4Eect propert- and that the sa0e is owned 4- hi0# as evidenced 4- 1C1 *o( *&1%..$( [45] And since respondent 7aran/an was deprived of possession of the su4Eect propert-# the CA ruled that he is entitled to reasona4le co0pensation for the use of the propert- with interest# as well as the pa-0ent of 0oral# te0perate or 0oderate da0a/es# and attorne-Ns fees# [4;] to wit2 'HERE(ORE# pre0ises considered# the appeal is GRANTED( 1he Decision dated 1+ !arch $%%< of the Re/ional 1rial Court of Antipolo Cit-# 7ranch .< in Civil Case *o( +4&<4$< is here4- REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and a new

one is rendered declarin/# as follows2 1( Appellant Ro4erto )( 7aran/an is entitled to the possession of the su4Eect propert-&Fot 11# 7locA 5# of the su4division plan (FRC Psd&;%"4; situated in Rodville )u4division# 7aran/a- )an Fuis# Antipolo# Ri6al# covered 41ransfer Certificate of 1itle *o( *&1%..$ of the Re/istr- of Deeds for the Province of Ri6alH $( Appellees and all persons derivin/ ri/hts under the0 who are occupants of the su4Eect propert- are ordered to vacate the su4Eect propert- and surrender peaceful possession thereof to appellantH <( Appellees and all persons derivin/ ri/hts under the0 who are occupants of the su4Eect propert- are ordered to pa- to appellant reasona4le co0pensation for the use of the su4Eect propert- in the a0ount of Php<#%%%(%% per 0onth fro0 1. *ove04er 1++4 until the- vacate the su4Eect propert- and turn over the possession to appellant# plus le/al interest of 1$V per annu0# fro0 the date of pro0ul/ation of this Decision until full pa-0ent of all said reasona4le co0pensationH and 4( Appellees are ordered to pa- to appellant the a0ount of Php1%%#%%%(%% as 0oral da0a/es# Php5%#%%%(%% as te0perate or 0oderate da0a/es# and Php5%#%%%(%% as attorne-Ns fees( Cost a/ainst appellees( SO ORDERED.[4.] I//u,/ 5ence# the instant petition with the followin/ issues2 1( 95I15IR P P P [7ARA*'A*] 9A) A7FI 13 ?DI*1?@K 15I IPAC1 F3CA1?3* 3@ 5?) PR3PIR1K DI)CR?7ID J*DIR 1C1 *3( *&1%..$ [A*D 95I15IR] 15I PR3PIR1K 3CCJP?ID 7K DJF@3 [?)] 15I )A!I PR3PIR1K CFA?!ID 7K [7ARA*'A*]H 95I15IR P P P [7ARA*'A*] 5A) @JFFK )A1?)@?ID 15I RI8J?RI!I*1) 3@ AR1?CFI 4<4 3@ 15I C?:?F C3DI P P PH 95I15IR P P P 15I A!3J*1 3@ P5P<#%%%(%% A) !3*15FK FIA)I RI*1AF 3R C3!PI*)A1?3* @3R 15I J)I 3@ 15I PR3PIR1K ?) RIA)3*A7FIH 95I15IR P P P 15I 'RA*1 3@ PPP !3RAF# 1I!PIRA1I 3R !3DIRA1I [DA!A'I)] A*D A113R*IKN) @II)# P P P ?) ?* ACC3RDA*CI 9?15 I:?DI*CI A*D FA9H 95I15IR P P P FAC5I) A*D PRI)CR?P1?3* [5A:I] 7ARRID 15I @?F?*' 3@ 15?) CA)I( [4"]

$( <( 4( 5(

Petitioners- Ar#u+ents Petitioners Dulfo and ,aAosale0 contend that the CA erred in reversin/ the findin/s of the R1C as respondent 7aran/anNs propert- was not properl- identified([4+] 1he- clai0 that the relocation surve- conducted 4- In/r( ,onco violated the a/ree0ent the- 0ade 4efore the Baranga$ that the surve- should 4e conducted in the presence of 4oth parties([5%] 1he- also clai0 that the title nu04er stated in the Fand Purchase A/ree0ent is not the sa0e nu04er found in the Deed of A4solute )ale([51] 1he- liAewise insist that laches and prescription 4arred respondent 7aran/an fro0 filin/ the instant case([5$] Fastl-# the- contend that the da0a/es ordered 4- the CA are eDor4itant# eDcessive and without factual and le/al 4ases([5<] "espondent-s Ar#u+ents Respondent 7aran/an# on the other hand# ar/ues that 4ein/ the re/istered owner of the su4Eect propert-# he is entitled to its possession([54] 5e 0aintains that his 1orrens title prevails over the Assi/n0ent of a Ri/ht[55] presented 4- petitioners([5;] !oreover# laches and prescription do not appl- a/ainst hi0 as there was no dela- on his part to assert his ri/ht to the propert-([5.] Our Ru01n2 1he petition lacAs 0erit( "espondent &aran#an is entitled to reco(er the sub.ect propert$ Article 4<4 of the Civil Code provides that [i]n an action to recover# the propert- 0ust 4e identified# and the

plaintiff 0ust rel- on the stren/th of his title and not on the weaAness of the defendantNs clai0( ?n other words# in order to recover possession# a person 0ust prove (1 the identit- of the land clai0ed# and ($ his title( [5"] ?n this case# respondent 7aran/an was a4le to prove the identit- of the propert- and his title( 1o prove his title to the propert-# he presented in evidence the followin/ docu0ents2 (1 Fand Purchase A/ree0entH [5+] ($ Deed of A4solute )aleH[;%] (< and a 1orrens title re/istered under his na0e# 1C1 *o( *&1%..$( [;1] 1o prove the identit- of the propert-# he offered the testi0onies of In/r( ,onco# who conducted the relocation surve-# [;$] and Istardo# the caretaAer of the su4division# who showed respondent 7aran/an the eDact location of the su4Eect propert-( [;<] 5e liAewise su40itted as evidence the :erification )urve- Plan of Fot 11# 7locA 5# (FRC Psd&;%"4;# which was plotted 4ased on the technical description appearin/ on respondent 7aran/anNs title( [;4] PetitionersN contention that the relocation surve- was done in violation of their a/ree0ent deserves scant consideration( Petitioners were infor0ed[;5] 4eforehand of the scheduled relocation surve- on !a- $+# 1++4 4ut the- opted not to attend( ?n fact# as testified 4- respondent 7aran/an and In/r( ,onco# the relocation surve- had to 4e postponed several ti0es 4ecause petitioners refused to participate( [;;] 7- refusin/ to attend and participate in the relocation surve-# the- are now estopped fro0 Buestionin/ the results of the relocation surve-( [;.] Records also show that durin/ the trial# the R1C ordered the DI*R to conduct a resurve- of the su4Eect propert-H 4ut petitioners 0oved that the sa0e 4e a4andoned clai0in/ that the resurve- would onl- dela- the proceedin/s( [;"] 1o us# the persistent refusal of petitioners to participate in the relocation surve- does not speaA well of their clai0 that the- are not occup-in/ respondent 7aran/anNs propert-( ?n fact# their unEustified refusal onl- shows either of two thin/s2 (1 that the- Anow for a fact that the result would 4e detri0ental to their caseH or ($ that the- have dou4ts that the result would 4e in their favor( *either is there an- discrepanc- 4etween the title nu04er stated in the Fand Purchase A/ree0ent and the Deed of A4solute )ale( As correctl- found 4- the CA# 1C1 *o( 1.145<# the title stated in the Deed of A4solute )ale# is a transfer fro0 1C1 *o( 1;545;# the title stated in the Fand Purchase A/ree0ent( [;+] 5ence# 4oth 1C1s pertain to the sa0e propert-( "espondent &aran#an is entitled to actual and +oral da+a#es as /ell as attorne$-s ,ees )ince respondent 7aran/an was deprived of possession of the su4Eect propert-# he is entitled to reasona4le co0pensation in the a0ount of P<#%%%(%%[.%] per 0onth fro0 *ove04er 1.# 1++4# the date of Eudicial de0and# up to the ti0e petitioners vacate the su4Eect propert-( 1he le/al interest of which shall 4e at the rate of ;V per annu0 fro0 *ove04er 1.# 1++4 and at the rate of 1$V per annu0 fro0 the ti0e the Eud/0ent of this Court 4eco0es final and eDecutor- until the o4li/ation is full- satisfied( [.1] 1he award of te0perate da0a/es in the a0ount of P5%#%%%(%%# representin/ the eDpenses for the relocation surve-# however# 0ust 4e deleted as these eDpenses were not alle/ed in the co0plaint( [.$] @or the 0ental an/uish# sleepless ni/hts# and serious anDiet- suffered 4- respondent 7aran/an# he is entitled to 0oral da0a/es under Article $$1.[.<] of the Civil Code 4ut in the reduced a0ount of P5%#%%%(%%# which is the a0ount pra-ed for in the co0plaint([.4] Althou/h not alle/ed in the co0plaint# we sustain the CANs award of P5%#%%%(%% as attorne-Ns fees 4ecause it is sanctioned 4- law# specificall-# para/raphs $ and 11 of Article $$%" [.5] of the Civil Code([.;] )aches and prescription do not appl$ @inall-# as to the issue of laches and prescription# we a/ree with the CA that these do not appl- in the instant case( ,urisprudence consistentl- holds that prescription and laches can not appl- to re/istered land covered 4- the 1orrens s-ste0 4ecause under the Propert- Re/istration Decree# no title to re/istered land in dero/ation to that of the re/istered owner shall 4e acBuired 4- prescription or adverse possession( [..]
cralaw

'HERE(ORE# the petition is here4- DENIED( 1he assailed Decision dated Au/ust <# $%%; and the Resolution dated 3cto4er 4# $%%; of the Court of Appeals in CA&'(R( C: *o( .+$"< are here4- A((IR ED 91.+ ODI(I$ATIONS( 1he award of 0oral da0a/es is RED#$ED to P5%#%%%(%% while the award of te0perate da0a/es is DE!ETED( 1he reasona4le 0onthl- rental of P<#%%%(%% shall earn le/al interest of siD percent (;V per annu0 fro0 *ove04er 1.# 1++4# and at the rate of twelve percent (1$V per annu0 fro0 the finalit- of this Eud/0ent until the o4li/ation is full- satisfied( SO ORDERED.

Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), )eonardo%*e Castro, Perez, 0 an5 1ereno,00 JJ., -on-ur. Endnotes:
S

Per raffle dated )epte04er .# $%11( ?n lieu of Associate ,ustice Istela !( Perlas&7erna4e# per )pecial 3rder o# 11+< dated @e4ruar- 1%# $%1$( &sma7%el v. Coprada# '(R( *o( 15$4$<# Dece04er 15# $%1%# ;<" )CRA 4$"# 4<"( Rollo# pp( .;&4.% with AnneDes A to , inclusive(

[1]

[$]

?d( at 1%+&14;H penned 4- Associate ,ustice Celia C( Fi4rea&Fea/o/o and concurred in 4- Associate ,ustices !artin )( :illara0a# ,r( and Fucas P( 7ersa0in(
[<] [4]

?d( at 14"&15%( ?d( at $4+ (Fand Purchase A/ree0ent dated Au/ust 15# 1+;; ( ?d( at <"$&<"<( ?d( at 11%( ?d( at <.+&<"%( ?d( at 11%&111( ?d( at $5$( ?d( at <"$&<"<( ?d( at $;"( ?d( at 111( ?d( ?d( ?d( ?d( at $5"( ?d( at $5+( ?d( at 111( ?d( ?d( at $"<( ?d( at 11$( ?d( ?d( at 1;"&1.$( ?d( at 1.%( ?d( at 1.5&1.+( ?d( at 1..(

[5]

[;]

[.]

["]

[+]

[1%]

[11]

[1$]

[1<]

[14]

[15]

[1;]

[1.]

[1"]

[1+]

[$%]

[$1]

[$$]

[$<]

[$4]

[$5]

[$;]

[$.]

[$"]

?d( ?d( at 1."( 1he su4division where the propert- is locatedH ?d( at 1;+( ?d( at 11+&1$%( ?d( at 11+( ?d( at 1$%&1$1( ?d( at 1$5&1$;( ?d( at 1$;&1$.( Records# p( 1.;( ?d( ?d( ?d( at 1..&1."( ?d( at 1..( Rollo# pp( 1"1&1"5( ?d( at 1"5( ?d( at 1"4&1"5H penned 4- ,ud/e !auricio !( Rivera( ?d( at 1"5( ?d( at 1<+( ?d( at 14$&14<( ?d( at 14<&144( ?d( at 5+<&5+4( ?d( at 5+4&5++( ?d( at 5"+&5+%( ?d( at 5+%( ?d( at ;%<&;%4( ?d( at ;%%&;%<( ?d( at 55<( ?d( at $.<( ?d( at 55<( ?d( at 54.&54"( )po%ses H%t"hison v. B%s"as, D@? 1hil. $5.# $;$ ($%%5 ( Rollo# p( $4+( ?d( at <.+&<"%(

[$+]

[<%]

[<1]

[<$]

[<<]

[<4]

[<5]

[<;]

[<.]

[<"]

[<+]

[4%]

[41]

[4$]

[4<]

[44]

[45]

[4;]

[4.]

[4"]

[4+]

[5%]

[51]

[5$]

[5<]

[54]

[55]

[5;]

[5.]

[5"]

[5+]

[;%]

[;1]

?d( at $;"( ?d( at 1$%&1$$( ?d( at 11+&1$%( ?d( at 1<4( ?d( at $"1( ?d( at 11;&1$1( 3ire"tor of 6ands v. Co%rt of Appeals, '(R( *o( F&451;"# ,anuar- $.# 1+"1# 1%$ )CRA <.%# 44<( Rollo# pp( 1$.&1$"( ?d( at 1<<( 1he a0ount alle/ed in the co0plaint filed 4- respondent 7aran/anH id at 1.%( &astern )hipping 6ines, !n". v. Co%rt of Appeals, '(R( *o( +.41$# ,ul- 1$# 1++4# $<4 )CRA ."# +5&+.( 1)* dated *ove04er "# 1++;# Direct IDa0ination of respondent 7aran/an# pp( 4&5(

[;$]

[;<]

[;4]

[;5]

[;;]

[;.]

[;"]

[;+]

[.%]

[.1]

[.$]

Art( $$1.( !oral da0a/es include ph-sical sufferin/# 0ental an/uish# fri/ht# serious anDiet-# 4es0irched reputation# wounded feelin/s# 0oral shocA# social hu0iliation# and si0ilar inEur-( 1hou/h incapa4le of pecuniarco0putation# 0oral da0a/es 0a- 4e recovered if the- are the proDi0ate result of the defendantGs wron/ful act or o0ission(
[.<] [.4]

Rollo# p( 1.%(

Art( $$%"( ?n the a4sence of stipulation# attorne-Ns fees and eDpenses of liti/ation# other than Eudicial costs# cannot 4e recovered# eDcept2
[.5]

DDDD ($ 9hen the defendantNs act or o0ission has co0pelled the plaintiff to liti/ate with third persons or to incur eDpenses to protect his interestH DDDD (11 ?n an- other case where the court dee0s it Eust and eBuita4le that attorne-Ns fees and eDpenses of liti/ation should 4e recovered( ?n all cases# the attorne-Ns fees and eDpenses of liti/ation 0ust 4e reasona4le(

[.;]

Mi"ro )ales Aperation #et.ork v. #ational 6abor Relations Commission # 5%+ Phil( <1<# <$$ ($%%5 ( 5ele+, )r. v. Rev. 3emetrio# 4<; Phil( 1# + ($%%$ (

[..]

SE$OND DIVISION [G.R. No. 19208> : (,:ruary 22, 2012] $ARIDAD SEGARRA SA6ON, "ETITIONER, VS. !ETE$IA VAS*#E6% ENAN$IO, RE"RESENTED &) ATTORNE)%IN%(A$T EDGAR S. SEGARRA, RES"ONDENT. DE$ISION SERENO, J.:

1he present case ste0s fro0 a Co0plaint for Recover- of Possession of Real Properties# Accountin/ and ?nEunction[1] filed 4- Feticia :asBue6&!enancio (respondent a/ainst Caridad )( )a6on (petitioner in the Re/ional 1rial Court (R1C of Fi/ao Cit-# Al4a-( 1he R1C ruled in favor of respondent# 4ut reversed itself when petitioner filed a !otion for Reconsideration (!R ( Respondent appealed the case to the Court of Appeals (CA # 4ut it affir0ed the first Decision of the R1C( )he filed another !R# 4ut the CA denied it for lacA of 0erit(
cralaw

The Case 7efore us is a Petition for Review[$] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court# assailin/ the $; *ove04er $%%+ Decision[<] of the appellate court in CA&'R C: *o( +15.%( 1he challen/ed Decision disposed as follows2 'HERE(ORE# the appeal is DIS ISSED( 1he 3e"ision dated <1 ,ul- $%%. of the Re/ional 1rial Court# 7ranch 1<# Fi/ao Cit-# in Civil Case *o( 1&1+44 is A((IR ED with ODI(I$ATION in that Caridad )( )a6on is ORDERED to pa- Feticia :asBue6&!enancio the a0ount of R+%"#11$(;$# representin/ the unre0itted fruits and inco0e of the su4Eect properties fro0 1+.+ to 1++.( 1his is alread- net of ad0inistration eDpenses# allowance for co0pensation and proved real estate taDes paid( 1he 3e"ision is a331r8,5 in all other respects( 12 2"*E"E*([4] Antecedents Respondent is a resident of the Jnited )tates of A0erica( )o0eti0e in 1+.+# she entrusted the 0ana/e0ent# ad0inistration# care and preservation of her properties to petitioner( 1hese properties are 0ore specificalldescri4ed as follows2 ?( Residential lot# with an area of 5.< sB( 0(# located in =one ???# Fi4on# Al4a-# declared under 1aD *o( %+.& %<&%%;; in the su0 of R$4#%.%(%% Residential lot# with an area of $++ sB( 0(# located in =one ???# Fi4on# Al4a-# declared under 1aD *o( %+.& %%<&%%115 in the su0 of P1$#5;%(%% Residential lot# with an area of ".< sB( 0(# located in )an Antonio )t(# Fi4on# Al4a-# declared under 1aD *o( %+.&%%<&%%%;" in the su0 of P<;#;.%(%% ?rri/ated riceland# Cad( Fot *o( "5$# with an area of <(1<%4 hectares# located at )an ?sidro# Fi4on# Al4a-# declared under 1aD *o( %.&%<+&$<5 in the su0 of P+;#5"%(%% ?rri/ated riceland# with an area of 1(5;5$ hectares# located at 7ololo Centro# Fi4on# Al4a-# declared under 1aD *o( %.&%%5&1%4 in the su0 of P4"#$+%(%% ?rri/ated riceland# with an area of (;.$% hectares# located at 7ololo Centro# Fi4on# Al4a-# declared under 1aD *o( %.&%%5&1%< in the su0 of P$+#.<%(%% ?rri/ated riceland# with an area of (;<"% hectares# located at 7ala/on Centro# Fi4on# Al4a-# declared under 1aD *o( %.&%%5&$$$ in the su0 of P1+#;"%(%% Coconut land# with an area of ten (1% hectares# located at !aca4u/os# Fi4on# Al4a-# declared under 1aD *o( %.&%$<&"5 in the su0 of P4$#"4%(%% Coconut land# with an area of <(.1%$ hectares# located at !aca4u/os# Fi4on# Al4a-# declared under 1aD *o( %.&%$<&"; in the su0 of P15#.4%(%%[5]

??( ???( ?:( :( :?( :??( :???( ?P(

1he properties shall hereinafter 4e referred to individuall- as Fot ?# Fot ?? and so on for 4revit-( Respondent avers that Fots ? to ?P are productive# and that petitioner as the ad0inistrator has collected and received all the fruits and inco0e accruin/ therefro0( Petitioner# on the other hand# clai0s that several of the properties do not produce an- fruit or /enerate an- inco0e at all# [;] and that an- supposed inco0e derived fro0 the0 is not sufficient to answer for all the eDpenses incurred to 0aintain the0( [.] Accordin/ to respondent# petitioner never rendered a full accountin/ of the fruits and inco0e derived fro0 the properties# 4ut has instead appropriated and in fact applied these for her own use and 4enefit( Den-in/ this alle/ation# petitioner presented five lettersUdated $1 ,anuar- 1+"<# 1$ !arch 1+"4# 15 )epte04er 1+";# $ Dece04er 1+""# and one undatedUwhich had 4een sent to respondent as proof of the accountin/( ["] @urther0ore# petitioner denies receipt of an- letter asAin/ her to 0aAe an accountin/ or to re0it the fruits collected fro0 the properties( [+] )he further avers that# since the start of her a/enc- a/ree0ent with respondent# the latter never answered an- of the co00unications petitioner had sou/ht to initiate( [1%]

As a result of the fore/oin/# respondent revoAed# in writin/# all the powers and authorit- of ad0inistration /ranted to petitioner effective !arch 1++.( 1hereafter# the for0er de0anded that petitioner return andOor turn over the possession and ad0inistration of the properties( Respondent clai0s that she 0ade repeated ver4al# and served written# de0ands upon petitioner# asAin/ the latter to render an accountin/ and to re0it the ownerNs share of the fruits( Petitioner# however# continued to fail and to refuse to perfor0 her o4li/ation([11] ?n fact# she continues to hold on to the properties and the 0ana/e0ent and ad0inistration thereof( @urther# she continues to collect# receive# and Aeep all the inco0e /enerated 4- the properties( 1hus# on <% 3cto4er 1++.# respondent filed her Co0plaint with Preli0inar- ?nEunction# [1$] pra-in/ that the R1C order petitioner to render an accountin/ and re0it all the fruits and inco0e the latter# as the ad0inistrator# received fro0 the properties( ?n her Answer with Counterclai0#[1<] petitioner alle/es as follows2

$(a( Fot area of 5.< sB(0(&is 4ein/ leased 4- )alo0e )( )e/arra which is dulcovered 4- a Fease Contract eDecuted durin/ the effectivit- of the )pecial Power of Attorne- /ranted to the herein defendant( @urther0ore# the said Fease Contract was entered into with the eDpress consent# and without ano4Eection on the part of the plaintiff since she was consulted prior to its eDecutionH DDD# $(4(Fot area of $++ sB( 0( M 1his is included in the [F]ease [C]ontract a4ove& 0entioned( $(c( Fot area of ".< sB( 0( M 1his is liAewise dul- covered 4- a Fease Contract eDecuted 4etween the herein defendant as lessee and Ana C( )e/arra when the latter was still the ad0inistrator of the properties of the plaintiff( 1he said Fease Contract was liAewise entered into with the eDpress consent and without an- o4Eection on the part of the plaintiff since she was a/ain consulted prior to its eDecutionH DDD( $(d(Fot area of <(1<%4 hectares M this is ad0inistered as to $O< of the total land area 4ut not as to the other 1O< as the sa0e is owned 4- the defendantNs 0other Ana C( )e/arra 4- virtue of a contract of sale fro0 !rs( ,osefina )e/arra# the co&owner of the plaintiff over the said landH DDD# $(e( Fot area of 1(5;5$ hectares and (;.$% hectares are not owned 4- the plaintiff 4ut that of the 0other of the herein defendant Ana C( )e/arra 4virtue of a Deed of Rede0ption# as in fact# the- are in possession thereof as owners and not as ad0inistrator of the plaintiffH DDD# $(f( Fot area of (;<"% hectares M said land is presentl- possessed 4- the alle/ed ad0inistrator of the plaintiff -et the plaintiff still seeAs the return of the sa0e which constitutes an act that trifles with the ad0inistration of Eustice and further prove that this /roundless case was filed with this court purel- to harass the herein defendantH $(/(Fot area of 1% hectares and Fot area of <(.1%$ hectares M the herein

defendant is no lon/er in possession of these lots as in fact# the fruits of these lands are not 4ein/ turned over to the defendant ever since the plaintiff revoAed the authorit- /iven to the defendant# DDD([14]
?n short# petitioner ar/ues that respondent has no cause of action a/ainst her for the followin/ reasons2 [15] 1( 1he properties that cannot 4e returned 4ecause the- are under valid lease a/ree0entsUFots ?&???Uand those that have 4een transferred to a third part- 4- virtue of contracts of sale with correspondin/ deeds of rede0ptionUFots : and :?Ucan no lon/er 4e /iven to respondentH [1;] $( )o0e properties are alread- in respondentNs possessionUFots ?: and :??&?P( [1.]

7- wa- of co0pulsor- counterclai0# petitioner is asAin/ this Court to order respondent to return the one&third portion of Fot ?: alle/edl- owned 4- petitionerNs 0other and the fruits collected therefro0( [1"] Durin/ the pretrial conference held on $4 ,ul- 1++"# the parties a/reed that respondent alread- had possession over Fots ?:# :??# :???# and ?P( 1he- also a/reed that all the inco0e derived fro0 Fots ? to ?P since 1+.+ were received 4- petitioner([1+] ?n a Decision[$%] dated <1 ,ul- $%%.# the R1C ruled in favor of respondents( 1he dispositive portion thereof reads2 95IRI@3RI# the fore/oin/ pre0ises dul- considered# Eud/0ent is here4- rendered in favor of plaintiff Feticia :asBue6&!enancio and a/ainst defendant Caridad )( )a6on# as follows2 a orderin/ the defendant to turn over the possession# 0ana/e0ent and ad0inistration of all the properties enu0erated in para/raph $ of the co0plaint# eDcept parcels 4# .# " and + which were alread- under plaintiffNs possession since Au/ust# 1+..# to the plaintiff# thru attorne-&in&fact Id/ar )( )e/arraH 4 orderin/ the defendant to re0it to the plaintiff the total su0 of P1#$;5#4+<(.5 representin/ unre0itted fruits and inco0e of the su4Eect properties# less the a0ount of P15%#%%%(%% 4- wa- of ad0inistration eDpenses incurred 4- defendantH c orderin/ the defendant to pa- the plaintiff the su0 of P5%#%%%(%% as 0oral da0a/esH d orderin/ the defendant to rei04urse the plaintiff the su0 of P$%#%%%(%% as and for attorne-Ns fees# plus the su0 of P1#%%%(%% for ever- court appearance of counselH and U e orderin/ the defendant to pa- the costs of the suit( 3n the other hand# plaintiff Feticia :asBue6&!enancio is here4- ordered to pa- defendant Caridad )( )a6on the total su0 of P1"%#%%%(%%# representin/ the latterNs co0pensation in ad0inisterin/ the for0erNs properties 4ased on 7%ant%m mer%it( SO ORDERED.[$1] Petitioner filed her !R on $% Au/ust $%%. Buestionin/ the trial courtNs Decision to rel- on the co0putation 0ade 4respondentNs attorne-&in&fact( 1hese co0putations# reflected in para/raph (4 of the dispositive portion# were used 4- the R1C to deter0ine the prices of pala$# corn and copra at the ti0e that petitioner ad0inistered the properties( Reali6in/# however# that it should have considered the Certifications issued 4- the *ational @ood Authorit- (*@A and the Philippine Coconut Authorit- (PCA for that purpose# the R1C ruled in favor of respondent and partlreversed its $" !arch $%%" Decision# the dispositive portion of which reads2 'HERE(ORE, .+, 3or,2o1n2 4r,81/,/ 5u0y -on/15,r,5, .+, $our. r,/o0;,/ .o /,. a/15, .+, D,-1/1on 5a.,5 Ju0y 31, 200B. In 01,u .+,r,o3, a n,9 5,-1/1on is here4- rendered as follows2 a orderin/ the defendant Caridad )( )a6on to turn over the possession# 0ana/e0ent and ad0inistration of all the properties enu0erated in para/raph $ of the co0plaint# eDcept parcels 4# .# " and + which were alread- under plaintiffNs possession since Au/ust# $%%.# to plaintiff Feticia :asBue6&!enancio# thru her attorne-&in&fact Id/ar )( )e/arraH 4 orderin/ the defendant to render full# accurate and co0plete accountin/ of all the fruits and proceeds of the su4Eect properties durin/ the period of her ad0inistrationH and c orderin/ the defendant to rei04urse the plaintiff the su0 of P$%#%%%(%%# as and for attorne-Ns feesH

Costs a/ainst defendant( SO ORDERED.[$$] (I0phasis supplied in the ori/inal )till a//rieved# petitioner raised the 0atter to the CA# 4ut it dis0issed her appeal( ?t affir0ed the trial courtNs <1 ,ul- $%%. Decision# eDcept for the a0ount ordered to 4e re0itted to respondent# which was reduced to P+%"#11$(;$( 1he !R filed 4- petitioner was also denied on $+ April $%1%( [$<] Petitioner is now asAin/ this Court to set aside the CANs Decision( [$4] ?n Buestionin/ the Decision of the CA# petitioner first raises a procedural issue( )he ar/ues that the appellate court should not have affir0ed the R1C Decision in this case# 4ecause when the trial court a4andoned its ori/inal Decision# the latter i0pliedl- ad0itted that it had co00itted erroneous findin/s of facts( [$5] Respondent ar/ues that the CA had the power to affir0 the R1CNs second DecisionUthe Resolution on the !RU4ecause the entire case was opened for review upon appeal( 9e a/ree with respondent( ?n Heirs of Carlos Al"ara+ v. Rep%bli" of the 1hilippines #[$;] we reiterated the cardinal rule that when a case is appealed# the appellate court has the power the review the case in its entiret-# to wit2 ?n an- event# when petitioners interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals# the appealed case was there4thrown wide open for review 4- that court# which is thus necessaril- e0powered to co0e out with a Eud/0ent as it thinAs would 4e a Eust deter0ination of the controvers-( 'iven this power# the appellate court has the authorit- to either affir0# reverse or 0odif- the appealed decision of the trial court( 1o withhold fro0 the appellate court its power to render an entirel- new decision would violate its power of review and would# in effect# render it incapa4le of correctin/ patent errors co00itted 4- the lower courts( 1hus# we a/ree with respondent that the CA was free to affir0# reverse# or 0odif- either the Decision or the 3rder of the R1C( *eDt# petitioner avers that she cannot turn over possession of Fots ? to ???# 4ecause these are su4Eect of valid lease a/ree0ents( *one of the parties Buestion the appellate courtNs findin/ that the lease a/ree0ents coverin/ Fots ?& ??? should 4e respected( After all# when petitioner entered into these a/ree0ents# she acted within her authorit- as respondentNs a/ent([$.] ?n this 0atter# we a/ree with the CA in its rulin/ that even thou/h the lease a/ree0ents coverin/ these lots should 4e respected# petitioner 0ust turn over the ad0inistration of the leases to respondentNs attorne-&in&fact( [$"] 1he reason is that respondent has alread- revoAed the authorit- of petitioner as ad0inistrator( 5ence# the latter no lon/er has the ri/ht to ad0inister the properties or to receive the inco0e the- /enerate on respondentNs 4ehalf( 9ith respect to the one&third portion of Fot ?:# the parties also a/ree that the sale of one&third of this lot to petitionerNs 0other should 4e respected 4- respondent([$+] Fot ?: has 4een in the latterNs possession since 1++.( )ince it is not controverted that one&third of this lot is now owned 4- petitionerNs 0other# respondent should turn over possession of the correspondin/ one&third portion and re0it all fruits collected therefro0 since 1++.( Petitioner Buestions the factual findin/s of the appellate court( )he clai0s that the CA erred in findin/ that the reason wh- petitioner alle/edl- never rendered an accountin/ of inco0e is 4ecause the respondent never de0anded it([<%] Accordin/ to petitioner# she never clai0ed that this was the reason wh- she never rendered an accountin/ of inco0e( ?n fact# she insists that she actuall- sent letters of accountin/ to respondent( )upposedl-# she onl- said that respondent never de0anded accountin/ fro0 her to refute the clai0 of respondent that such de0and letter was sent to her( Petitioner insists# however# that Article 1"+1 of the Civil Code contains a few of the o4li/ations owed 4- an a/ent to his principal# vi62 Art( 1"+1( Iver- a/ent is 4ound to render an account of his transactions and to deliver to the principal whatever he 0a- have received 4- virtue of the a/enc-# even thou/h it 0a- not 4e owin/ to the principal( Iver- stipulation eDe0ptin/ the a/ent fro0 the o4li/ation to render an account shall 4e void( ?t is evident that the reason 4ehind the failure of petitioner to render an accountin/ to respondent is i00aterial( 9hat is i0portant is that the for0er fulfill her dut- to render an account of the relevant transactions she entered into as respondentNs a/ent(

Petitioner clai0s that in the course of her ad0inistration of the properties# the letters she sent to respondent should 4e considered as a fulfill0ent of her o4li/ation# as respondentNs a/ent# to render an accountin/ of her ad0inistration([<1] 7oth the R1C and the CA found these letters insufficient( 9e a/ree( Petitioner was the ad0inistrator of respondentNs properties for 1" -ears or fro0 1+.+ to 1++.# and four letters within 1" -ears can hardl- 4e considered as sufficient to Aeep the principal infor0ed and updated of the condition and status of the latterNs properties( As to Fots : and :?# petitioner avers that ownership thereof was transferred to her 0other throu/h a Deed of Rede0ption#[<$] vi62 Defendant averred that her 0other owned parcels 5 and ;( )he ?dentified a Deed of Rede0ption purportin/ to have transferred the propert- to her 0other( 9hen the deed was eDecuted# plaintiff was in the Jnited )tates 4ut defendantNs 0other notified her( )he saw her 0other puttin/ 1%%&peso 4ills a0ountin/ to R;#5%%(%% in a 4i/ 4rown envelope to pa- for the lot( 5er father )i0eon )e/arra who Eust ca0e fro0 the Jnited )tates /ave her the 0one-(
[<<]

3n this 0atter# the R1C found thus2 As re/ards parcels 5 and ;# the defendant averred that the- were owned 4- her 0other Ana )e/arra 4ecause she was the one who redee0ed the properties( 7ut the evidence eDtant in the records disclosed that the said parcels of land were declared for taDation purposes in the na0e of plaintiff Feticia :asBue6&!enancio( ?n 0an- cases# it has 4een repeatedl- held that althou/h taD declarations are not conclusive evidence of ownership# nevertheless# theare /ood indicia of possession in the concept of an owner for no one in his ri/ht 0ind would 4e pa-in/ taDes for a propert- that is not under his actual or at least constructive possession( 5ence# the fruits and profits of these properties shall still incur to the plaintiff([<4] @or its part# the CA held as follows2 1o prove that one of FeticiaNs properties now 4elon/s to her 0other# Ana )e/arra# )a6on presented evidence showin/ that when Ana was still the ad0inistrator of FeticiaNs properties# she redee0ed FeticiaNs propert- that was sold 4- FeticiaNs father to vendee&a&retro# Foreto )an Andres&)eda( 5owever# the 3eed of Redemption clearlshows that Ana redee0ed the propert- onl- in her capacit- as attorne-&in&fact of Feticia# and not in her personal capacit-([<5] @actual findin/s of the trial court are accorded hi/h respect and are /enerall- not distur4ed 4- appellate courts# unless found to 4e clearl- ar4itrar- or 4aseless([<;] 1his Court does not review the factual findin/s of an appellate court# unless these findin/s are 0istaAen# a4surd# speculative# conEectural# conflictin/# tainted with /rave a4use of discretion# or contrar- to the findin/s culled 4- the trial court of ori/in( [<.] Althou/h the pronounce0ent of the trial court is not identical to that of the CA# the declaration of one corro4orates the findin/s of the other( 9e rule that the findin/s of the lower court and the CA re/ardin/ Fots : and :? should 4e respected( 1he 0other of petitioner purchased 4oth of these lots in her capacit- as respondentNs attorne-&in&fact# which eDplains wh- these lots wereUfor taDation purposesUdeclared in the na0e of respondent( Petitioner 4ewails the appellate courtNs supposed failure to rule on her clai0 that respondent pro0ised to /ive the for0er a $%V co00ission for the sale of respondentNs properties in Fas Pi>as# 8uiapoH and @raternal# )a0paloc# !anila([<"] 9e rule that petitioner failed to prove that this a/ree0ent had 4een entered into( *o other evidence# eDcept for her testi0on-# was presented to prove that an a/ree0ent of this nature had 4een entered into 4etween the parties([<+] @inall-# the cruD of the present Petition is the deter0ination of the value of all the fruits and proceeds collected fro0 respondentNs properties fro0 1+.+ to 1++. and the total su0 thereof( Petitioner does not den- that she never re0itted to respondent an- of the fruits or inco0e derived fro0 the properties( ?nstead# petitioner clai0s that (1 the properties did not produce an- fruit or /enerate an- inco0e at allH[4%] ($ an- supposed inco0e derived fro0 the properties was not sufficient to answer for all the eDpenses incurred to 0aintain the0H[41] and (< she was never co0pensated for the services she rendered as the ad0inistrator of respondentNs properties( As previousl- 0entioned# ever- a/ent is 4ound to deliver to the principal whatever the for0er 0a- have received 4- virtue of the a/enc-# even thou/h that a0ount 0a- not 4e owed to the principal( [4$]

?n deter0inin/ the value of the fruits# the R1CUin its ori/inal DecisionUrelied on the co0putation su40itted 4respondentNs attorne-&in&fact and ordered petitioner to re0it to respondent the total su0 of P1#$;5#4+<(.5# to wit2 At the outset# it 0a- 4e stated that plaintiffNs attorne-&in&fact Id/ar )( )e/arra# 4ein/ a far0er hi0self and a resident of the area where the su4Eect properties are located can 4est testif- re/ardin/ the inco0e thereof( ?n preparin/ a co0putation of inco0e of his principal# plaintiff Feticia :asBue6&!enancio# he consulted people fro0 the a/rarian sector# as well as /rains 4u-ers( 5e also referred to the lease contracts entered into 4etween the for0er ad0inistratriD and the tenants( 7ased on his co0putation# the a0ount which represented the fruits of the properties 4ein/ ad0inistered 4- the defendant 4ut were not re0itted to the plaintiff totaled P1#$;5#4+<(.5 DDD# which a0ount to the 0ind of the Court# is not colossal 4ut a reasona4le clai0# especiall- in this instance where the su4Eect properties have 4een ad0inistered 4- defendant and her 0other for 0ore than (1% -ears( [4<] 1he co0putation is 4ased on the alle/ed prevailin/ price of P"(.5 per Ailo for pala$ and P1$ per Ailo for copra( 1he trial court also ordered respondent to rei04urse petitioner in the a0ount of P15%#%%% representin/ the ad0inistrative eDpenses the latter incurred as the a/ent( @urther0ore# petitioner was awarded P1"%#%%% as co0pensation for ad0inisterin/ respondentNs properties( Fastl-# petitioner was ordered to pa- respondent attorne-Ns fees in the a0ount of P$%#%%% plus P1#%%% for ever- appearance of counsel( ?n the 3rder of the R1C reversin/ its Decision# it found that it should have considered the Certifications issued 4the *@A and PCA with respect to the prevailin/ prices of pala-# corn# and copra at the ti0e of petitionerNs ad0inistration( 1hese Certifications revealed that the prevailin/ prices fro0 1+.+ to 1++. were as follows2 (1 fro0 P1(.5 to P" per Ailo for pala-H ($ fro0 P1 to P; per Ailo for cornH and (< fro0 P<(15 to P1%(.. per Ailo for copra( 1he R1C found that the parties failed to prove the eDact Buantit- and Bualit- of harvests for the period( ConseBuentl-# it ordered petitioner to render full# accurate# and co0plete accountin/ of all the fruits and proceeds of the su4Eect properties durin/ the period of her ad0inistration( [44] 1he CA affir0ed the R1CNs ori/inal Decision and ordered petitioner to pa- respondent the a0ount of P1#<15#5<<(.5 Ueven thou/h the trial court had ordered the return of onl- P1#$;5#4+<(.5Urepresentin/ the total value of the fruits and rents derived fro0 the properties fro0 1+.+ to 1++. less the P15%#%%% ad0inistrative eDpenses# the P1"%#%%% co0pensation for ad0inisterin/ the properties# and the P..#$$1(1< real estate taDes paid 4- petitioner fro0 1+.+ to 1++.( 9e disa/ree with the appellate courtNs findin/ with respect to the total value of fruits and rents earned 4- the properties fro0 1+.+ to 1++.( As found 4- the R1C# the followin/ co0putation of the a0ounts owed 4- petitioner to respondent was su40itted 4the latterNs attorne-&in&fact# Id/ar )( )e/arra2 9itness Id/ar )( )e/arra testified that the properties which were ad0inistered 4- defendant Caridad )( )a6on consisted of residential and a/ricultural lands( Caridad )a6on leased the residential lots to one )alo0e )e/arra in the a0ount of 1%% pesos a 0onth since 1+""( Another parcel of land was leased to defendantNs 0other Ana )e/arra in eDchan/e for one sacA or 4; Ailo/ra0s of pala- for a period of $% -ears( A cornland which is 4ein/ tenanted 4- 3rlando !acalinao produced P.$#%%%(%%( 1he co0putation was 4ased on a .5O$5 sharin/ plan 0ultiplied 4- the price of corn at ; pesos and a/ain 0ultiplied 4- 15 -ears# the nu04er of -ears that the properties were 4ein/ tenanted( Another riceland was tilled 4- the defendantNs hus4and( 1his 1(5; hectares Riceland produced 1#+<$ Ailo/ra0s of rice per -ear and at R"(.5 a Ailo/ra0# for 14 -ears# the a0ount which was not re0itted to the plaintiff a0ounted to P"<;#;.%(%%( Another propert-# located at Fi4on# Al4a-# containin/ an area of (;.$% hectare and tilled 4- defendantNs hus4and produced harvest a0ountin/ to P1$1#%<%(%%( @urther# a riceland with an area of (;<"% hectare 4ein/ far0ed 4- the defendantNs dau/hter produced P1"<#.$%(%%( 1wo coconut lands# located at !aca4u/os# Fi4on# Al4a-# produced coconuts 0ade into copras# thus 4rin/in/ in profits of a4out P.%5#;%%(%%( 1he fore/oin/ a0ounts correspond to the -ears 4- which the properties were ad0inistered 4- the defendant# the nu04er of crops the- harvested# the sharin/ plan# and the prevailin/ price of the produce durin/ the -ears of ad0inistration( 5e also asAed the co0prador (4u-er of /rains a4out the prices and consulted e0plo-ees of the depart0ent of A/rarian Refor0 re/ardin/ the sharin/ of the crops( 1he lease contracts affectin/ the properties were also considered( All these a0ounts were never re0itted 4- the defendant to the owner&plaintiff( [45] Petitioner correctl- posits that it was wron/ for the CA to 4ase the co0putation of unre0itted fruits and rents solel- on the evidence su40itted 4- respondentNs attorne-&in&fact# as this co0putation was o4viousl- self&servin/( @urther0ore# the Certifications issued 4- the *@A and PCA should have 4een 4e /iven wei/ht# as the- are docu0entar- evidence issued 4- /overn0ent offices 0ainl- responsi4le for deter0inin/ the 4u-in/Osellin/ price of pala$# corn# and other food and coconut products( 9e shall review the findin/s of fact of the Court of Appeals in view of so0e inconsistencies with those of the trial

court and the evidence on record( 1his Court is convinced that the Certifications are /enuine# authentic# valid# and issued in the proper eDercise and re/ular perfor0ance of the issuin/ authorit-Ns official duties( Jnder )ection <(0 # Rule 1<1 of the Revised Rules of Court# there is a le/al presu0ption that official dut- has 4een re/ularl- perfor0ed( *o evidence was presented to re4ut or dispute this presu0ption( Petitioner clai0s that several of the properties did not produce an- fruit or /enerate an- inco0e at all( [4;] 5owever# the trial court found that not onl- was there evidence on record showin/ that the properties ad0inistered -ielded a/ricultural produce and rents# 4ut petitioner herself had testified that the properties increased when she served as ad0inistrator( ?n effect# she ad0itted that the properties indeed /enerated inco0e( [4.] 1his Court is left with no other choice 4ut to order 4oth parties to present their evidence in support of their respective clai0s considerin/ that no evidence was su40itted to prove the Buantit- and Bualit- of harvests for the relevant period( *either the R1C nor the CA was a4le to eDplain or present a 4reaAdown to show how it arrived at the supposed a0ount representin/ the total value of the fruits and rents derived fro0 the properties( 1he trial court correctl- ordered petitioner to render full# accurate# and co0plete accountin/ of all the fruits and proceeds of the su4Eect properties durin/ the period of her ad0inistration( 5owever# it should have also ordered petitioner to present all her evidence re/ardin/ the alle/ed transportation eDpenses# attorne-Ns fees# docAet fees# and other feesH [4"] the total a0ount eDpended for the purchase of respondentNs Fas Pi>as propert-H [4+] and the total a0ount of real propert- taDes paid( 1hese clai0ed eDpenses# if and when dul- proven 4- sufficient evidence# should 4e deducted fro0 the total inco0e earned 4- the properties( 7oth parties should 4e reBuired to present their evidence to finall- resolve the followin/ issues2 (1 the total a0ount of the inco0e /enerated 4- Fots ? to ?P durin/ the ad0inistration of petitionerH and ($ the total a0ount of eDpenses incurred 4- petitioner that should 4e 4orne 4- respondent as the owner of the properties# or the total deducti4les in petitionerNs favor( 1here is no dou4t that petitioner is entitled to co0pensation for the services she rendered( Respondent does not den- that she never paid the for0er# since the- had no a/ree0ent re/ardin/ the a0ount# the deter0ination of which she left to petitioner([5%] Petitioner now ar/ues that since the eDpenses for the 0aintenance of the properties eDceeded whatever inco0e the- /enerated# then whatever is left of the inco0e should now 4elon/ to her as co0pensation( [51] )he sa-s that the ad0ission of the respondent ad0itted durin/ cross&eDa0ination that she eDpected petitioner to fiD her own salar- out of the re0ainin/ inco0e# if an-# of the ad0inistered propert- is enou/h reason to reverse and Decision and Resolution of the CA([5$] 1he contention is not accepta4le( Considerin/ that neither of the parties was a4le to prove how 0uch the properties earned# this Court cannot Eust a/ree with petitionerNs clai0 that whatever is left of this inco0e# after the eDpenses have 4een deducted# should 4e considered as her salar-( 1o 4e/in with# she repeatedl- clai0ed that all the inco0e derived fro0 these properties was insufficient to cover even Eust the eDpensesH thus# there is no re0ainin/ inco0e left to speaA of( 9e have alread- ruled that petitioner should 4e co0pensated for the services she rendered( )ince there was no eDact a0ount a/reed upon# and she failed to fiD her own salar- despite the authorit- /iven to her# the R1C correctl- applied the doctrine of 7%ant%m mer%it( 9ith respect to this 0atter# the trial court found thus2 And where the pa-0ent is 4ased on Buantu0 0eruit# the a0ount of recover- would onl- 4e the reasona4le value of the thin/ or services rendered re/ardless of an- a/ree0ent as to value( ?n the instant case# the a0ount of P1#%%%(%% per 0onth for 15 -ears representin/ defendantNs co0pensation for ad0inisterin/ plaintiffNs properties appears to 4e Eust# reasona4le and fair([5<] 1he doctrine of 7%ant%m mer%it (as 0uch as one deserves prevents undue enrich0ent 4ased on the eBuita4le postulate that it is unEust for a person to retain 4enefit without pa-in/ for it( [54] 7ein/ an eBuita4le principle# it should onl- 4e applied if no eDpress contract was entered into# and no specific statutor- provision is applica4le( Althou/h petitioner was /iven the authorit- to set the a0ount of her salar-# she failed to do so( 1hus# she should at least 4e /iven what she 0erits for her services( 9e find no reason to reverse the findin/ of 4oth the R1C and the CA that P1#%%% per 0onth for 15 -ears is a Eust# reasona4le# and fair co0pensation to petitioner for ad0inisterin/ respondentNs properties( 1he lower court is ordered to add this a0ount to the deducti4les that petitioner is a4le to prove or# if the deducti4les eDceed the 0onetar- value of the inco0e /enerated 4- the properties# to add this a0ount to whatever respondent ends up owin/ petitioner( 9e delete the award of 0oral da0a/es and attorne-Gs fees in the a4sence of proof of 4ad faith and 0alice on the

part of petitioner(

cralaw

'HERE(ORE# in view of the fore/oin/# the Petition is "ART!) GRANTED# as follows2 (1 Petitioner Caridad )( )a6on is ordered to T#RN OVER the possession# 0ana/e0ent# and ad0inistration of Fots ?# ??# ???# :# and :? to respondent Feticia :asBue6&!enancio throu/h the latterNs attorne-&in&fact# Id/ar )( )e/arra( ($ Respondent is ordered to T#RN OVER the possession# 0ana/e0ent# and ad0inistration of one&third of Fot ?: to petitioner( (< 1he case is RE ANDED to the Re/ional 1rial Court of Fi/ao Cit-# Al4a-# the court of ori/in# which is ordered to do the followin/2

(a

ORDER petitioner to render full# accurate# and co0plete accountin/ of all the fruits and proceeds earned 4- respondentNs properties durin/ petitionerNs ad0inistration thereofH

(4 ORDER petitioner to su40it a detailed list with a 4reaAdown of all her clai0ed eDpenses# includin/ 4ut not li0ited to the followin/2 0aintenance eDpenses includin/ transportation eDpenses# le/al eDpenses# attorne-Ns fees# docAet fees# etcH the total a0ount eDpended for the purchase of respondentNs Fas Pi>as propert-H[55] and the total a0ount of real propert- taDes paid# all for the period 1+.+ to 1++.H (c ORDER the parties to su40it their evidence to prove the eDact Buantit- and Bualit- of the harvests or the fruits produced 4- the properties and all the eDpenses incurred in 0aintainin/ the0 fro0 1+.+ to 1++.H

(d DETER INE the total a0ount earned 4- the properties 4- usin/ as 4asis the declaration of the *ational @ood Authorit- and the Philippine Coconut Authorit- with respect to the prevailin/ prices of pala-# corn# and copra for the period 1+.+ to 1++.H and (e S#&TRA$T fro0 the deter0ined total a0ount the eDpenses proven 4petitioner and the R1"%#%%% servin/ as her co0pensation for ad0inisterin/ the properties fro0 1+.+ to 1++.(

$OSTS a/ainst petitioner( SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Villara+a,0 Perez, an5 "e$es, JJ., -on-ur. Endnotes: Desi/nated as Actin/ !e04er of the )econd Division vice Associate ,ustice Arturo D( 7rion per )pecial 3rder *o( 11+5 dated 15 @e4ruar- $%1$(
S [1]

Rollo# pp( .4&..( ?d( at $+&<+(

[$]

?d( at 5"&;+H penned 4- Associate ,ustice Ricardo R( Rosario and concurred in 4- Associate ,ustices ,ose C( Re-es# ,r( and !a/dan/al !( de Feon(
[<]

[4]

Rollo# pp( ;"&;+( ?d( at .4&.5( ?d( at "1( ?d( at 1<&14( ?d( at <$( ?d( at "%( )upra note ;( ?d( at .5( ?d( at 5+( ?d( at ."&".( ?d( at ."&"%( ?d( at "<( ?d( at "1&"$( ?d( at "<&"4( ?d( at "4( ?d( at +1( ?d( at ""&1%$# Civil Case *o( 1&1+44# penned 4- ,ud/e 9illia0 7( :olante( ?d( at 1%1&1%$( ?d( at 1.( ?d( at .$&.<( ?d( at 54( ?d( at $1( 5%$ Phil( 5$1# 5<; ($%%5 ( ?d( at ;;( Rollo# p( ;.( ?d( ?d( at $"( ?d( at <$( ?d( at +;( ?d( ?d( at ++( ?d( at ;1(

[5]

[;]

[.]

["]

[+]

[1%]

[11]

[1$]

[1<]

[14]

[15]

[1;]

[1.]

[1"]

[1+]

[$%]

[$1]

[$$]

[$<]

[$4]

[$5]

[$;]

[$.]

[$"]

[$+]

[<%]

[<1]

[<$]

[<<]

[<4]

[<5]

[<;]

1eople v. Ag%nias# <44 Phil( 4;. (1++. ( Ramire+ v. CA# <5; Phil( 1% (1++" ( Rollo# pp( 45&4;( )ee rollo# pp( 45&4.( )upra note ;( )upra note .( Civil Code of the Philippines# Art( 1"+1( Rollo, p( +"( ?d( at 1$5( ?d( at +<&+4( )upra note ;( )upra note <4( Rollo# p( +5( 1)*# $1 ,une $%%$# pp( <4&<5( Rollo# pp( +$&+<( ?d( at 5<( ?d( ?d( at 1%1( )ee )oler v. Co%rt of Appeals# 41% Phil( $;4# $.< ($%%1 ( )upra note 4"(

[<.]

[<"]

[<+]

[4%]

[41]

[4$]

[4<]

[44]

[45]

[4;]

[4.]

[4"]

[4+]

[5%]

[51]

[5$]

[5<]

[54]

[55]

SE$OND DIVISION [G.R. No. 18C030 : ar-+ 21, 2012]

NOR A DE!OS RE)ES VDA. DE! "RADO, E#!OGIA R. DE! "RADO, NOR ITA R. DE! "RADO AND RODE!IA R. DE! "RADO, "ETITIONERS, VS. "EO"!E O( THE "HI!I""INES, RES"ONDENT. DE$ISION RE)ES, J.: 7efore us is a petition for review on "ertiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court# which seeAs to assail and set aside the followin/ issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA in the case docAeted as CA&'(R( CR *o( <1$$5 and entitled #orma 3elos Re$es 5da. 3el 1rado, &%logia R. 3el 1rado, #ormita R. 3el 1rado and Rodelia R. 3el 1rado v. 1eople of the 1hilippinesQ2
cralaw

1 the Decision[1] dated )epte04er 15# $%%" affir0in/ with 0odification the decision and order of the Re/ional 1rial Court (R1C # 7ranch <"# Fin/a-en# Pan/asinan in Cri0inal Case *o( F&"%15H and $ the Resolution[$] dated ,anuar- ;# $%%+ den-in/ the 0otion for reconsideration of the Decision of )epte04er 15# $%%"(

T+, (a-.ua0 An.,-,5,n./ 1his petition ste0s fro0 an ?nfor0ation for falsification under Article 1.$# in relation to Article 1.1(4 # of the Revised Penal Code filed a/ainst herein petitioners *or0a Delos Re-es 5da( Del Prado (*or0a # *or0ita Del Prado (*or0ita # Iulo/ia Del Prado (Iulo/ia and Rodelia[<] Del Prado (Rodelia with the !unicipal 1rial Court (!1C of Fin/a-en# Pan/asinan# alle/edl- co00itted as follows2 1hat on or a4out the 1+th da- of ,ul-# 1++1# in the [!]unicipalit- of Fin/a-en# [P]rovince of Pan/asinan# Philippines# and within the Eurisdiction of this 5onora4le Court# the a4ove&na0ed accused# conspirin/# confederatin/ and 0utuall- helpin/ one another# did then and there wil[l]full-# unlawfull- and feloniousl- falsified# eDecute[d] and cause[d] the preparation of the DIID 3@ )JCCI))?3*# 4- statin/ and 0aAin/ it appear in said docu0ent that the- were the onl- heirs of the late Rafael del Prado# when in truth and in fact# all the accused well Anew# that !a( Cora6on Del Prado&Fi0 is also an heir who is entitled to inherit fro0 the late Rafael Del Prado# and all the accused deli4eratel- used the DIID 3@ )JCCI))?3* to clai0 ownership and possession of the land 0entioned in the DIID 3@ )JCCI))?3* to the eDclusion of the co0plainant !a( Cora6on Del Prado&Fi0 to her da0a/e and preEudice( Contrar- to Art( 1.$ in relation to Art( 1.1# par( 4 of the Revised Penal Code( [4] Jpon arrai/n0ent# the accused therein entered their plea of not /uilt-( After pre&trial conference# trial on the 0erits ensued( 1he prosecution clai0ed that !a( Cora6on Del Prado&Fi0 (Cora6on # private co0plainant in the cri0inal case# was the dau/hter of the late Rafael Del Prado (Rafael 4- his 0arria/e to Dais- Cra/in (Dais- ( After Dais- died in 1+5;# the late Rafael 0arried *or0a with who0 he had five children# na0el-2 Rafael# ,r(# Antonio# Iulo/ia# *or0ita and Rodelia( 1he late Rafael died on ,ul- 1$# 1+."( 3n 3cto4er $+# 1+.+# Cora6on# as a dau/hter of the late Rafael# and *or0a# as the late RafaelNs survivin/ spouse and representative of their five 0inor children# eDecuted a Deed of IDtra& ,udicial Partition of the Istate of Rafael Del Prado to cover the distri4ution of several properties owned 4- the late Rafael# includin/ the parcel of land covered 4- 3ri/inal Certificate of 1itle (3C1 *o( P&$$"4"# 0easurin/ 1.#;$4 sBuare 0eters# 0ore or less# and situated at Fi4son/# Fin/a-en# Pan/asinan( Per a/ree0ent of the heirs# Cora6on was to /et a <#%%%&sBuare 0eter portion of the land covered 4- 3C1 *o( P& $$"4"( 1his ri/ht of Cora6on was also affir0ed in the Deed of IDchan/e dated 3cto4er 15# 1+"$ and Confir0ation of )u4division which she eDecuted with *or0a( Cora6on# however# later discovered that her ri/ht over the su4Eect parcel of land was never re/istered 4- *or0a# contrar- to the latterNs undertaAin/( 1he petitioners instead eDecuted on ,ul- 1+# 1++1 a Deed of )uccession wherein the-# to/ether with Rafael# ,r( and Antonio# partitioned and adEudicated unto the0selves the propertcovered 4- 3C1 *o( P&$$"4"# to the eDclusion of Cora6on( 1he deed was notari6ed 4- Foreto F( @ernando (Foreto # and provides in part2 95IRIA)# on the 1$[th] da- of ,ul- 1+."# RA@AIF DIF PRAD3[#] )R(# died intestate in the Cit- of Da/upan# leavin/ certain parcel of land# and 0ore particularl- descri4ed and 4ounded to wit2 3R?'?*AF CIR1?@?CA1I 3@ 1?1FI *3( P&$$"4" A certain parcel of land (Fot *o( 551"# Cad&<.<&D Fin/a-en Cadastre# situated in Po4lacion# Fin/a-en# Pan/asinan# ?sland of Fu6on( 7ounded on the *I(# 4- Fots *os( 55$$# 5515H and ;$".H on the )I(# 4- Fots *os( 551;# 551.# 55 and RoadH on the )9(# 4- Road# and Fots *os( 55$1# 551%# and 55$%H and on the *9(# 4- RoadH D D D containin/ an area of )I:I*1II* 153J)A*D )?P 5J*DRID 19I*1K&@3JR (1.#;$4 )Buare !eters# 0ore or less( Covered 4- Psd&<%.++; (FRC # consistin/ of two lots( Fot *o( 551%&A and Fot 551"&7( 95IRIA)# the 4ar.1,/ +,r,.o ar, .+, on0y +,1r/ o3 .+, 5,-,5,n. # the first na0e# is the survivin/ spouse and the rest are the children of the decedentH DDD *39# 15IRI@3RI# for and in consideration of the pre0ises and invoAin/ the provisions of Rule .4# )ec( 1 of the Rules of Court# the parties hereto do 4- these presents# a/ree to divide and partition the entire estate a4ove[&]descri4ed and accordin/l- adEudicate# as the- do here4- adEudicate the sa0e a0on/ the0selves# herein 4elow specified to wit2 D D D[5]

7- virtue of the said Deed of )uccession# 3C1 *o( P&$$"4" was cancelled and several new titles were issued under the na0es of Cora6onNs co&heirs( 9hen Cora6on discovered this# she filed a cri0inal co0plaint a/ainst now petitioners *or0a# Iulo/ia# *or0ita and Rodelia( Antonio and Rafael# ,r( had 4oth died 4efore the filin/ of said co0plaint( A0on/ the witnesses presented durin/ the trial was Foreto# who confir0ed that upon the reBuest of *or0a and Antonio# he prepared and notari6ed the deed of succession( 5e clai0ed that the petitioners appeared and si/ned the docu0ent 4efore hi0( @or their defense# the petitioners denied havin/ si/ned the Deed of )uccession# or havin/ appeared 4efore notarpu4lic Foreto( 1he- also clai0ed that Cora6on was not a dau/hter# 4ut a niece# of the late Rafael( *or0a clai0ed that she onl- later Anew that a deed of succession was prepared 4- her son Antonio# althou/h she ad0itted havin/ eDecuted a deed of real estate 0ort/a/e in favor of 0ort/a/ee Prudential 7anA over portions of the su4Eect parcel of land alread- covered 4- the new titles( T+, Ru01n2 o3 .+, T$

1he !1C reEected for 4ein/ unsu4stantiated the petitionersN denial of an- participation in the eDecution of the deed of succession# further notin/ that the- 4enefited fro0 the propert- after its transfer in their na0es( 1hus# on Au/ust +# $%%;# the court rendered its decision[;] findin/ petitioners *or0a# Iulo/ia# *or0ita and Rodelia /uilt4e-ond reasona4le dou4t of the cri0e char/ed# sentencin/ the0 to suffer an indeter0inate penalt- of four 0onths and one da- of arresto ma$or as 0ini0u0 to two -ears and four 0onths and one da- of prision "orre""ional as 0aDi0u0( 1he- were also ordered to pa- a fine of P5#%%%(%% each# with su4sidiar- i0prison0ent in case of non& pa-0ent of fine( Considerin/ the 0inorit- of Rodelia at the ti0e of the co00ission of the cri0e# she was sentenced to suffer the penalt- of four 0onths of arresto ma$or# plus pa-0ent of fine of P5#%%%(%%# with su4sidiar- i0prison0ent in case of non&pa-0ent( All the petitioners were ordered to inde0nif- Cora6on in the a0ount of P1%#%%%(%% as attorne-Ns fees# and to pathe costs of suit( Jnsatisfied with the !1CNs rulin/# the petitioners filed a 0otion for new trial on the /rounds of alle/ed /ross error of law# irre/ularities durin/ the trial# and new and 0aterial evidence( 1o prove that the- did not intend to eDclude Cora6on fro0 the estate of the late Rafael# the petitioners cited their reco/nition of Cora6onNs ri/ht to the estate in the deed of eDtra&Eudicial partition# confir0ation of su4division# deed of eDchan/e# Eoint affidavit and petition for /uardianship of 0inors Rafael# ,r(# Iulo/ia# Antonio and *or0ita# which the- had earlier eDecuted( [.] A/ain# the petitioners denied havin/ si/ned the deed of succession# and instead insisted that their si/natures in the deed were for/ed( 1he 0otion was denied 4- the !1C via a resolution["] dated Dece04er $1# $%%;# pro0ptin/ the filin/ of an appeal with the R1C( T+, Ru01n2 o3 .+, RT$ 3n Au/ust 1%# $%%.# the R1C rendered its decision [+] affir0in/ the !1CNs decision# with 0odification in that the case a/ainst Rodelia was dis0issed in view of her 0inorit- at the ti0e of the co00ission of the cri0e( 1he decretal portion of the decision reads2 95IRI@3RI# pre0ises considered# the appealed Decision of the !unicipal 1rial Court of Fin/a-en# Pan/asinan dated Au/ust +# $%%; is here4- A@@?R!ID# 4ut 0odified as to accused Rodelia R( Del Prado as the case a/ainst her is here4- D?)!?))ID on account of her 0inorit- at the ti0e of the co00ission of the offense( SO ORDERED.[1%] A 0otion for reconsideration was denied for lacA of 0erit 4- the R1C via its resolution[11] dated 3cto4er <1# $%%.( 5ence# *or0a# Iulo/ia and *or0ita filed a petition for review with the CA( T+, Ru01n2 o3 .+, $A 3n )epte04er 15# $%%"# the CA rendered its decision [1$] dis0issin/ the petition and affir0in/ the R1CNs rulin/# with 0odification as to the i0posa4le penalt- under the ?ndeter0inate )entence Faw( 1he decretal portion of the decision reads2

'HERE(ORE# pre0ises considered# the appeal is DIS ISSED( 1he appealed Decision dated Au/ust 1%# $%%. and 3rder dated 3cto4er <1# $%%. of the Re/ional 1rial Court# 7ranch <"# Pan/asinan# in Cri0( Case *o( F&"%15 are A((IR ED with ODI(I$ATIONthat appellants *or0a delos Re-es :da( Del Prado# Iulo/ia R( Del Prado and *or0ita R( Del Prado are here4- sentenced to suffer an indeter0inate penalt- of one (1 -ear and one (1 daof arresto ma$or# as 0ini0u0# to three (< -ears# siD (; 0onths and twent-&one ($1 da-s of prision "orre""ional# as 0aDi0u0( SO ORDERED([1<] 1he 0otion for reconsideration filed 4- the petitioners was denied 4- the CA in its resolution [14] dated ,anuar- ;# $%%+( @eelin/ a//rieved# the petitioners appealed fro0 the decision and resolution of the CA to this Court# throu/h a petition for review on "ertiorari[15] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court( T+, "r,/,n. ",.1.1on:E T+, 4,.1.1on,r/ 4r,/,n. .+, 3o00o91n2 a//12n8,n. o3 ,rror/ .o /u44or. .+,1r 4,.1.1on: A. 'ITH D#E RES"E$T, THE !O'ER $O#RT $!EAR!) ERRED IN (INDING THAT $O "!AINANT $ORA6ON DE! "RADO%!I 'AS EF$!#DED AS AN HEIR O( THE !ATE RA(AE! DE! "RADO. A.

&. 'ITH D#E RES"E$T, THE !O'ER $O#RT $!EAR!) ERRED IN NOT A""RE$IATING THE (A$T THAT IN SEVERA! DO$# ENTSGINSTR# ENTS EFE$#TED &) THE "ETITIONERS 'ITH THE "ARTI$I"ATION O( $O "!AINANT S. $ORA6ON DE! "RADO%!I , SHE 'AS S"E$I(I$A!!) NA ED AS AN HEIR 'ITH $ORRES"ONDING SHARESGINHERITAN$E IN THE ESTATE O( THE !ATE RA(AE! DE! "RADO. $. 'ITH D#E RES"E$T, THE !O'ER $O#RT $!EAR!) ERRED IN (AI!ING TO A""RE$IATE THE GOOD (AITH O( THE "ETITIONERS 'HI$H NEGATES THE $O ISSION O( THE O((ENSE O( (A!SI(I$ATION ON THEIR "ART. D. 'ITH D#E RES"E$T, THE !O'ER $O#RT $!EAR!) ERRED IN $ONVI$TING THE "ETITIONERS 'ITHO#T AN) (A$T#A! AND !EGA! &ASIS, THE "RES# "TION O( INNO$EN$E O( THE "ETITIONERS NOT HAVING &EEN OVER$O E &) THE "ROSE$#TIONHS EVIDEN$E. E. 'ITH D#E RES"E$T [THE !O'ER $O#RT ERRED] IN NOT HO!DING THAT THE $ASE IS "#RE!) $IVI! ONE[,] NOT $RI INA!.[1C]

To /u44or. .+,1r a//12n,5 ,rror/, .+, 4,.1.1on,r/ 1n;o<, .+, ,?1/.,n-, an5 -on.,n./ o3 .+, /,;,ra0 5o-u8,n./ 9+1-+ .+,y +a5 4r,/,n.,5 :,3or, .+, T$, 1n-0u51n2 .+, 5,,5 o3 ,?.ra7u51-1a0 4ar.1.1on o3 .+, ,/.a., o3 Ra3a,0 D,0 "ra5o 5a.,5 O-.o:,r 29, 19B9, -on31r8a.1on o3 /u:51;1/1on, 5,,5 o3 ,?-+an2, an5 4,.1.1on 1n .+, 2uar51an/+14 4ro-,,51n2/ 3or .+, 81nor D,0 "ra5o -+105r,n 310,5 :y Nor8a, 1n 9+1-+ 5o-u8,n./ .+,y -0a18 .o +a;, 1n51-a.,5 an5 -on31r8,5 .+a. $oraIon 1/ a0/o an +,1r o3 .+, 0a., Ra3a,0. G1;,n .+,/, 5o-u8,n./, .+, 4,.1.1on,r/ 1n/1/. .+a. .+,y -anno. :, -+ar2,5 91.+ 3a0/131-a.1on 3or +a;1n2 ,?-0u5,5 $oraIon a/ an +,1r o3 .+,1r 5,-,5,n.. In /u8, .+, 1//u, 3or .+1/ $our.H/ r,/o0u.1on 1/ 9+,.+,r or no. .+, $A ,rr,5 1n a331r81n2 .+, 4,.1.1on,r/H -on;1-.1on 3or 3a0/131-a.1on, no.91.+/.an51n2 .+, /a15 4,.1.1on,r/H 5,3,n/, .+a. .+,y n,;,r 1n.,n5,5 .o ,?-0u5, 4r1;a., -o840a1nan. $oraIon 3ro8 .+, ,/.a., o3 .+, 0a., Ra3a,0. T+1/ $our.H/ Ru01n2 T+, 4,.1.1on 1/ :oun5 .o 3a10.

On0y Ju,/.1on/ o3 0a9 8ay :, ra1/,5 1n 4,.1.1on/ 3or r,;1,9 on certiorari un5,r Ru0, K> o3 .+, Ru0,/ o3 $our..
(1r/., .+, Ju,/.1on/ :,1n2 ra1/,5 :y .+, 4,.1.1on,r/ r,3,r .o 3a-.ua0 8a..,r/ .+a. ar, no. 4ro4,r /u:7,-./ o3 a 4,.1.1on 3or r,;1,9 un5,r Ru0, K>. S,..0,5 1/ .+, ru0, .+a. 1n a 4,.1.1on 3or r,;1,9 un5,r Ru0, K>, on0y Ju,/.1on/ o3 0a9 8ay :, ra1/,5. I. 1/ no. .+1/ $our.H/ 3un-.1on .o ana0yI, or 9,12+ a00 o;,r a2a1n ,;15,n-, a0r,a5y -on/15,r,5 1n .+, 4ro-,,51n2/ :,0o9, our 7ur1/51-.1on :,1n2 0181.,5 .o r,;1,91n2 on0y ,rror/ o3 0a9 .+a. 8ay +a;, :,,n -o881..,5 :y .+, 0o9,r -our.. T+, r,/o0u.1on o3 3a-.ua0 1//u,/ 1/ .+, 3un-.1on o3 .+, 0o9,r -our./, 9+o/, 31n51n2/ on .+,/, 8a..,r/ ar, r,-,1;,5 91.+ r,/4,-.. A Ju,/.1on o3 0a9 9+1-+ 9, 8ay 4a// u4on 8u/. no. 1n;o0;, an ,?a81na.1on o3 .+, 4ro:a.1;, ;a0u, o3 .+, ,;15,n-,

4r,/,n.,5 :y .+, 01.12an./.[1B] T+1/ 1/ -0,ar un5,r S,-.1on 1, Ru0, K> o3 .+, Ru0,/ o3 $our., a/ a8,n5,5, 9+1-+ 4ro;15,/: S,-.1on 1. Filin# o, petition /ith 1upre+e Court. L A 4ar.y 5,/1r1n2 .o a44,a0 :y certiorari 3ro8 a 7u528,n., 31na0 or5,r or r,/o0u.1on o3 .+, $our. o3 A44,a0/, .+, San512an:ayan, .+, $our. o3 Ta? A44,a0/, .+, R,21ona0 Tr1a0 $our. or o.+,r -our./, 9+,n,;,r au.+or1I,5 :y 0a9, 8ay 310, 91.+ .+, Su4r,8, $our. a ;,r131,5 4,.1.1on 3or r,;1,9 on certiorari. T+, 4,.1.1on 8ay 1n-0u5, an a4401-a.1on 3or a 9r1. o3 4r,0181nary 1n7un-.1on or o.+,r 4ro;1/1ona0 r,8,51,/ an5 /+a00 ra1/, on0y Ju,/.1on/ o3 0a9, 9+1-+ 8u/. :, 51/.1n-.0y /,. 3or.+. T+, 4,.1.1on,r 8ay /,,< .+, /a8, 4ro;1/1ona0 r,8,51,/ :y ;,r131,5 8o.1on 310,5 1n .+, /a8, a-.1on or 4ro-,,51n2 a. any .18, 5ur1n2 1./ 4,n5,n-y. @E84+a/1/ /u4401,5A T+, 51/.1n-.1on :,.9,,n a Ju,/.1on o3 0a9 an5 a Ju,/.1on o3 3a-. 1/ /,..0,5. T+,r, 1/ a Ju,/.1on o3 0a9 9+,n .+, 5ou:. or 5133,r,n-, ar1/,/ a/ .o 9+a. .+, 0a9 1/ on a -,r.a1n /.a., o3 3a-./. Su-+ a Ju,/.1on 5o,/ no. 1n;o0;, an ,?a81na.1on o3 .+, 4ro:a.1;, ;a0u, o3 .+, ,;15,n-, 4r,/,n.,5 :y .+, 01.12an./ or any o3 .+,8. On .+, o.+,r +an5, .+,r, 1/ a Ju,/.1on o3 3a-. 9+,n .+, 5ou:. ar1/,/ a/ .o .+, .ru.+ or 3a0/,+oo5 o3 .+, a00,2,5 3a-./ or 9+,n .+, Ju,ry n,-,//ar10y 1n;1.,/ -a01:ra.1on o3 .+, 9+o0, ,;15,n-,, -on/15,r1n2 8a1n0y .+, -r,51:101.y o3 91.n,//,/, ,?1/.,n-, an5 r,0,;an-y o3 /4,-131- /urroun51n2 -1r-u8/.an-,/, .+,1r r,0a.1on .o on, ano.+,r an5 .o .+, 9+o0,, an5 .+, 4ro:a:101.1,/ o3 .+, /1.ua.1on. [18] $on.rary .o .+,/, ru0,/, .+, 4,.1.1on,r/ a/< u/ .o r,;1,9 .+, 0o9,r -our./H 3a-.ua0 31n51n2 on $ar8,nH/ ,?-0u/1on 1n .+, /u:7,-. 5,,5 o3 /u--,//1on, .o r,-on/15,r 1./ -on.,n./ an5 .+o/, o3 .+, o.+,r 5o-u8,n.ary ,;15,n-, 9+1-+ .+,y +a;, /u:81..,5 91.+ .+, -our. a 3uo, a00 o3 9+1-+ 1n;o0;, Ju,/.1on/ o3 3a-. ra.+,r .+an Ju,/.1on/ o3 0a9. In .+,1r a//12n8,n. o3 ,rror/, 4,.1.1on,r/ ,;,n 3u00y Ju,/.1on .+, 3a-.ua0 :a/1/ 3or .+, -our./H 31n51n2 o3 .+,1r 2u10.. Ho9,;,r, a/ 9, +a;, ,?40a1n,5 1n Medina (. Asistio, Jr.:[19] ",.1.1on,r/H a00,2a.1on .+a. .+, $our. o3 A44,a0/ M2ro//0y 51/r,2ar5,5N .+,1r E?+1:1./ MAN, M&N, M$N, MDN an5 MEN, 1n ,33,-., a/</ u/ .o r,%,?a81n, a00 .+, [,;15,n-,] a0r,a5y 4r,/,n.,5 an5 ,;a0ua.,5 L a/ 9,00 a/ .+, 31n51n2/ o3 3a-. 8a5, L :y .+, $our. o3 A44,a0/. T+u/, 1n 1otto (. Te(es @8C S$RA 1>K[19B8]A, [9], +,05 .+a. .+, a44r,-1a.1on o3 ,;15,n-, 1/ 91.+1n .+, 5o8a1n o3 .+, $our. o3 A44,a0/ :,-au/, 1./ 31n51n2/ o3 3a-. ar, no. r,;1,9a:0, :y .+1/ $our. @Manlapaz (. CA, 1KB S$RA 23C [198B]O 4necht (. CA, 1>8 S$RA 80 [1988]an5 a 0on2 01n, o3 -a/,/A. I. 1/ no. .+, 3un-.1on o3 .+1/ $our. .o ana0yI, or 9,12+ /u-+ ,;15,n-, a00 o;,r a2a1n. Our 7ur1/51-.1on 1/ 0181.,5 .o r,;1,91n2 ,rror/ o3 0a9 .+a. 8ay +a;, :,,n -o881..,5 :y .+, 0o9,r -our.. @'icolas5,6 et al., (. CA, 1>K S$RA C3>[198B]O Tion#co (. de la Merced, >8 S$RA 89 [19BK]A. T+,r, ar, r,-o2n1I,5 ,?-,4.1on/ .o .+1/ ru0, on Ju,/.1on/ o3 0a9 a/ /u:7,-./ o3 4,.1.1on/ 3or r,;1,9, .o 91.: @1A 9+,n .+, 31n51n2/ ar, 2roun5,5 ,n.1r,0y on /4,-u0a.1on, /ur81/,/ or -on7,-.ur,/, @2A 9+,n .+, 1n3,r,n-, 8a5, 1/ 8an13,/.0y 81/.a<,n, a:/ur5 or 184o//1:0,, @3A 9+,n .+,r, 1/ 2ra;, a:u/, o3 51/-r,.1on, @KA 9+,n .+, 7u528,n. 1/ :a/,5 on 81/a44r,+,n/1on o3 3a-./, @>A 9+,n .+, 31n51n2/ o3 3a-. ar, -on301-.1n2, @CA 9+,n 1n 8a<1n2 1./ 31n51n2/, .+, $A 9,n. :,yon5 .+, 1//u,/ o3 .+, -a/,, or 1./ 31n51n2/ ar, -on.rary .o .+, a581//1on/ o3 :o.+ .+, a44,00an. an5 .+, a44,00,,, @BA 9+,n .+, $AH/ 31n51n2/ ar, -on.rary .o .+o/, :y .+, .r1a0 -our., @8A 9+,n .+, 31n51n2/ ar, -on-0u/1on/ 91.+ou. -1.a.1on o3 /4,-131- ,;15,n-, on 9+1-+ .+,y ar, :a/,5, @9A 9+,n .+, a-./ /,. 3or.+ 1n .+, 4,.1.1on a/ 9,00 a/ 1n .+, 4,.1.1on,rH/ 8a1n an5 r,40y :r1,3/ ar, no. 51/4u.,5 :y .+, r,/4on5,n., @10A 9+,n .+, 31n51n2/ o3 3a-. ar, 4r,81/,5 on .+, /u44o/,5 a:/,n-, o3 ,;15,n-, an5 -on.ra51-.,5 :y .+, ,;15,n-, on r,-or5, or @11A 9+,n .+, $A 8an13,/.0y o;,r0oo<,5 -,r.a1n r,0,;an. 3a-./ no. 51/4u.,5 :y .+, 4ar.1,/, 9+1-+, 13 4ro4,r0y -on/15,r,5, 9ou05 7u/.13y a 5133,r,n. -on-0u/1on. [20] A3.,r a -on/15,ra.1on o3 .+, 4,.1.1on,r/H ar2u8,n./, .+1/ $our. +o05/ .+a. .+, 4r,/,n. a44,a0 5o,/ no. 3a00 un5,r any o3 .+,/, ,?-,4.1on/.

T+,r, -an :, no 2oo5 3a1.+ on .+, 4ar. o3 .+, 4,.1.1on,r/ /1n-, .+,y <n,9 o3 .+, un.ru.+3u0 -+ara-.,r o3 /.a.,8,n./ -on.a1n,5 1n .+,1r 5,,5 o3 /u--,//1on.
E;,n 2ran.1n2 .+a. .+, 4r,/,n. 4,.1.1on 8ay :, a581..,5, 9, 31n5 no -o2,n. r,a/on .o r,;,r/, .+, $A 5,-1/1on a44,a0,5 3ro8, -on/15,r1n2 .+a. .+, ,0,8,n./ o3 .+, -r18, o3 3a0/131-a.1on un5,r Ar.. 1B1, 4ar.

K o3 .+, R,;1/,5 ",na0 $o5,, 1n r,0a.1on .o Ar.. 1B2 .+,r,o3, 9,r, 5u0y 4ro;,5 5ur1n2 .+, 4ro-,,51n2/ :,0o9. Sa15 ,0,8,n./ ar, a/ 3o00o9/:

(a

1he offender 0aAes in a pu4lic docu0ent untruthful state0ents in a narration of factsH (4 1he offender has a le/al o4li/ation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated 4- hi0H and (c 1he facts narrated 4- the offender are a4solutel- false([$1]
T+,/, ,0,8,n./ ar, :a/,5 on .+, 4ro;1/1on/ o3 Ar.. 1B2, 1n r,0a.1on .o Ar.. 1B1, 4ar. K, o3 .+, R,;1/,5 ",na0 $o5,, 9+1-+ r,a5/: Ar.. 1B1. Falsi,ication b$ public o,,icer, e+plo$ee or notar$ or ecclesiastical +inister. L T+, 4,na0.y o3 prision +a$or an5 a 31n, no. .o ,?-,,5 ">,000 4,/o/ /+a00 :, 184o/,5 u4on any 4u:01- o331-,r, ,840oy,,, or no.ary 9+o, .a<1n2 a5;an.a2, o3 +1/ o331-1a0 4o/1.1on, /+a00 3a0/13y a 5o-u8,n. :y -o881..1n2 any o3 .+, 3o00o91n2 a-./: ??? K. a<1n2 un.ru.+3u0 /.a.,8,n./ 1n narra.1on o3 3a-./O

??? Ar.. 1B2. Falsi,ication b$ pri(ate indi(idual and use o, ,alsi,ied docu+ents. L T+, 4,na0.y o3 prision correccional 1n 1./ 8,51u8 an5 8a?18u8 4,r1o5/ an5 a 31n, o3 no. 8or, .+an ">,000 4,/o/ /+a00 :, 184o/,5 u4on: 1. Any 4r1;a., 1n51;15ua0 9+o /+a00 -o881. any o3 .+, 3a0/131-a.1on/ ,nu8,ra.,5 1n .+, n,?. 4r,-,51n2 ar.1-0, 1n any 4u:01- or o331-1a0 5o-u8,n. or 0,..,r o3 ,?-+an2, or any o.+,r <1n5 o3 -o88,r-1a0 5o-u8,n.O an5 Any 4,r/on 9+o, .o .+, 5a8a2, o3 a .+1r5 4ar.y, or 91.+ .+, 1n.,n. .o -au/, /u-+ 5a8a2,, /+a00 1n any 4r1;a., 5o-u8,n. -o881. any o3 .+, a-./ o3 3a0/131-a.1on ,nu8,ra.,5 1n .+, n,?. 4r,-,51n2 ar.1-0,.

2.

??? T+, 8a.,r1a0 5o-u8,n. -0a18,5 .o :, 3a0/131,5 1n .+1/ -a/, 1/ .+, D,,5 o3 Su--,//1on 5a.,5 Ju0y 19, 1991, .+, 4r,/,n.a.1on o3 9+1-+ :,3or, .+, R,21/.,r o3 D,,5/ an5 o.+,r 2o;,rn8,n. a2,n-1,/ a00o9,5 .+, -an-,00a.1on o3 O$T No. "%228K8, an5 .+, 1//uan-, o3 /,;,ra0 n,9 .1.0,/ 1n 1./ /.,a5. T+, 31r/. an5 .+1r5 ,0,8,n./ 9,r, -o881..,5 :y .+, 1n-0u/1on 1n .+, /u:7,-. 5,,5 o3 .+, -0au/, .+a. /.a.,/, M@9A+,r,a/, .+, 4ar.1,/ +,r,.o ar, .+, on0y +,1r/ o3 .+, 5,-,5,n., .+, 31r/. na8,, 1/ .+, /ur;1;1n2 /4ou/, an5 .+, r,/. ar, .+, -+105r,n o3 .+, 5,-,5,n..N [22] T+, un.ru.+3u0n,// o3 /a15 /.a.,8,n. 1/ -0,ar 3ro8 .+, /,;,ra0 o.+,r 5o-u8,n./ u4on 9+1-+, 1ron1-a00y, .+, 4,.1.1on,r/ an-+or .+,1r 5,3,n/,, /u-+ a/ .+, 5,,5 o3 ,?.ra7u51-1a0 4ar.1.1on 5a.,5 O-.o:,r 29, 19B9, .+, 4ar.1,/H -on31r8a.1on o3 /u:51;1/1on, 5,,5 o3 ,?-+an2, an5 Nor8aH/ 4,.1.1on 3or 2uar51an/+14 o3 +,r .+,n 81nor -+105r,n. S4,-131-a00y 8,n.1on,5 1n .+,/, 5o-u8,n./ 1/ .+, 3a-. .+a. $oraIon 1/ a0/o a 5au2+.,r, .+u/ an +,1r, o3 .+, 0a., Ra3a,0. T+, o:012a.1on o3 .+, 4,.1.1on,r/ .o /4,a< on0y .+, .ru.+ 1n .+,1r 5,,5 o3 /u--,//1on 1/ -0,ar, .a<1n2 1n.o a--oun. .+, ;,ry na.ur, o3 .+, 5o-u8,n. 3a0/131,5. T+, 5,,5, 9+1-+ 9a/ .ran/3or8,5 1n.o a 4u:015o-u8,n. u4on a-<no90,52,8,n. :,3or, a no.ary 4u:01-, r,Ju1r,5 on0y .ru.+3u0 /.a.,8,n./ 3ro8 .+, 4,.1.1on,r/. I. 9a/ a 0,2a0 r,Ju1r,8,n. .o ,33,-. .+, -an-,00a.1on o3 .+, or121na0 -,r.131-a., o3 .1.0, an5 .+, 1//uan-, o3 n,9 .1.0,/ :y .+, R,21/.,r o3 D,,5/. T+, 3a0/, /.a.,8,n. 8a5, 1n .+, 5,,5 2r,a.0y a33,-.,5 .+, 1n5,3,a/1:101.y nor8a00y a--or5,5 .o .1.0,/ o;,r 4ro4,r.1,/ :rou2+. un5,r .+, -o;,ra2, o3 0an5 r,21/.ra.1on, .o .+, 1n7ury o3 $oraIon 9+o 9a/ 5,4r1;,5 o3 +,r r12+. a/ a 0an5o9n,r, an5 .+, -0,ar 4r,7u51-, o3 .+1r5 4,r/on/ 9+o 9ou05 r,0y on .+, 0an5 .1.0,/ 1//u,5 on .+, :a/1/ o3 .+, 5,,5. ', -anno. /u:/-r1:, .o .+, 4,.1.1on,r/H -0a18 o3 2oo5 3a1.+ :,-au/, /,;,ra0 5o-u8,n./ 4ro;, .+a. .+,y <n,9 o3 .+, un.ru.+3u0 -+ara-.,r o3 .+,1r /.a.,8,n. 1n .+, 5,,5 o3 /u--,//1on. T+, 4,.1.1on,r/H a00,2,5 2oo5 3a1.+ 1/ 51/4u.,5 :y .+,1r 4r1or -on31r8a.1on an5 r,-o2n1.1on o3 $oraIonH/ r12+. a/ an +,1r, :,-au/, 5,/41., <no90,52, o3 /a15 3a-., .+,y 1n-0u5,5 1n .+, 5,,5 a /.a.,8,n. .o .+, -on.rary. T+, 9ron23u0 1n.,n. .o 1n7ur, $oraIon 1/ -0,ar 3ro8 .+,1r ,?,-u.1on o3 .+, 5,,5, /+o91n2 a 5,/1r, .o a44ro4r1a., on0y un.o .+,8/,0;,/ .+, /u:7,-. 4ar-,0 o3 0an5. $oraIon 9a/ un5u0y 5,4r1;,5 o3 9+a. 9a/ 5u, +,r no. on0y

un5,r .+, 4ro;1/1on/ o3 .+, 0a9 on /u--,//1on, :u. a0/o un5,r -on.ra-./ .+a. /+, +a5 4r,;1ou/0y ,?,-u.,5 91.+ .+, 4,.1.1on,r/.
-ra0a9

'HERE(ORE, 4r,81/,/ -on/15,r,5, .+, 4,.1.1on 3or r,;1,9 on -,r.1orar1 1/ +,r,:y DENIED. T+, D,-1/1on 5a.,5 S,4.,8:,r 1>, 2008 an5 R,/o0u.1on 5a.,5 January C, 2009 o3 .+, $our. o3 A44,a0/ 1n $A%G.R. $R No. 3122> ar, +,r,:y A((IR ED. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), &rion, Perez, an5 1ereno, JJ., -on-ur. Endnotes:
[1]

",nn,5 :y A//o-1a., Ju/.1-, Juan *. Enr1Ju,I, Jr., 91.+ A//o-1a., Ju/.1-,/ I/a1a/ ". D1-51-an an5 ar0,n, GonIa0,/%S1/on, -on-urr1n2O rollo, 44. 32%K>. I5. a. >1%>2. A0/o <no9n a/ Ro5100a D,0 "ra5o 1n o.+,r 5o-u8,n./. $A rollo, 4. 121. "ollo, 44. 3C%3B. $A rollo, 44. 1>B%1CC. I5. a. 1B1%182. I5. a. 211%213. I5. a. 111%120. I5. a. 120. I5. a. 23C. Su4ra no., 1. I5. a. KK. Su4ra no., 2. "ollo, 44. 1B%30. "ollo, 44. 1B%18. Vallacar Transit, nc. (. Catubi#, G.R. No. 1B>>12, ay 30, 2011.

[2]

[3]

[K]

[>]

[C]

[B]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[1K]

[1>]

[1C]

[1B]

[18]

7uz+an (. Co++ission on Elections, G.R. No. 182380, Au2u/. 28, 2009, >9B S$RA K99, >09. G.R. No. B>K>0, No;,8:,r 8, 1990, 191 S$RA 218, 223. Andrada (. Pilhino 1ales Corporation, G.R. No. 1>CKK8, (,:ruary 23, 2011.

[19]

[20]

7aleos (. People, G.R. No/. 1BKB30%3B, (,:ruary 9, 2011, CK2 S$RA K8>, >0C, -1.1n2 Fullero (. People, G.R. No. 1B0>83, S,4.,8:,r 12, 200B, >33 S$RA 9B, 11K.
[21] [22]

$A rollo, 4. 11KO rollo, 4. 3C.

IRST DIVISION [G.R. No. 1BKK89 : A4r10 0B, 2012]

ANTONIO &. &A!TA6AR, SE&ASTIAN . &A!TA6AR, ANTONIO !. ANGA!INDAN, ROSIE . ATEO, NENITA A. "A$HE$O, VIRGI!IO REGA!A, JR., AND RA(AE! TIT$O, "ETITIONERS, VS. !OREN6O !AFA, RES"ONDENT. DE$ISION DE! $ASTI!!O, J.: ?t is incu04ent upon those who oppose the pro4ate of a will to clearl- esta4lish that the decedent was not of sound and disposin/ 0ind at the ti0e of the eDecution of said will( 3therwise# the state is dut-&4ound to /ive full effect to the wishes of the testator to distri4ute his estate in the 0anner provided in his will so lon/ as it is le/all- tena4le(
[1]
cralaw

7efore us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[$] of the ,une 15# $%%; Decision[<] of the Court of Appeals (CA in CA&'(R( C: *o( "%+.+ which reversed the )epte04er <%# $%%< Decision [4] of the Re/ional 1rial Court (R1C # 7ranch 5$# 'ua/ua# Pa0pan/a in )pecial Proceedin/s *o( '&11";( 1he assailed CA Decision /ranted the petition for pro4ate of the notarial will of Paciencia Re/ala (Paciencia # to wit2 95IRI@3RI# pre0ises considered# findin/ the appeal to 4e i0pressed with 0erit# the decision in )P( PR3C( *3( '& 11"; dated <% )epte04er $%%<# is here4- )I1 A)?DI and a new one entered 'RA*1?*' the petition for the pro4ate of the will of PAC?I*C?A RI'AFA( )3 3RDIRID([5] Also assailed herein is the Au/ust <1# $%%; CA Resolution [;] which denied the !otion for Reconsideration thereto( Petitioners call us to reverse the CANs assailed Decision and instead affir0 the Decision of the R1C which disallowed the notarial will of Paciencia( Factual Antecedents Paciencia was a ." -ear old spinster when she 0ade her last will and testa0ent entitled Ta%li #ang Bilin o Testamento Miss 1a"ien"ia Regala[.] (9ill in the Pa0pan/o dialect on )epte04er 1<# 1+"1( 1he 9ill# eDecuted in the house of retired ,ud/e Irnestino '( Fi0pin (,ud/e Fi0pin # was read to Paciencia twice( After which# Paciencia eDpressed in the presence of the instru0ental witnesses that the docu0ent is her last will and testa0ent( )he thereafter affiDed her si/nature at the end of the said docu0ent on pa/e < ["] and then on the left 0ar/in of pa/es 1# $ and 4 thereof([+] 1he witnesses to the 9ill were Dra( !aria Fio4a A( Fi0pin (Dra( Fi0pin # @rancisco 'arcia (@rancisco and @austino R( !ercado (@austino ( 1he three attested to the 9illNs due eDecution 4- affiDin/ their si/natures 4elow its attestation clause[1%] and on the left 0ar/in of pa/es 1# $ and 4 thereof# [11] in the presence of Paciencia and of one another and of ,ud/e Fi0pin who acted as notar- pu4lic( Childless and without an- 4rothers or sisters# Paciencia 4eBueathed all her properties to respondent Foren6o R( FaDa (Foren6o and his wife Cora6on @( FaDa and their children Funa Forella FaDa and Latherine Ross FaDa# thus2 DDDD @ourth & ?n consideration of their valua4le services to 0e since then up to the present 4- the spouses F3RI*=3 FAPA and C3RA=3* @( FAPA# ? here4- 7I8JIA15# C3*:IK and '?:I all 0- properties enu0erated in parcels 1 to 5 unto the spouses F3RI*=3 R( FAPA and C3RA=3* @( FAPA and their children# FJ*A F3RIFFA FAPA and LA15IR?*I FAPA# and the spouses Foren6o R( FaDa and Cora6on @( FaDa 4oth of le/al a/e# @ilipinos# presentlresidin/ at 7arrio )ta( !onica# [)as0uan]# Pa0pan/a and their children# FJ*A F3RIFFA and LA15IR?*I R3)) FAPA# who are still not of le/al a/e and livin/ with their parents who would decide to 4eBueath since the- are the children of the spousesH DDDD [)iDth] & )hould other properties of 0ine 0a- 4e discovered aside fro0 the properties 0entioned in this last will and testa0ent# ? a0 also 4eBueathin/ and /ivin/ the sa0e to the spouses Foren6o R( FaDa and Cora6on @( FaDa and their two children and ? also co00and the0 to offer 0asses -earl- for the repose of 0- soul and that of D[>]a *ico0eda Re/ala# Ipifania Re/ala and their spouses and with respect to the fishpond situated at )an Antonio# ?

liAewise co00and to fulfill the wishes of D[>]a *ico0eda Re/ala in accordance with her testa0ent as stated in 0testa0ent( D D D[1$] 1he filial relationship of Foren6o with Paciencia re0ains undisputed( Foren6o is PacienciaNs nephew who0 she treated as her own son( Conversel-# Foren6o ca0e to Anow and treated Paciencia as his own 0other( [1<] Paciencia lived with Foren6oNs fa0il- in )as0uan# Pa0pan/a and it was she who raised and cared for Foren6o since his 4irth( )iD da-s after the eDecution of the 9ill or on )epte04er 1+# 1+"1# Paciencia left for the Jnited )tates of A0erica (J)A ( 1here# she resided with Foren6o and his fa0il- until her death on ,anuar- 4# 1++;( ?n the interi0# the 9ill re0ained in the custod- of ,ud/e Fi0pin( !ore than four -ears after the death of Paciencia or on April $.# $%%%# Foren6o filed a petition [14] with the R1C of 'ua/ua# Pa0pan/a for the pro4ate of the 9ill of Paciencia and for the issuance of Fetters of Ad0inistration in his favor# docAeted as )pecial Proceedin/s *o( '&11";( 1here 4ein/ no opposition to the petition after its due pu4lication# the R1C issued an 3rder on ,une 1<# $%%%[15] allowin/ Foren6o to present evidence on ,une $$# $%%%( 3n said date# Dra( Fi0pin testified that she was one of the instru0ental witnesses in the eDecution of the last will and testa0ent of Paciencia on )epte04er 1<# 1+"1([1;] 1he 9ill was eDecuted in her fatherNs (,ud/e Fi0pin ho0e office# in her presence and of two other witnesses# @rancisco and @austino([1.] Dra( Fi0pin positivel- identified the 9ill and her si/natures on all its four pa/es([1"] )he liAewise positivel- identified the si/nature of her father appearin/ thereon( [1+] 8uestioned 4- the prosecutor re/ardin/ ,ud/e Fi0pinNs present 0ental fitness# Dra( Fi0pin testified that her father had a stroAe in 1++1 and had to under/o 4rain sur/er-([$%] 1he Eud/e can walA 4ut can no lon/er talA and re0e04er her na0e( 7ecause of this# Dra( Fi0pin stated that her father can no lon/er testif- in court( [$1] 1he followin/ da- or on ,une $<# $%%%# petitioner Antonio 7alta6ar (Antonio filed an opposition [$$] to Foren6oNs petition( Antonio averred that the properties su4Eect of PacienciaNs 9ill 4elon/ to *ico0eda Re/ala !an/alindan# his predecessor&in&interestH hence# Paciencia had no ri/ht to 4eBueath the0 to Foren6o( [$<] 7arel- a 0onth after or on ,ul- $%# $%%%# Antonio# now Eoined 4- petitioners )e4astian !( 7alta6ar# :ir/ilio Re/ala# ,r(# *enita A( Pacheco# @eliD 7( @lores# Rafael 1itco# Rosie !( !ateo (Rosie and Antonio F( !an/alindan filed a )upple0ental 3pposition[$4] contendin/ that PacienciaNs 9ill was null and void 4ecause ownership of the properties had not 4een transferred andOor titled to Paciencia 4efore her death pursuant to Article 1%4+# para/raph < of the Civil Code([$5] Petitioners also opposed the issuance of Fetters of Ad0inistration in Foren6oNs favor ar/uin/ that Foren6o was disBualified to 4e appointed as such# he 4ein/ a citi6en and resident of the J)A( [$;] Petitioners pra-ed that Fetters of Ad0inistration 4e instead issued in favor of Antonio( [$.] Fater still on )epte04er $;# $%%%# petitioners filed an A0ended 3pposition [$"] asAin/ the R1C to den- the pro4ate of PacienciaNs 9ill on the followin/ /rounds2 the 9ill was not eDecuted and attested to in accordance with the reBuire0ents of the lawH that Paciencia was 0entall- incapa4le to 0aAe a 9ill at the ti0e of its eDecutionH that she was forced to eDecute the 9ill under duress or influence of fear or threatsH that the eDecution of the 9ill had 4een procured 4- undue and i0proper pressure and influence 4- Foren6o or 4- so0e other persons for his 4enefitH that the si/nature of Paciencia on the 9ill was for/edH that assu0in/ the si/nature to 4e /enuine# it was o4tained throu/h fraud or tricAer-H and# that Paciencia did not intend the docu0ent to 4e her 9ill( )i0ultaneousl-# petitioners filed an 3pposition and Reco00endation [$+] reiteratin/ their opposition to the appoint0ent of Foren6o as ad0inistrator of the properties and reBuestin/ for the appoint0ent of Antonio in his stead( 3n ,anuar- $+# $%%1# the R1C issued an 3rder[<%] den-in/ the reBuests of 4oth Foren6o and Antonio to 4e appointed ad0inistrator since the for0er is a citi6en and resident of the J)A while the latterNs clai0 as a co&owner of the properties su4Eect of the 9ill has not -et 4een esta4lished( !eanwhile# proceedin/s on the petition for the pro4ate of the 9ill continued( Dra( Fi0pin was recalled for cross& eDa0ination 4- the petitioners( )he testified as to the a/e of her father at the ti0e the latter notari6ed the 9ill of PacienciaH the livin/ arran/e0ents of Paciencia at the ti0e of the eDecution of the 9illH and the lacA of photo/raphs when the event tooA place( [<1] Aside fro0 Dra( Fi0pin# Foren6o and !onico !ercado (!onico also tooA the witness stand( !onico# son of @austino# testified on his fatherNs condition( Accordin/ to hi0 his father can no lon/er talA and eDpress hi0self due to 4rain da0a/e( A 0edical certificate was presented to the court to support this alle/ation( [<$] @or his part# Foren6o testified that2 fro0 1+44 until his departure for the J)A in April 1+"%# he lived in )as0uan# Pa0pan/a with his fa0il- and his aunt# PacienciaH in 1+"1 Paciencia went to the J)A and lived with hi0 and his fa0il- until her death in ,anuar- 1++;H the relationship 4etween hi0 and Paciencia was liAe that of a 0other and child since Paciencia tooA care of hi0 since 4irth and tooA hi0 in as an adopted sonH Paciencia was a spinster without children# and without 4rothers and sistersH at the ti0e of PacienciaNs death# she did not suffer fro0 an-

0ental disorder and was of sound 0ind# was not 4lind# deaf or 0uteH the 9ill was in the custod- of ,ud/e Fi0pin and was onl- /iven to hi0 after PacienciaNs death throu/h @austinoH and he was alread- residin/ in the J)A when the 9ill was eDecuted([<<] Foren6o positivel- identified the si/nature of Paciencia in three different docu0ents and in the 9ill itself and stated that he was fa0iliar with PacienciaNs si/nature 4ecause he acco0panied her in her transactions([<4] @urther# Foren6o 4elied and denied havin/ used force# inti0idation# violence# coercion or tricAerupon Paciencia to eDecute the 9ill as he was not in the Philippines when the sa0e was eDecuted( [<5] 3n cross& eDa0ination# Foren6o clarified that Paciencia infor0ed hi0 a4out the 9ill shortl- after her arrival in the J)A 4ut that he saw a cop- of the 9ill onl- after her death( [<;] As to @rancisco# he could no lon/er 4e presented in court as he alread- died on !a- $1# $%%%( @or petitioners# Rosie testified that her 0other and Paciencia were first cousins( [<.] )he clai0ed to have helped in the household chores in the house of Paciencia there4- allowin/ her to sta- therein fro0 0ornin/ until evenin/ and that durin/ the period of her service in the said household# Foren6oNs wife and his children were sta-in/ in the sa0e house([<"] )he served in the said household fro0 1+"% until PacienciaNs departure for the J)A on )epte04er 1+# 1+"1([<+] 3n )epte04er 1<# 1+"1# Rosie clai0ed that she saw @austino 4rin/ so0ethin/ for Paciencia to si/n at the latterNs house([4%] Rosie ad0itted# thou/h# that she did not see what that so0ethin/ was as sa0e was placed inside an envelope([41] 5owever# she re0e04ered Paciencia instructin/ @austino to first looA for 0one- 4efore she si/ns the0([4$] A few da-s after or on )epte04er 1;# 1+"1# Paciencia went to the house of AntonioNs 0other and 4rou/ht with her the said envelope([4<] Jpon /oin/ ho0e# however# the envelope was no lon/er with Paciencia( [44] Rosie further testified that Paciencia was referred to as mag%l$an or forgetf%l 4ecause she would so0eti0es leave her wallet in the Aitchen then start looAin/ for it 0o0ents later( [45] 3n cross eDa0ination# it was esta4lished that Rosie was neither a doctor nor a ps-chiatrist# that her conclusion that Paciencia was mag%l$an was 4ased on her personal assess0ent#[4;] and that it was Antonio who reBuested her to testif- in court( [4.] ?n his direct eDa0ination# Antonio stated that Paciencia was his aunt( [4"] 5e identified the 9ill and testified that he had seen the said docu0ent 4efore 4ecause Paciencia 4rou/ht the sa0e to his 0otherNs house and showed it to hi0 alon/ with another docu0ent on )epte04er 1;# 1+"1( [4+] Antonio alle/ed that when the docu0ents were shown to hi0# the sa0e were still unsi/ned([5%] Accordin/ to hi0# Paciencia thou/ht that the docu0ents pertained to a lease of one of her rice lands#[51] and it was he who eDplained that the docu0ents were actuall- a special power of attorne- to lease and sell her fishpond and other properties upon her departure for the J)A# and a 9ill which would transfer her properties to Foren6o and his fa0il- upon her death( [5$] Jpon hearin/ this# Paciencia alle/edl- uttered the followin/ words2 Eh$ .ill ! never Fret%rnG, .h$ .ill ! sell all m$ properties9H Eho is 6oren+o9 !s he the onl$ FsonG of ,od9 ! have other relatives F.ho sho%ldG benefit from m$ properties. Eh$ sho%ld ! die alread$9H[5<] 1hereafter# Antonio advised Paciencia not to si/n the docu0ents if she does not want to# to which the latter purportedl- replied# ! kno. nothing abo%t those, thro. them a.a$ or it is %p to $o%. The more ! .ill not sign them.[54] After which# Paciencia left the docu0ents with Antonio( Antonio Aept the unsi/ned docu0ents and eventuall- turned the0 over to @austino on )epte04er 1"# 1+"1( [55] "ulin# o, the "e#ional Trial Court 3n )epte04er <%# $%%<# the R1C rendered its Decision [5;] den-in/ the petition thus2 95IRI@3RI# this court here4- (a denies the petition dated April $4# $%%%H and (4 disallows the notari6ed will dated )epte04er 1<# 1+"1 of Paciencia Re/ala( SO ORDERED.[5.] 1he trial court /ave considera4le wei/ht to the testi0on- of Rosie and concluded that at the ti0e Paciencia si/ned the 9ill# she was no lon/er possessed of sufficient reason or stren/th of 0ind to have testa0entar- capacit-( [5"] "ulin# o, the Court o, Appeals 3n appeal# the CA reversed the R1C Decision and /ranted the pro4ate of the 9ill of Paciencia( 1he appellate court did not a/ree with the R1CNs conclusion that Paciencia was of unsound 0ind when she eDecuted the 9ill( ?t ratiocinated that the state of 4ein/ W0a/ul-anN does not 0aAe a person 0entall- unsound so [as] to render [Paciencia] unfit for eDecutin/ a 9ill([5+] !oreover# the oppositors in the pro4ate proceedin/s were not a4le to overco0e the presu0ption that ever- person is of sound 0ind( @urther# no concrete circu0stances or events were /iven to prove the alle/ation that Paciencia was tricAed or forced into si/nin/ the 9ill( [;%] Petitioners 0oved for reconsideration[;1] 4ut the 0otion was denied 4- the CA in its Resolution [;$]dated Au/ust <1#

$%%;( 5ence# this petition( I//u,/ Petitioners co0e 4efore this Court 4- wa- of Petition for Review on Certiorari ascri4in/ upon the CA the followin/ errors2 ?( 15I 53*3RA7FI C3JR1 3@ APPIAF) )IR?3J)FK IRRID 95I* ?1 AFF39ID 15I PR37A1I 3@ PAC?I*C?AN) 9?FF DI)P?1I RI)P3*DI*1N) J11IR @A?FJRI 13 C3!PFK 9?15 )IC1?3* 11# RJFI .; 3@ 15I RJFI) 3@ C3JR1H ??( 15I 53*3RA7FI C3JR1 3@ APPIAF) 'RA:IFK IRRID ?* !AL?*' C3*CFJ)?3*) *31 ?* ACC3RDA*CI 9?15 15I I:?DI*CI 3* RIC3RDH ???( 15I 53*3RA7FI C3JR1 3@ APPIAF) 'RA:IFK IRRID ?* RJF?*' 15A1 PI1?1?3*IR) @A?FID 13 PR3:I 15A1 PAC?I*C?A 9A) *31 3@ )3J*D !?*D A1 15I 1?!I 15I 9?FF 9A) AFFI'IDFK IPICJ1ID [;<] 1he pivotal issue is whether the authenticit- and due eDecution of the notarial 9ill was sufficientl- esta4lished to warrant its allowance for pro4ate( Our Ru01n2 9e den- the petition( *aithf%l "omplian"e .ith the formalities laid do.n b$ la. is apparent from the fa"e of the Eill. Courts are tasAed to deter0ine nothin/ 0ore than the eDtrinsic validit- of a 9ill in pro4ate proceedin/s([;4] 1his is eDpressl- provided for in Rule .5# )ection 1 of the Rules of Court# which states2 Ru0, B> "ro5u-.1on o3 '100. A00o9an-, o3 '100 N,-,//ary. )ection 1( Allo.an"e ne"essar$. Con"l%sive as to e(e"%tion( M *o will shall pass either real or personal estate unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court( )u4Eect to the ri/ht of appeal# such allowance of the will shall 4e conclusive as to its due eDecution( Due eDecution of the will or its eDtrinsic validit- pertains to whether the testator# 4ein/ of sound 0ind# freeleDecuted the will in accordance with the for0alities prescri4ed 4- law( [;5] 1hese for0alities are enshrined in Articles "%5 and "%; of the *ew Civil Code# to wit2 Art( "%5( Iver- will# other than a holo/raphic will# 0ust 4e su4scri4ed at the end thereof 4- the testator hi0self or 4- the testatorGs na0e written 4- so0e other person in his presence# and 4- his eDpress direction# and attested and su4scri4ed 4- three or 0ore credi4le witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another( 1he testator or the person reBuested 4- hi0 to write his na0e and the instru0ental witnesses of the will# shall also si/n# as aforesaid# each and ever- pa/e thereof# eDcept the last# on the left 0ar/in# and all the pa/es shall 4e nu04ered correlativel- in letters placed on the upper part of each pa/e( 1he attestation shall state the nu04er of pa/es used upon which the will is written# and the fact that the testator si/ned the will and ever- pa/e thereof# or caused so0e other person to write his na0e# under his eDpress direction# in the presence of the instru0ental witnesses# and that the latter witnessed and si/ned the will and all the pa/es thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another( ?f the attestation clause is in a lan/ua/e not Anown to the witnesses# it shall 4e interpreted to the0(

Art( "%;( Iver- will 0ust 4e acAnowled/ed 4efore a notar- pu4lic 4- the testator and the witnesses( 1he notarpu4lic shall not 4e reBuired to retain a cop- of the will# or file another with the 3ffice of the ClerA of Court( 5ere# a careful eDa0ination of the face of the 9ill shows faithful co0pliance with the for0alities laid down 4- law( 1he si/natures of the testatriD# Paciencia# her instru0ental witnesses and the notar- pu4lic# are all present and evident on the 9ill( @urther# the attestation clause eDplicitl- states the critical reBuire0ent that the testatriD and her instru0ental witnesses si/ned the 9ill in the presence of one another and that the witnesses attested and su4scri4ed to the 9ill in the presence of the testator and of one another( ?n fact# even the petitioners acceded that the si/nature of Paciencia in the 9ill 0a- 4e authentic althou/h the- Buestion her state of 0ind when she si/ned the sa0e as well as the voluntar- nature of said act( The b%rden to prove that 1a"ien"ia .as of %nso%nd mind at the time of the e(e"%tion of the .ill lies on the sho%lders of the petitioners. Petitioners# throu/h their witness Rosie# clai0 that Paciencia was mag%l$an or for/etful so 0uch so that it effectivel- stripped her of testa0entar- capacit-( 1he- liAewise clai0ed in their !otion for Reconsideration [;;] filed with the CA that Paciencia was not onl- mag%l$an 4ut was actuall- sufferin/ fro0 paranoia([;.] 9e are not convinced( 9e a/ree with the position of the CA that the state of 4ein/ for/etful does not necessaril- 0aAe a person 0entallunsound so as to render hi0 unfit to eDecute a 9ill([;"] @or/etfulness is not eBuivalent to 4ein/ of unsound 0ind( 7esides# Article .++ of the *ew Civil Code states2 Art( .++( 1o 4e of sound 0ind# it is not necessar- that the testator 4e in full possession of all his reasonin/ faculties# or that his 0ind 4e wholl- un4roAen# uni0paired# or unshattered 4- disease# inEur- or other cause( ?t shall 4e sufficient if the testator was a4le at the ti0e of 0aAin/ the will to Anow the nature of the estate to 4e disposed of# the proper o4Eects of his 4ount-# and the character of the testa0entar- act( ?n this case# apart fro0 the testi0on- of Rosie pertainin/ to PacienciaNs for/etfulness# there is no su4stantial evidence# 0edical or otherwise# that would show that Paciencia was of unsound 0ind at the ti0e of the eDecution of the 9ill( 3n the other hand# we find 0ore worth- of credence Dra( Fi0pinNs testi0on- as to the soundness of 0ind of Paciencia when the latter went to ,ud/e Fi0pinNs house and voluntaril- eDecuted the 9ill( 1he testi0onof su4scri4in/ witnesses to a 9ill concernin/ the testatorNs 0ental condition is entitled to /reat wei/ht where theare truthful and intelli/ent([;+] !ore i0portantl-# a testator is presu0ed to 4e of sound 0ind at the ti0e of the eDecution of the 9ill and the 4urden to prove otherwise lies on the oppositor( Article "%% of the *ew Civil Code states2 Art( "%%( 1he law presu0es that ever- person is of sound 0ind# in the a4sence of proof to the contrar-( 1he 4urden of proof that the testator was not of sound 0ind at the ti0e of 0aAin/ his dispositions is on the person who opposes the pro4ate of the willH 4ut if the testator# one 0onth# or less# 4efore 0aAin/ his will was pu4liclAnown to 4e insane# the person who 0aintains the validit- of the will 0ust prove that the testator 0ade it durin/ a lucid interval( 5ere# there was no showin/ that Paciencia was pu4licl- Anown to 4e insane one 0onth or less 4efore the 0aAin/ of the 9ill( Clearl-# thus# the 4urden to prove that Paciencia was of unsound 0ind lies upon the shoulders of petitioners( 5owever and as earlier 0entioned# no su4stantial evidence was presented 4- the0 to prove the sa0e# there4- warrantin/ the CANs findin/ that petitioners failed to dischar/e such 4urden( @urther0ore# we are convinced that Paciencia was aware of the nature of her estate to 4e disposed of# the proper o4Eects of her 4ount- and the character of the testa0entar- act( As aptl- pointed out 4- the CA2 A scrutin- of the 9ill discloses that [Paciencia] was aware of the nature of the docu0ent she eDecuted( )he speciall- reBuested that the custo0s of her faith 4e o4served upon her death( )he was well aware of how she acBuired the properties fro0 her parents and the properties she is 4eBueathin/ to F3RI*=3# to his wife C3RA=3* and to his two ($ children( A third child was 4orn after the eDecution of the will and was not included therein as devisee([.%] Bare allegations of d%ress or infl%en"e of fear or threats, %nd%e and improper infl%en"e and

press%re, fra%d and tri"ker$ "annot be %sed as basis to den$ the probate of a .ill. An essential ele0ent of the validit- of the 9ill is the willin/ness of the testator or testatriD to eDecute the docu0ent that will distri4ute hisOher earthl- possessions upon hisOher death( Petitioners clai0 that Paciencia was forced to eDecute the 9ill under duress or influence of fear or threatsH that the eDecution of the 9ill had 4een procured 4- undue and i0proper pressure and influence 4- Foren6o or 4- so0e other persons for his 4enefitH and that assu0in/ PacienciaNs si/nature to 4e /enuine# it was o4tained throu/h fraud or tricAer-( 1hese are /rounded on the alle/ed conversation 4etween Paciencia and Antonio on )epte04er 1;# 1+"1 wherein the for0er purportedlrepudiated the 9ill and left it unsi/ned( 9e are not persuaded( 9e taAe into consideration the unre4utted fact that Paciencia loved and treated Foren6o as her own son and that love even eDtended to Foren6oNs wife and children( 1his Aind of relationship is not unusual( ?t is in fact not unheard of in our culture for old 0aids or spinsters to care for and raise their nephews and nieces and treat the0 as their own children( )uch is a prevalent and accepted cultural practice that has resulted in 0an- fa0il- discords 4etween those favored 4- the testa0entar- disposition of a testator and those who stand to 4enefit in case of intestac-( ?n this case# evidence shows the acAnowled/ed fact that PacienciaNs relationship with Foren6o and his fa0il- is different fro0 her relationship with petitioners( 1he ver- fact that she cared for and raised Foren6o and lived with hi0 4oth here and a4road# even if the latter was alread- 0arried and alread- has children# hi/hli/hts the special 4ond 4etween the0( 1his unBuestioned relationship 4etween Paciencia and the devisees tends to support the authenticit- of the said docu0ent as a/ainst petitionersN alle/ations of duress# influence of fear or threats# undue and i0proper influence# pressure# fraud# and tricAer- which# aside fro0 4ein/ factual in nature# are not supported 4- concrete# su4stantial and credi4le evidence on record( ?t is worth stressin/ that 4are ar/u0ents# no 0atter how forceful# if not 4ased on concrete and su4stantial evidence cannot suffice to 0ove the Court to uphold said alle/ations([.1] @urther0ore# a purported will is not [to 4e] denied le/ali6ation on du4ious /rounds( 3therwise# the ver- institution of testa0entar- succession will 4e shaAen to its foundation# for even if a will has 4een duleDecuted in fact# whether D D D it will 4e pro4ated would have to depend lar/el- on the attitude of those interested in [the estate of the deceased]([.$] Co%rt sho%ld be "onvin"ed b$ the eviden"e presented before it that the Eill .as d%l$ e(e"%ted. Petitioners dispute the authenticit- of PacienciaNs 9ill on the /round that )ection 11 of Rule .; of the Rules of Court was not co0plied with( ?t provides2 R#!E BC A00o9an-, or D1/a00o9an-, o3 '100 S,-.1on 11( )%bs"ribing .itnesses prod%"ed or a""o%nted for .here .ill "ontested. M ?f the will is contested# all the su4scri4in/ witnesses# and the notar- in the case of wills eDecuted under the Civil Code of the Philippines# if present in the Philippines and not insane# 0ust 4e produced and eDa0ined# and the death# a4sence# or insanit- of an- of the0 0ust 4e satisfactoril- shown to the court( ?f all or so0e of such witnesses are present in the Philippines 4ut outside the province where the will has 4een filed# their deposition 0ust 4e taAen( ?f an- or all of the0 testif- a/ainst the due eDecution of the will# or do not re0e04er havin/ attested to it# or are otherwise of dou4tful credi4ilit-# the will 0a- nevertheless# 4e allowed if the court is satisfied fro0 the testi0on- of other witnesses and fro0 all the evidence presented that the will was eDecuted and attested in the 0anner reBuired 4law( ?f a holo/raphic will is contested# the sa0e shall 4e allowed if at least three (< witnesses who Anow the handwritin/ of the testator eDplicitl- declare that the will and the si/nature are in the handwritin/ of the testatorH in the a4sence of an- co0petent witnesses# and if the court dee0 it necessar-# eDpert testi0on- 0a- 4e resorted to( (I0phasis supplied( 1he- insist that all su4scri4in/ witnesses and the notar- pu4lic should have 4een presented in court since all 4ut one witness# @rancisco# are still livin/( 9e cannot a/ree with petitioners( 9e note that the ina4ilit- of @austino and ,ud/e Fi0pin to appear and testif- 4efore the court was satisfactorileDplained durin/ the pro4ate proceedin/s( As testified to 4- his son# @austino had a heart attacA# was alread-

4edridden and could no lon/er talA and eDpress hi0self due to 4rain da0a/e( 1o prove this# said witness presented the correspondin/ 0edical certificate( @or her part# Dra( Fi0pin testified that her father# ,ud/e Fi0pin# suffered a stroAe in 1++1 and had to under/o 4rain sur/er-( At that ti0e# ,ud/e Fi0pin could no lon/er talA and could not even re0e04er his dau/hterNs na0e so that Dra( Fi0pin stated that /iven such condition# her father could no lon/er testif-( ?t is well to note that at that point# despite a0ple opportunit-# petitioners neither interposed an- o4Eections to the testi0onies of said witnesses nor challen/ed the sa0e on cross eDa0ination( 9e thus hold that for all intents and purposes# Foren6o was a4le to satisfactoril- account for the incapacit- and failure of the said su4scri4in/ witness and of the notar- pu4lic to testif- in court( 7ecause of this the pro4ate of PacienciaNs 9ill 0a- 4e allowed on the 4asis of Dra( Fi0pinNs testi0on- provin/ her sanit- and the due eDecution of the 9ill# as well as on the proof of her handwritin/( ?t is an esta4lished rule that [a] testa0ent 0a- not 4e disallowed Eust 4ecause the attestin/ witnesses declare a/ainst its due eDecutionH neither does it have to 4e necessaril- allowed Eust 4ecause all the attestin/ witnesses declare in favor of its le/ali6ationH what is decisive is that the court is convinced 4- evidence 4efore it# not necessaril- fro0 the attestin/ witnesses# althou/h the- 0ust testif-# that the will was or was not dul- eDecuted in the 0anner reBuired 4- law( [.<] !oreover# it 4ears stressin/ that [i]rrespective D D D of the posture of an- of the parties as re/ards the authenticit- and due eDecution of the will D D D in Buestion# it is the 0andate of the law that it is the evidence 4efore the court andOor [evidence that] ou/ht to 4e 4efore it that is controllin/( [.4] 1he ver- eDistence of [the 9ill] is in itself pri0a facie proof that the supposed [testatriD] has willed that [her] estate 4e distri4uted in the 0anner therein provided# and it is incu04ent upon the state that# if le/all- tena4le# such desire 4e /iven full effect independent of the attitude of the parties affected there4-( [.5] 1his# coupled with Foren6oNs esta4lished relationship with Paciencia# the evidence and the testi0onies of disinterested witnesses# as opposed to the total lacA of evidence presented 4- petitioners apart fro0 their self&servin/ testi0onies# constrain us to tilt the 4alance in favor of the authenticit- of the 9ill and its allowance for pro4ate(
cralaw

'HERE(ORE# the petition is DENIED( 1he Decision dated ,une 15# $%%; and the Resolution dated Au/ust <1# $%%; of the Court of Appeals in CA&'(R( C: *o( "%+.+ are A((IR ED. SO ORDERED( Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), )eonardo%*e Castro, &ersa+in, an5 Villara+a, Jr., JJ., -on-ur. Endnotes:
[1]

,on+ales 5da. de 1re"illa v. #ar"iso# 15%&7 Phil( 4<.# 4.< (1+.$ ( Rollo# pp( +&<1(

[$]

CA rollo# pp( 1..&1+$H penned 4- Associate ,ustice Andres 7( Re-es# ,r( and concurred in 4- Associate ,ustices 5aAi0 )( A4dulwahid and :icente 8( RoDas(
[<] [4]

Records# pp( $$%&$4;H penned 4- ,ud/e ,onel )( !ercado( CA rollo# p( 1+$( ?d( at $1$( IDhi4it '# @older of IDhi4its# pp( <;&<+( IDhi4it '&11# id( at <"( IDhi4its '&+# '&1%# and '&11# id( at <;# <. and <+( IDhi4it '&;# id at <"( IDhi4its '&4# '&5# and '&.# id( at <;# <. and <+(

[5]

[;]

[.]

["]

[+]

[1%]

[11]

In/lish 1ranslation of the Fast 9ill and 1esta0ent of !iss Paciencia Re/ala# IDhi4its 5&1 and 5&$# id( at 41& 4$(
[1$] [1<]

1)* dated April 1"# $%%1# pp( $&;( Records# pp( 1&<(

[14]

[15]

?d( at 1<&14( 1)* dated ,une $$# $%%%# p( $( ?d( at 5( ?d( at $&4( ?d( at <( ?d( at $( ?d( at ;( !otion with Feave of Court to Ad0it ?nstant 3pposition to Petition of Foren6o FaDaH records# pp( 1.&1"( ?d( at 1.( ?d( at $5&$"( Article 1%4+( Acceptance 0a- 4e eDpress or tacit(

[1;]

[1.]

[1"]

[1+]

[$%]

[$1]

[$$]

[$<]

[$4]

[$5]

DDDD Acts of 0ere preservation or provisional ad0inistration do not i0pl- an acceptance of the inheritance if# throu/h such acts# the title or capacit- of an heir has not 4een assu0ed(

[$;]

Records# p( $;( ?d( at $.( ?d( at 4$&4<( ?d( at 44&45( ?d( at 5$( 1)* dated ,anuar- 1"# $%%1# pp( $&4( ?d( at 5&;( 1)* dated April 1"# $%%1# pp( 1& $"( ?d( at +&15( ?d( at 1;&1.( ?d( at $4&$5( 1)* dated *ove04er $.# $%%$# p( 4( ?d( at 5( 1)* dated Dece04er 4# $%%$# p( " ?d( pp( $&<( ?d( at 4( ?d( ?d( at .(

[$.]

[$"]

[$+]

[<%]

[<1]

[<$]

[<<]

[<4]

[<5]

[<;]

[<.]

[<"]

[<+]

[4%]

[41]

[4$]

[4<]

[44]

?d( at "( ?d( at +( ?d( at 1%( ?d( at 11( 1)* dated ,anuar- .# $%%<# p( <( ?d( at ;&"( ?d( at 1$( ?d( at 11( ?d( at 1;( ?d( at 1.( ?d( ?d at 1"&1+( Records# pp( $$%&$4;( ?d( at $4;( ?d( at $45&$4;( CA rollo# p( 1"5( ?d( at 1""( ?d( at 1+<&1++( ?d( at $1$( Rollo# p( 1"( 1astor, /r. v. Co%rt of Appeals, $%. Phil( .5"# .;;( (1+"< ( ?d( CA rollo# pp( 1+<&1++( ?d( at 1+4&1+5( Torres and 6ope+ de B%eno v. 6ope+# 4" Phil( ..$# "1% (1+$; H )an"ho v. Abella# 5" Phil(.$"# .<$&.<< (1+<< ( ?d( at "11( CA rollo# pp( 1"5&1";( ,on+ales 5da. de 1re"illa v. #ar"iso, s%pra note 1 at 445( ?d( at 4.4( ?d( at 45$( ?d( at 45<( ?d( at 4.<(

[45]

[4;]

[4.]

[4"]

[4+]

[5%]

[51]

[5$]

[5<]

[54]

[55]

[5;]

[5.]

[5"]

[5+]

[;%]

[;1]

[;$]

[;<]

[;4]

[;5]

[;;]

[;.]

[;"]

[;+]

[.%]

[.1]

[.$]

[.<]

[.4]

[.5]

SE$OND DIVISION [G.R. No. 18B>12 : Jun, 13, 2012] RE"#&!I$ O( THE "HI!I""INES, "ETITIONER, VS. )O!ANDA $ADA$IO GRANADA, RES"ONDENT. DE$ISION SERENO, J.: 1his is a Rule 45 Petition seeAin/ the reversal of the Resolutions dated $< ,anuar- $%%+ [1] and < April $%%+[$] issued 4- the Court of Appeals (CA # which affir0ed the /rant 4- the Re/ional 1rial Court (R1C of the Petition for Declaration of Presu0ptive Death of the a4sent spouse of respondent(
cralaw

?n !a- 1++1# respondent Kolanda Cadacio 'ranada (Kolanda 0et C-rus 'ranada (C-rus at )u0ida Ilectric Philippines# an electronics co0pan- in ParanaBue where 4oth were then worAin/( 1he two eventuall- /ot 0arried at the !anila Cit- 5all on < !arch 1++<( 1heir 0arria/e resulted in the 4irth of their son# C-4or/ Dean Cadacio 'ranada( )o0eti0e in !a- 1++4# when )u0ida Ilectric Philippines closed down# C-rus went to 1aiwan to seeA e0plo-0ent( Kolanda clai0ed that fro0 that ti0e# she had not received an- co00unication fro0 her hus4and# notwithstandin/ efforts to locate hi0( 5er 4rother testified that he had asAed the relatives of C-rus re/ardin/ the latterNs wherea4outs# to no avail( After nine (+ -ears of waitin/# Kolanda filed a Petition to have C-rus declared presu0ptivel- dead( 1he Petition was raffled to Presidin/ ,ud/e Avelino De0etria of R1C 7ranch "5# Fipa Cit-# and was docAeted as )p( Proc( *o( $%%$&%5<%( 3n . @e4ruar- $%%5# the R1C rendered a Decision declarin/ C-rus as presu0ptivel- dead( 3n 1% !arch $%%5# petitioner Repu4lic of the Philippines# represented 4- the 3ffice of the )olicitor 'eneral (3)' # filed a !otion for Reconsideration of this Decision( Petitioner ar/ued that Kolanda had failed to eDert earnest efforts to locate C-rus and thus failed to prove her well&founded 4elief that he was alread- dead( 5owever# in an 3rder dated $+ ,une $%%.# the R1C denied the 0otion( Petitioner filed a *otice of Appeal to elevate the case to the CA# presu0a4l- under Rule 41# )ection $(a of the Rules of Court( Kolanda filed a !otion to Dis0iss on the /round that the CA had no Eurisdiction over the appeal( )he ar/ued that her Petition for Declaration of Presu0ptive Death# 4ased on Article 41 of the @a0il- Code# was a su00ar- Eudicial proceedin/# in which the Eud/0ent is i00ediatel- final and eDecutor- and# thus# not appeala4le( ?n its $< ,anuar- $%%+ Resolution# the appellate court /ranted KolandaNs !otion to Dis0iss on the /round of lacA of Eurisdiction( Citin/ Rep%bli" v. Berm%de+86orino#[<] the CA ruled that a petition for declaration of presu0ptive death under Rule 41 of the @a0il- Code is a su00ar- proceedin/( 1hus# Eud/0ent thereon is i00ediatel- final and eDecutor- upon notice to the parties( Petitioner 0oved for reconsideration# 4ut its 0otion was liAewise denied 4- the CA in a Resolution dated < April $%%+([4] 5ence# the present Rule 45 Petition( ssues 1( 9hether the CA seriousl- erred in dis0issin/ the Petition on the /round that the Decision of the R1C in a su00ar- proceedin/ for the declaration of presu0ptive death is i00ediatel- final and eDecutor- upon notice to the parties and# hence# is not su4Eect to ordinar- appeal $( 9hether the CA seriousl- erred in affir0in/ the R1CNs /rant of the Petition for Declaration of Presu0ptive Death under Article 41 of the @a0il- Code 4ased on the evidence that respondent presented 2ur "ulin# 1. On 9+,.+,r .+, $A /,r1ou/0y ,rr,5 1n 51/81//1n2 .+, ",.1.1on on .+, 2roun5 .+a. .+, D,-1/1on o3 .+, RT$ 1n a

/u88ary 4ro-,,51n2 3or .+, 5,-0ara.1on o3 4r,/u84.1;, 5,a.+ 1/ 188,51a.,0y 31na0 an5 ,?,-u.ory u4on no.1-, .o .+, 4ar.1,/ an5, +,n-,, 1/ no. /u:7,-. .o or51nary a44,a0 ?n the assailed Resolution dated $< ,anuar- $%%+# the CA dis0issed the Petition assailin/ the R1CNs /rant of the Petition for Declaration of Presu0ptive Death of the a4sent spouse under Article 41 of the @a0il- Code( Citin/ Rep%bli" v. Berm%de+86orino,[5] the appellate court noted that a petition for declaration of presu0ptive death for the purpose of re0arria/e is a su00ar- Eudicial proceedin/ under the @a0il- Code( 5ence# the R1C Decision therein is i00ediatel- final and eDecutor- upon notice to the parties# 4- eDpress provision of Article $4. of the sa0e Code( 1he decision is therefore not su4Eect to ordinar- appeal# and the atte0pt to Buestion it throu/h a *otice of Appeal is unavailin/( 9e affir0 the CA rulin/( Article 41 of the @a0il- Code provides2 Art( 41( A 0arria/e contracted 4- an- person durin/ the su4sistence of a previous 0arria/e shall 4e null and void# unless 4efore the cele4ration of the su4seBuent 0arria/e# the prior spouse had 4een a4sent for four consecutive -ears and the spouse present has a well&founded 4elief that the a4sent spouse was alread- dead( ?n case of disappearance where there is dan/er of death under the circu0stances set forth in the provisions of Article <+1 of the Civil Code# an a4sence of onl- two -ears shall 4e sufficient( @or the purpose of contractin/ the su4seBuent 0arria/e under the precedin/ para/raph the spouse present 0ust institute a su00ar- proceedin/ as provided in this Code for the declaration of presu0ptive death of the a4sentee# without preEudice to the effect of reappearance of the a4sent spouse( (Jnderscorin/ supplied( Clearl-# a petition for declaration of presu0ptive death of an a4sent spouse for the purpose of contractin/ a su4seBuent 0arria/e under Article 41 of the @a0il- Code is a su00ar- proceedin/ as provided for under the @a0il- Code( @urther# 1itle P? of the @a0il- Code is entitled )u00ar- ,udicial Proceedin/s in the @a0il- Faw( )u4su0ed thereunder are Articles $<" and $4.# which provide2 Art( $<"( Jntil 0odified 4- the )upre0e Court# the procedural rules in this 1itle shall appl- in all cases provided for in this Code reBuirin/ su00ar- court proceedin/s( )uch cases shall 4e decided in an eDpeditious 0anner without re/ard to technical rules( DDD DDD DDD

Art( $4.( 1he Eud/0ent of the court shall 4e i00ediatel- final and eDecutor-( @urther# Article $5< of the @a0il- Code reads2 AR1( $5<( 1he fore/oin/ rules in Chapters $ and < hereof shall liAewise /overn su00ar- proceedin/s filed under Articles 41# 51# ;+# .<# +;# 1$4 and $1.# insofar as the- are applica4le( 1aAen to/ether# Articles 41# $<"# $4. and $5< of the @a0il- Code provide that since a petition for declaration of presu0ptive death is a su00ar- proceedin/# the Eud/0ent of the court therein shall 4e i00ediatel- final and eDecutor-( ?n Rep%bli" v. Berm%de+86orino#[;] the Repu4lic liAewise appealed the CANs affir0ation of the R1CNs /rant of respondentNs Petition for Declaration of Presu0ptive Death of her a4sent spouse( 1he Court therein held that it was an error for the Repu4lic to file a *otice of Appeal when the latter elevated the 0atter to the CA# to wit2 ?n )u00ar- ,udicial Proceedin/s under the @a0il- Code# there is no re/le0entar- period within which to perfect an appeal# precisel- 4ecause Eud/0ents rendered thereunder# 4- eDpress provision of )ection $4.# @a0il- Code# supra# are i00ediatel- final and eDecutor-( DDD DDD DDD

7ut# if onl- to set the records strai/ht and for the future /uidance of the 4ench and the 4ar# let it 4e stated that the R1CNs decision dated *ove04er .# $%%1# was i00ediatel- final and eDecutor- upon notice to the parties( ?t was erroneous for the 3)' to file a notice of appeal# and for the R1C to /ive due course thereto( 1he Court of Appeals acBuired no Eurisdiction over the case# and should have dis0issed the appeal outri/ht on that /round(

,ustice (later Chief ,ustice Arte0io Pan/ani4an# who concurred in the result reached 4- the Court in Rep%bli" v. Berm%de+86orino# additionall- opined that what the 3)' should have filed was a petition for certiorari under Rule ;5# not a petition for review under Rule 45( ?n the present case# the Repu4lic ar/ues that Berm%de+86orino has 4een superseded 4- the su4seBuent Decision of the Court in Rep%bli" v. /omo"#[.] issued a few 0onths later( ?n /omo"# the R1C /ranted respondentNs Petition for Declaration of Presu0ptive Death of her a4sent hus4and for the purpose of re0arria/e( Petitioner Repu4lic appealed the R1C Decision 4- filin/ a *otice of Appeal( 1he trial court disapproved the *otice of Appeal on the /round that# under the Rules of Court# ["] a record on appeal is reBuired to 4e filed when appealin/ special proceedin/s cases( 1he CA affir0ed the R1C rulin/( ?n reversin/ the CA# this Court clarified that while an action for declaration of death or a4sence under Rule .$# )ection 1(0 # eDpresslfalls under the cate/or- of special proceedin/s# a petition for declaration of presu0ptive death under Article 41 of the @a0il- Code is a su00ar- proceedin/# as provided for 4- Article $<" of the sa0e Code( )ince its purpose was to ena4le her to contract a su4seBuent valid 0arria/e# petitionerNs action was a su00ar- proceedin/ 4ased on Article 41 of the @a0il- Code# rather than a special proceedin/ under Rule .$ of the Rules of Court( Considerin/ that this action was not a special proceedin/# petitioner was not reBuired to file a record on appeal when it appealed the R1C Decision to the CA( 9e do not a/ree with the Repu4licNs ar/u0ent that Rep%bli" v. /omo" superseded our rulin/ inRep%bli" v. Berm%de+86orino( As o4served 4- the CA# the )upre0e Court in /omo" did not eDpound on the characteristics of a su00ar- proceedin/ under the @a0il- Code( ?n contrast# the Court in Berm%de+86orino eDpressl- stated that its rulin/ on the i0propriet- of an ordinar- appeal as a vehicle for Buestionin/ the trial courtNs Decision in a su00arproceedin/ for declaration of presu0ptive death under Article 41 of the @a0il- Code was intended to set the records strai/ht and for the future /uidance of the 4ench and the 4ar( At an- rate# four -ears after /omo"# this Court settled the rule re/ardin/ appeal of Eud/0ents rendered in su00arproceedin/s under the @a0il- Code when it ruled in Rep%bli" v. Tango2[+] 1his case presents an opportunit- for us to settle the rule on appeal of Eud/0ents rendered in su00arproceedin/s under the @a0il- Code and accordin/l-# refine our previous decisions thereon( Article $<" of the @a0il- Code# under 1itle P?2 )J!!ARK ,JD?C?AF PR3CIID?*') ?* 15I @A!?FK FA9# esta4lishes the rules that /overn su00ar- court proceedin/s in the @a0il- Code2 AR1( $<"( Jntil 0odified 4- the )upre0e Court# the procedural rules in this 1itle shall appl- in all cases provided for in this Code reBuirin/ su00ar- court proceedin/s( )uch cases shall 4e decided in an eDpeditious 0anner without re/ard to technical rules( ?n turn# Article $5< of the @a0il- Code specifies the cases covered 4- the rules in chapters two and three of the sa0e title( ?t states2 AR1( $5<( 1he fore/oin/ rules in Chapters $ and < hereof shall liAewise /overn su00ar- proceedin/s filed under Articles 41# 51# ;+# .<# +;# 1$4 and $1.# insofar as the- are applica4le( (I0phasis supplied( ?n plain teDt# Article $4. in Chapter $ of the sa0e title reads2 AR1 $4.( 1he Eud/0ent of the court shall 4e i00ediatel- final and eDecutor-( 7- eDpress provision of law# the Eud/0ent of the court in a su00ar- proceedin/ shall 4e i00ediatel- final and eDecutor-( As a 0atter of course# it follows that no appeal can 4e had of the trial courtGs Eud/0ent in a su00arproceedin/ for the declaration of presu0ptive death of an a4sent spouse under Article 41 of the @a0il- Code( ?t /oes without sa-in/# however# that an a//rieved part- 0a- file a petition for certiorari to Buestion a4use of discretion a0ountin/ to lacA of Eurisdiction( )uch petition should 4e filed in the Court of Appeals in accordance with the Doctrine of 5ierarch- of Courts( 1o 4e sure# even if the CourtGs ori/inal Eurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is concurrent with the R1Cs and the Court of Appeals in certain cases# such concurrence does not sanction an unrestricted freedo0 of choice of court foru0( @ro0 the decision of the Court of Appeals# the losin/ part- 0a- then file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with the )upre0e Court( 1his is 4ecause the errors which the court 0a- co00it in the eDercise of Eurisdiction are 0erel- errors of Eud/0ent which are the proper su4Eect of an appeal( ?n su0# under Article 41 of the @a0il- Code# the losin/ part- in a su00ar- proceedin/ for the declaration of presu0ptive death 0a- file a petition for certiorari with the CA on the /round that# in renderin/ Eud/0ent thereon#

the trial court co00itted /rave a4use of discretion a0ountin/ to lacA of Eurisdiction( @ro0 the decision of the CA# the a//rieved part- 0a- elevate the 0atter to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court( Ividentl- then# the CA did not co00it an- error in dis0issin/ the Repu4licNs *otice of Appeal on the /round that the R1C Eud/0ent on the Petition for Declaration of Presu0ptive Death of respondentNs spouse was i00ediatelfinal and eDecutor- and# hence# not su4Eect to ordinar- appeal( 2. On 9+,.+,r .+, $A /,r1ou/0y ,rr,5 1n a331r81n2 .+, RT$H/ 2ran. o3 .+, ",.1.1on 3or D,-0ara.1on o3 "r,/u84.1;, D,a.+ un5,r Ar.1-0, K1 o3 .+, (a810y $o5, :a/,5 on .+, ,;15,n-, .+a. r,/4on5,n. +a5 4r,/,n.,5 Petitioner also assails the R1CNs /rant of the Petition for Declaration of Presu0ptive Death of the a4sent spouse of respondent on the /round that she had not adduced the evidence reBuired to esta4lish a well&founded 4elief that her a4sent spouse was alread- dead# as eDpressl- reBuired 4- Article 41 of the @a0il- Code( Petitioner cites Rep%bli" v. #olas"o,[1%] 4nited )tates v. Biasbas[11] andRep%bli" v. Co%rt of Appeals and Alegro[1$] as authorities on the su4Eect( ?n #olas"o# petitioner Repu4lic sou/ht the reversal of the CANs affir0ation of the R1CNs /rant of respondentNs Petition for Declaration of Presu0ptive Death of his a4sent spouse# a 7ritish su4Eect who left their ho0e in the Philippines soon after /ivin/ 4irth to their son while respondent was on 4oard a vessel worAin/ as a seafarer( Petitioner Repu4lic sou/ht the reversal of the rulin/ on the /round that respondent was not a4le to esta4lish his well&founded 4elief that the a4sentee is alread- dead# as reBuired 4- Article 41 of the @a0il- Code( ?n rulin/ thereon# this Court reco/ni6ed that this provision i0poses 0ore strin/ent reBuire0ents than does Article "< of the Civil Code([1<] 1he Civil Code provision 0erel- reBuires either that there 4e no news that the a4sentee is still aliveH or that the a4sentee is /enerall- considered to 4e dead and is 4elieved to 4e so 4- the spouse present# or is presu0ed dead under Articles <+% and <+1 of the Civil Code( ?n co0parison# the @a0il- Code provision prescri4es a well&founded 4elief that the a4sentee is alread- dead 4efore a petition for declaration of presu0ptive death can 4e /ranted( As noted 4- the Court in that case# the four reBuisites for the declaration of presu0ptive death under the @a0il- Code are as follows2 1( $( <( 4( 1hat the a4sent spouse has 4een 0issin/ for four consecutive -ears# or two consecutive -ears if the disappearance occurred where there is dan/er of death under the circu0stances laid down in Article <+1# Civil CodeH 1hat the present spouse wishes to re0arr-H 1hat the present spouse has a well&founded 4elief that the a4sentee is deadH and 1hat the present spouse files a su00ar- proceedin/ for the declaration of presu0ptive death of the a4sentee(

?n evaluatin/ whether the present spouse has 4een a4le to prove the eDistence of a well&founded 4elief that the a4sent spouse is alread- dead# the Court in #olas"o cited 4nited )tates v. Biasbas#[14]which it found to 4e instructive as to the dili/ence reBuired in searchin/ for a 0issin/ spouse( ?n Biasbas# the Court held that defendant 7ias4as failed to eDercise due dili/ence in ascertainin/ the wherea4outs of his first wife# considerin/ his ad0ission that that he onl- had a suspicion that she was dead# and that the onl4asis of that suspicion was the fact of her a4sence( )i0ilarl-# in Rep%bli" v. Co%rt of Appeals and Alegro# petitioner Repu4lic sou/ht the reversal of the CA rulin/ affir0in/ the R1CNs /rant of the Petition for Declaration of Presu0ptive Death of the a4sent spouse on the /round that the respondent therein had not 4een a4le to prove a well&founded 4elief that his spouse was alread- dead( 1he Court reversed the CA# /ranted the Petition# and provided the followin/ criteria for deter0inin/ the eDistence of a well&founded 4elief under Article 41 of the @a0il- Code2 @or the purpose of contractin/ the su4seBuent 0arria/e under the precedin/ para/raph# the spouse present 0ust institute a su00ar- proceedin/ as provided in this Code for the declaration of presu0ptive death of the a4sentee# without preEudice to the effect of reappearance of the a4sent spouse( 1he spouse present is# thus# 4urdened to prove that his spouse has 4een a4sent and that he has a well&founded 4elief that the a4sent spouse is alread- dead 4efore the present spouse 0a- contract a su4seBuent 0arria/e( 1he law does not define what is 0eant 4- a well&/rounded 4elief( Cuello Callon writes that es menester 7%e s% "reen"ia sea firme se f%nde en motivos ra"ionales(

7elief is a state of the 0ind or condition pro0ptin/ the doin/ of an overt act( ?t 0a- 4e proved 4- direct evidence or circu0stantial evidence which 0a- tend# even in a sli/ht de/ree# to elucidate the inBuir- or assist to a deter0ination pro4a4l- founded in truth( An- fact or circu0stance relatin/ to the character# ha4its# conditions# attach0ents# prosperit- and o4Eects of life which usuall- control the conduct of 0en# and are the 0otives of their actions# was# so far as it tends to eDplain or characteri6e their disappearance or throw li/ht on their intentions# co0petence [sic] evidence on the ulti0ate Buestion of his death( 1he 4elief of the present spouse 0ust 4e the result of proper and honest to /oodness inBuiries and efforts to ascertain the wherea4outs of the a4sent spouse and whether the a4sent spouse is still alive or is alread- dead( 9hether or not the spouse present acted on a well&founded 4elief of death of the a4sent spouse depends upon the inBuiries to 4e drawn fro0 a /reat 0an- circu0stances occurrin/ 4efore and after the disappearance of the a4sent spouse and the nature and eDtent of the inBuiries 0ade 4- present spouse((@ootnotes o0itted# underscorin/ supplied( Appl-in/ the fore/oin/ standards to the present case# petitioner points out that respondent Kolanda did not initiate a dili/ent search to locate her a4sent hus4and( 9hile her 4rother Diosdado Cadacio testified to havin/ inBuired a4out the wherea4outs of C-rus fro0 the latterNs relatives# these relatives were not presented to corro4orate DiosdadoNs testi0on-( ?n short# respondent was alle/edl- not dili/ent in her search for her hus4and( Petitioner ar/ues that if she were# she would have sou/ht infor0ation fro0 the 1aiwanese Consular 3ffice or assistance fro0 other /overn0ent a/encies in 1aiwan or the Philippines( )he could have also utili6ed 0ass 0edia for this end# 4ut she did not( 9orse# she failed to eDplain these o0issions( 1he Repu4licNs ar/u0ents are well&taAen( *evertheless# we are constrained to den- the Petition( 1he R1C rulin/ on the issue of whether respondent was a4le to prove her well&founded 4elief that her a4sent spouse was alread- dead prior to her filin/ of the Petition to declare hi0 presu0ptivel- dead is alread- final and can no lon/er 4e 0odified or reversed( ?ndeed# [n]othin/ is 0ore settled in law than that when a Eud/0ent 4eco0es final and eDecutor-# it 4eco0es i00uta4le and unaltera4le( 1he sa0e 0a- no lon/er 4e 0odified in anrespect# even if the 0odification is 0eant to correct what is perceived to 4e an erroneous conclusion of fact or law([15]
cralaw

'HERE(ORE# pre0ises considered# the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated $< ,anuar- $%%+ and < April $%%+ in CA&'(R( C: *o( +%1;5 are A((IR ED( SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), &rion, Perez, an5 "e$es, JJ., -on-ur. Endnotes: Rollo# pp( <%&<<( 1he Court of Appeals @ifth Division Decision in CA&'(R( C: *o( +%1;5 was penned 4- ,ustice Re0edios A( )ala6ar&@ernando and concurred in 4- ,ustices ,ose C( Re-es# ,r( and *or0andie 7( Pi6arro(
[1] [$]

Rollo# pp( <5&<;( 4"+ Phil( .;1 ($%%5 ( Rollo# pp( <5&<;( )upra note <( )upra note <( 4+. Phil( 5$" ($%%5 ( 1he case cited Rule 41# )ec( $(a # which reads2

[<]

[4]

[5]

[;]

[.]

["]

)IC( $( Modes of appeal.I (a Ardinar$ appeal(U1he appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided 4- the Re/ional 1rial Court in the eDercise of its ori/inal Eurisdiction shall 4e taAen 4- filin/ a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the Eud/0ent or final order appealed fro0 and servin/ a cop- thereof upon the adverse part-( *o record on appeal shall 4e reBuired eDcept in special proceedin/s and other cases of 0ultiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so reBuire( ?n such cases# the record &on appeal shall 4e filed and served in liAe 0anner(

(Jnderscorin/ supplied(
[+]

'(R( *o( 1;1%;$# <1 ,ul- $%%+# 5+4 )CRA 5;%( '(R( *o( +4%5<# 1. !arch 1++<# $$% )CRA $%( $5 Phil( .1 (1+1< ( 51< Phil( <+1 ($%%5 (

[1%]

[11]

[1$]

Art( "<( An- 0arria/e su4seBuentl- contracted 4- an- person durin/ the lifeti0e of the first spouse of such person with an- person other than such first spouse shall 4e ille/al and void fro0 its perfor0ance# unless2
[1<]

(1 1he first 0arria/e was annulled or dissolvedH or ($ 1he first spouse had 4een a4sent for seven consecutive -ears at the ti0e of the second 0arria/e without the spouse present havin/ news of the a4sentee 4ein/ alive# or if the a4sentee# thou/h he has 4een a4sent for less than seven -ears# is /enerall- considered as dead and 4elieved to 4e so 4- the spouse present at the ti0e of contractin/ such su4seBuent 0arria/e# or if the a4sentee is presu0ed dead accordin/ to Articles <+% and <+1( 1he 0arria/e so contracted shall 4e valid in an- of the three cases until declared null and void 4- a co0petent court( 1he case ori/inated fro0 a 4i/a0- suit a/ainst defendant 7ias4as# whose defense was that he contracted a second 0arria/e on the /ood faith 4elief that his first wife was alread- dead(
[14] [15]

Chan8Tan v. Tan, '(R( *o( 1;.1<+# $5 @e4ruar- $%1%# ;1< )CRA 5+$(

SE$OND DIVISION [G.R. No 1BC>>C : Ju0y 0K, 2012] &RIGIDO &. *#IAO, "ETITIONER, VS. RITA $. *#IAO, DIT$HIE $. *#IAO, !OTIS $. *#IAO, "ET$HIE $. *#IAO, RE"RESENTED &) THEIR OTHER RITA *#IAO, RES"ONDENTS.
-ra0a9

DE$ISION RE)ES, J.: 1he fa0il- is the 4asic and the 0ost i0portant institution of societ-( ?t is in the fa0il- where children are 4orn and 0olded either to 4eco0e useful citi6ens of the countr- or trou4le0aAers in the co00unit-( 1hus# we are saddened when parents have to separate and fi/ht over properties# without re/ard to the 0essa/e the- send to their children( *otwithstandin/ this# we 0ust not shirA fro0 our o4li/ation to rule on this case involvin/ le/al separation escalatin/ to Buestions on dissolution and partition of properties( T+, $a/, 1his case co0es 4efore us via Petition for Review on Certiorari [1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court( 1he petitioner seeAs that we vacate and set aside the 3rder[$] dated ,anuar- "# $%%. of the Re/ional 1rial Court (R1C # 7ranch 1# 7utuan Cit-( ?n lieu of the said order# we are asAed to issue a Resolution definin/ the net profits su4Eect of the forfeiture as a result of the decree of le/al separation in accordance with the provision of Article 1%$(4 of the @a0il- Code# or alternativel-# in accordance with the provisions of Article 1.; of the Civil Code(
cralaw

An.,-,5,n. (a-./ 3n 3cto4er $;# $%%%# herein respondent Rita C( 8uiao (Rita filed a co0plaint for le/al separation a/ainst herein petitioner 7ri/ido 7( 8uiao (7ri/ido ([<] )u4seBuentl-# the R1C rendered a Decision[4]dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5# the dispositive portion of which provides2
chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

95IRI@3RI# viewed fro0 the fore/oin/ considerations# Eud/0ent is here4- rendered declarin/ the le/al separation of plaintiff Rita C( 8uiao and defendant&respondent 7ri/ido 7( 8uiao pursuant to Article 55(
cralaw

As such# the herein parties shall 4e entitled to live separatel- fro0 each other# 4ut the 0arria/e 4ond shall not 4e severed(
cralaw

IDcept for Fetecia C( 8uiao who is of le/al a/e# the three 0inor children# na0el-# Litchie# Fotis and Petchie# all surna0ed 8uiao shall re0ain under the custod- of the plaintiff who is the innocent spouse(
cralaw

@urther# eDcept for the personal and real properties alread- foreclosed 4- the RC7C# all the re0ainin/ properties# na0el-2 1( coffee 0ill in 7alon/a/an# Fas *ieves# A/usan del *orteH $( coffee 0ill in Durian# Fas *ieves# A/usan del *orteH <( corn 0ill in CasiAlan# Fas *ieves# A/usan del *orteH 4( coffee 0ill in Isperan6a# A/usan del )urH 5( a parcel of land with an area of 1#$%% sBuare 0eters located in 1un/ao# 7utuan Cit-H ;( a parcel of a/ricultural land with an area of 5 hectares located in !anila de 7u/a4os# 7utuan Cit-H .( a parcel of land with an area of "4 sBuare 0eters located in 1un/ao# 7utuan Cit-H "( 7ashier 7on @actor- located in 1un/ao# 7utuan Cit-H

shall 4e divided eBuall- 4etween herein [respondents] and [petitioner] su4Eect to the respective le/iti0es of the children and the pa-0ent of the unpaid conEu/al lia4ilities of [P]45#.4%(%%(
cralaw

[PetitionerNs] share# however# of the net profits earned 4- the conEu/al partnership is forfeited in favor of the co00on children(
cralaw

5e is further ordered to rei04urse [respondents] the su0 of [P]1+#%%%(%% as attorne-Gs fees and liti/ation eDpenses of [P]5#%%%(%%[(] )3 3RDIRID([5] *either part- filed a 0otion for reconsideration and appeal within the period provided for under )ection 1.(a and (4 of the Rule on Fe/al )eparation([;]
chanro4le s virtual law li4rar-

3n Dece04er 1$# $%%5# the respondents filed a 0otion for eDecution [.] which the trial court /ranted in its 3rder dated Dece04er 1;# $%%5# the dispositive portion of which reads2
chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

9herefore# findin/ the 0otion to 4e well taAen# the sa0e is here4- /ranted( Fet a writ of eDecution 4e issued for the i00ediate enforce0ent of the ,ud/0ent(
cralaw

)3 3RDIRID(["] )u4seBuentl-# on @e4ruar- 1%# $%%;# the R1C issued a 9rit of IDecution [+] which reads as follows2
chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

*39 15IRI@3RI# that of the /oods and chattels of the [petitioner] 7R?'?D3 7( 8J?A3 -ou cause to 4e 0ade the su0s stated in the afore&Buoted DIC?)?3* [sic]# to/ether with -our lawful fees in the service of this 9rit# all in the Philippine Currenc-(
cralaw

7ut if sufficient personal propert- cannot 4e found whereof to satisf- this eDecution and -our lawful fees# then we co00and -ou that of the lands and 4uildin/s of the said [petitioner]# -ou 0aAe the said su0s in the 0anner reBuired 4- law( Kou are enEoined to strictl- o4served )ection +# Rule <+# Rule [sic] of the 1++. Rules of Civil Procedure(
cralaw

Kou are here4- ordered to 0aAe a return of the said proceedin/s i00ediatel- after the Eud/0ent has 4een satisfied in part or in full in consonance with )ection 14# Rule <+ of the 1++. Rules of Civil Procedure# as a0ended(
[1%]

3n ,ul- ;# $%%;# the writ was partiall- eDecuted with the petitioner pa-in/ the respondents the a0ount of P4;#".%(%%# representin/ the followin/ pa-0ents2
chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

(a P$$#".%(%% M as petitionerGs share of the pa-0ent of the conEu/al shareH (4 P1+#%%%(%% M as attorne-Gs feesH and (c P5#%%%(%% M as liti/ation eDpenses([11] 3n ,ul- .# $%%;# or after more than nine months fro0 the pro0ul/ation of the Decision# the petitioner filed 4efore the R1C a !otion for Clarification#[1$] asAin/ the R1C to define the ter0 *et Profits Iarned(

1o resolve the petitionerGs !otion for Clarification# the R1C issued an 3rder [1<] dated Au/ust <1# $%%;# which held that the phrase *I1 PR3@?1 IAR*ID denotes the re0ainder of the properties of the parties after deductin/ the separate properties of each [of the] spouse and the de4ts( [14] 1he 3rder further held that after deter0inin/ the re0ainder of the properties# it shall 4e forfeited in favor of the co00on children 4ecause the offendin/ spouse does not have an- ri/ht to an- share of the net profits earned# pursuant to Articles ;<# *o( ($ and 4<# *o( ($ of the @a0il- Code([15] 1he dispositive portion of the 3rder states2
chanro4le s virtualaw li4rar-

95IRI@3RI# there is no 4latant disparit- when the sheriff intends to forfeit all the re0ainin/ properties after deductin/ the pa-0ents of the de4ts for onl- separate properties of the defendant&respondent shall 4e delivered to hi0 which he has none(
cralaw

1he )heriff is herein directed to proceed with the eDecution of the Decision( ?1 ?) )3 3RDIRID([1;]

cralaw

*ot satisfied with the trial courtGs 3rder# the petitioner filed a !otion for Reconsideration [1.] on )epte04er "# $%%;( ConseBuentl-# the R1C issued another 3rder[1"] dated *ove04er "# $%%;# holdin/ that althou/h the Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 has 4eco0e final and eDecutor-# it 0a- still consider the !otion for Clarification 4ecause the petitioner si0pl- wanted to clarif- the 0eanin/ of net profit earned( [1+] @urther0ore# the sa0e 3rder held2
chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

A!! TO!D# the Court 3rder dated Au/ust <1# $%%; is here4- ordered set aside( *I1 PR3@?1 IAR*ID# which is su4Eect of forfeiture in favor of [the] partiesG co00on children# is ordered to 4e co0puted in accordance [with] par( 4 of Article 1%$ of the @a0il- Code([$%] 3n *ove04er $1# $%%;# the respondents filed a !otion for Reconsideration# [$1] pra-in/ for the correction and reversal of the 3rder dated *ove04er "# $%%;( 1hereafter# on ,anuar- "# $%%.#[$$] the trial court had chan/ed its rulin/ a/ain and /ranted the respondentsG !otion for Reconsideration where4- the 3rder dated *ove04er "# $%%; was set aside to reinstate the 3rder dated Au/ust <1# $%%;(
cralaw

*ot satisfied with the trial courtGs 3rder# the petitioner filed on @e4ruar- $.# $%%. this instant Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court# raisin/ the followin/2
chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

I//u,/ I IS THE DISSO!#TION AND THE $ONSE*#ENT !I*#IDATION O( THE $O ON "RO"ERTIES O( THE H#S&AND AND 'I(E &) VIRT#E O( THE DE$REE O( !EGA! SE"ARATION GOVERNED &) ARTI$!E 12> @SI$A O( THE (A I!) $ODEP II 'HAT IS THE EANING O( THE NET "RO(ITS EARNED &) THE $ONJ#GA! "ARTNERSHI" (OR "#R"OSES O( E((E$TING THE (OR(EIT#RE A#THORI6ED #NDER ARTI$!E C3 O( THE (A I!) $ODEP III 'HAT !A' GOVERNS THE "RO"ERT) RE!ATIONS &ET'EEN THE H#S&AND AND 'I(E 'HO GOT ARRIED IN 19BBP $AN THE (A I!) $ODE O( THE "HI!I""INES &E GIVEN RETROA$TIVE E((E$T (OR "#R"OSES O( DETER INING THE NET "RO(ITS S#&JE$T O( (OR(EIT#RE AS A RES#!T O( THE DE$REE O( !EGA! SE"ARATION 'ITHO#T I "AIRING VESTED RIGHTS A!READ) A$*#IRED #NDER THE $IVI! $ODEP IV 'HAT "RO"ERTIES SHA!! &E IN$!#DED IN THE (OR(EIT#RE O( THE SHARE O( THE G#I!T) S"O#SE IN THE NET $ONJ#GA! "ARTNERSHI" AS A RES#!T O( THE ISS#AN$E O( THE DE$REE O( !EGA! SE"ARATIONP[$<] Our Ru01n2 9hile the petitioner has raised a nu04er of issues on the applica4ilit- of certain laws# we are well&aware that the respondents have called our attention to the fact that the Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 has attained finalit-

when the !otion for Clarification was filed([$4] 1hus# we are constrained to resolve first the issue of the finalit- of the Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 and su4seBuentl- discuss the 0atters that we can clarif-(
cralaw

T+, D,-1/1on 5a.,5 O-.o:,r 10, 200> +a/ :,-o8, 31na0 an5 ,?,-u.ory a. .+, .18, .+, $0ar131-a.1on 9a/ 310,5 on Ju0y B, 200C. )ection <# Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides2
chanro4le s virtualaw li4rar-

o.1on 3or

)ection <( 1eriod of ordinar$ appeal. & 1he appeal shall 4e taAen within fifteen (15 da-s fro0 notice of the Eud/0ent or final order appealed fro0( 9here a record on appeal is reBuired# the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirt- (<% da-s fro0 notice of the Eud/0ent or final order(
cralaw

1he period of appeal shall 4e interrupted 4- a ti0el- 0otion for new trial or reconsideration( *o 0otion for eDtension of ti0e to file a 0otion for new trial or reconsideration shall 4e allowed( ?n #e$pes v. Co%rt of Appeals#[$5] we clarified that to standardi6e the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford liti/ants fair opportunit- to appeal their cases# we held that it would 4e practical to allow a fresh period of 15 da-s within which to file the notice of appeal in the R1C# counted fro0 receipt of the order dis0issin/ a 0otion for a new trial or 0otion for reconsideration([$;]
chanro4le s virtual law li4rar-

?n #e$pes# we eDplained that the Qfresh period ruleQ shall also appl- to Rule 4% /overnin/ appeals fro0 the !unicipal 1rial Courts to the R1CsH Rule 4$ on petitions for review fro0 the R1Cs to the Court of Appeals (CA H Rule 4< on appeals fro0 Buasi&Eudicial a/encies to the CA and Rule 45 /overnin/ appeals 4- "ertiorari to the )upre0e Court( 9e also said# 1he new rule ai0s to re/i0ent or 0aAe the appeal period unifor0# to 4e counted fro0 receipt of the order den-in/ the 0otion for new trial# 0otion for reconsideration (whether full or partial or an- final order or resolution([$.] ?n other words# a part- liti/ant 0a- file his notice of appeal within a fresh 15&daperiod fro0 his receipt of the trial courtGs decision or final order den-in/ his 0otion for new trial or 0otion for reconsideration( @ailure to avail of the fresh 15&da- period fro0 the denial of the 0otion for reconsideration 0aAes the decision or final order in Buestion final and eDecutor-(
cralaw

?n the case at 4ar# the trial court rendered its Decision on 3cto4er 1%# $%%5( 1he petitioner neither filed a 0otion for reconsideration nor a notice of appeal( 3n Dece04er 1;# $%%5# or after ;. da-s had lapsed# the trial court issued an order /rantin/ the respondentGs 0otion for eDecutionH and on @e4ruar- 1%# $%%;# or after 1$< da-s had lapsed# the trial court issued a writ of eDecution( @inall-# when the writ had alread- 4een partiall- eDecuted# the petitioner# on ,ul- .# $%%; or after $.% da-s had lapsed# filed his !otion for Clarification on the definition of the net profits earned( @ro0 the fore/oin/# the petitioner had clearl- slept on his ri/ht to Buestion the R1CNs Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5( @or $.% da-s# the petitioner never raised a sin/le issue until the decision had alread- 4een partiall- eDecuted( 1hus at the ti0e the petitioner filed his 0otion for clarification# the trial courtNs decision has 4eco0e final and eDecutor-( A Eud/0ent 4eco0es final and eDecutor- when the re/le0entar- period to appeal lapses and no appeal is perfected within such period( ConseBuentl-# no court# not even this Court# can arro/ate unto itself appellate Eurisdiction to review a case or 0odif- a Eud/0ent that 4eca0e final( [$"]
chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

1he petitioner ar/ues that the decision he is Buestionin/ is a void Eud/0ent( 7ein/ such# the petitionerGs thesis is that it can still 4e distur4ed even after $.% da-s had lapsed fro0 the issuance of the decision to the filin/ of the 0otion for clarification( 5e said that a void Eud/0ent is no Eud/0ent at all( ?t never attains finalit- and cannot 4e a source of an- ri/ht nor an- o4li/ation([$+] 7ut what precisel- is a void Eud/0ent in our EurisdictionR 9hen does a Eud/0ent 4eco0es voidR A Eud/0ent is null and void when the court which rendered it had no power to /rant the relief or no Eurisdiction over the su4Eect 0atter or over the parties or 4oth([<%] ?n other words# a court# which does not have the power to decide a case or that has no Eurisdiction over the su4Eect 0atter or the parties# will issue a void Eud/0ent or a "oram non '%di"e.[<1]
chanro4le s virtual law li4rar-

1he Buestioned Eud/0ent does not fall within the purview of a void Eud/0ent( @or sure# the trial court has Eurisdiction over a case involvin/ le/al separation( Repu4lic Act (R(A( *o( "<;+ confers upon an R1C# desi/nated as the @a0il- Court of a cit-# the eDclusive ori/inal Eurisdiction to hear and decide# a0on/ others# co0plaints or petitions relatin/ to 0arital status and propert- relations of the hus4and and wife or those livin/ to/ether( [<$] 1he Rule on Fe/al )eparation[<<] provides that the petition [for le/al separation] shall 4e filed in the @a0il- Court of the province or cit- where the petitioner or the respondent has 4een residin/ for at least siD 0onths prior to the date of filin/ or in the case of a non&resident respondent# where he 0a- 4e found in the Philippines# at the election of the petitioner([<4] ?n the instant case# herein respondent Rita is found to reside in 1un/ao# 7utuan Cit- for 0ore than siD 0onths prior to the date of filin/ of the petitionH thus# the R1C# clearl- has Eurisdiction over the respondentGs petition 4elow( @urther0ore# the R1C also acBuired Eurisdiction over the persons of 4oth parties# considerin/ that su00ons and a cop- of the co0plaint with its anneDes were served upon the herein petitioner on Dece04er 14# $%%% and that the herein petitioner filed his Answer to the Co0plaint on ,anuar- +# $%%1( [<5] 1hus#

without dou4t# the R1C# which has rendered the Buestioned Eud/0ent# has Eurisdiction over the co0plaint and the persons of the parties(
cralaw

@ro0 the aforecited facts# the Buestioned 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 Eud/0ent of the trial court is clearl- not void ab initio# since it was rendered within the a04it of the courtGs Eurisdiction( 7ein/ such# the sa0e cannot an-0ore 4e distur4ed# even if the 0odification is 0eant to correct what 0a- 4e considered an erroneous conclusion of fact or law([<;] ?n fact# we have ruled that for [as] lon/ as the pu4lic respondent acted with Eurisdiction# an- error co00itted 4- hi0 or it in the eDercise thereof will a0ount to nothin/ 0ore than an error of Eud/0ent which 0a4e reviewed or corrected onl- 4- appeal([<.] 'rantin/ without ad0ittin/ that the R1CGs Eud/0ent dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 was erroneous# the petitionerGs re0ed- should 4e an appeal filed within the re/le0entar- period( Jnfortunatel-# the petitioner failed to do this( 5e has alread- lost the chance to Buestion the trial courtGs decision# which has 4eco0e i00uta4le and unaltera4le( 9hat we can onl- do is to clarif- the ver- Buestion raised 4elow and nothin/ 0ore(
cralaw

@or our convenience# the followin/ 0atters cannot an-0ore 4e distur4ed since the 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 Eud/0ent has alread- 4eco0e i00uta4le and unaltera4le# to wit2
chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

(a 1he findin/ that the petitioner is the offendin/ spouse since he coha4ited with a wo0an who is not his wifeH [<"]
virtual law li4rar-

chanro4les

(4 1he trial courtGs /rant of the petition for le/al separation of respondent RitaH [<+] (c 1he dissolution and liBuidation of the conEu/al partnershipH [4%]
chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

(d 1he forfeiture of the petitionerGs ri/ht to an- share of the net profits earned 4- the conEu/al partnershipH [41] (e 1he award to the innocent spouse of the 0inor childrenGs custod-H [4$]
[4<]
chanro4le s virtual law li4rarchanro4le s virtual law li4rar-

chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

(f 1he disBualification of the offendin/ spouse fro0 inheritin/ fro0 the innocent spouse 4- intestate successionH (/ 1he revocation of provisions in favor of the offendin/ spouse 0ade in the will of the innocent spouseH [44]

chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

(h 1he holdin/ that the propert- relation of the parties is conEu/al partnership of /ains and pursuant to Article 11; of the @a0il- Code# all properties acBuired durin/ the 0arria/e# whether acBuired 4- one or 4oth spouses# is presu0ed to 4e conEu/al unless the contrar- is provedH [45]
chanro4le s virtual law li4rar-

(i 1he findin/ that the spouses acBuired their real and personal properties while the- were livin/ to/etherH [4;] (E 1he list of properties which Ri6al Co00ercial 7anAin/ Corporation (RC7C foreclosedH [4.]
chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

(A 1he list of the re0ainin/ properties of the couple which 0ust 4e dissolved and liBuidated and the fact that respondent Rita was the one who tooA char/e of the ad0inistration of these propertiesH [4"]
chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

(l 1he holdin/ that the conEu/al partnership shall 4e lia4le to 0atters included under Article 1$1 of the @a0ilCode and the conEu/al lia4ilities totalin/ P5%<#";$(1% shall 4e char/ed to the inco0e /enerated 4- these propertiesH[4+]
chanro4le s virtual law li4rar-

(0 1he fact that the trial court had no wa- of Anowin/ whether the petitioner had separate properties which can satisf- his share for the support of the fa0il-H [5%]
chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

(n 1he holdin/ that the applica4le law in this case is Article 1$+(. H [51]

chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

(o 1he rulin/ that the re0ainin/ properties not su4Eect to an- encu04rance shall therefore 4e divided eBuall4etween the petitioner and the respondent without preEudice to the childrenGs le/iti0eH [5$]
chanro4le s virtual law li4rar-

(p 1he holdin/ that the petitionerGs share of the net profits earned 4- the conEu/al partnership is forfeited in favor of the co00on childrenH[5<] and (B 1he order to the petitioner to rei04urse the respondents the su0 of P1+#%%%(%% as attorne-Gs fees and liti/ation eDpenses of P5#%%%(%%([54]
chanro4le s virtual law li4rar-

After discussin/ len/thil- the i00uta4ilit- of the Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5# we will discuss the followin/ issues for the enli/hten0ent of the parties and the pu4lic at lar/e(
cralaw

Ar.1-0, 129 o3 .+, (a810y $o5, a4401,/ .o .+, 4r,/,n.

-a/, /1n-, .+, 4ar.1,/Q 4ro4,r.y r,0a.1on 1/ 2o;,rn,5 :y .+, /y/.,8 o3 r,0a.1;, -o88un1.y or -on7u2a0 4ar.n,r/+14 o3 2a1n/. 1he petitioner clai0s that the court a 7%o is wron/ when it applied Article 1$+ of the @a0il- Code# instead of Article 1%$( 5e confusin/l- ar/ues that Article 1%$ applies 4ecause there is no other provision under the @a0il- Code which defines net profits earned su4Eect of forfeiture as a result of le/al separation(
cralaw

3ffhand# the trial courtGs Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 held that Article 1$+(. of the @a0il- Code applies in this case( 9e a/ree with the trial courtGs holdin/(
cralaw

*irst, let us deter0ine what /overns the coupleGs propert- relation( @ro0 the record# we can deduce that the petitioner and the respondent tied the 0arital Anot on ,anuar- ;# 1+..( )ince at the ti0e of the eDchan/e of 0arital vows# the operative law was the Civil Code of the Philippines (R(A( *o( <"; and since the- did not a/ree on a 0arria/e settle0ent# the propert- relations 4etween the petitioner and the respondent is the s-ste0 of relative co00unit- or conEu/al partnership of /ains( [55] Article 11+ of the Civil Code provides2
chanro4le s virtualaw li4rar-

Art( 11+( 1he future spouses 0a- in the 0arria/e settle0ents a/ree upon a4solute or relative co00unit- of propert-# or upon co0plete separation of propert-# or upon an- other re/i0e( ?n the a4sence of 0arria/e settle0ents# or when the sa0e are void# the s-ste0 of relative co00unit- or conEu/al partnership of /ains as esta4lished in this Code# shall /overn the propert- relations 4etween hus4and and wife( 1hus# fro0 the fore/oin/ facts and law# it is clear that what /overns the propert- relations of the petitioner and of the respondent is conEu/al partnership of /ains( And under this propert- relation# the hus4and and the wife place in a co00on fund the fruits of their separate propert- and the inco0e fro0 their worA or industr-( [5;] 1he hus4and and wife also own in co00on all the propert- of the conEu/al partnership of /ains( [5.]
chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

)e"ond, since at the ti0e of the dissolution of the petitioner and the respondentGs 0arria/e the operative law is alread- the @a0il- Code# the sa0e applies in the instant case and the applica4le law in so far as the liBuidation of the conEu/al partnership assets and lia4ilities is concerned is Article 1$+ of the @a0il- Code in relation to Article ;<($ of the @a0il- Code( 1he latter provision is applica4le 4ecause accordin/ to Article $5; of the @a0il- Code [t]his Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not preEudice or i0pair vested or acBuired ri/hts in accordance with the Civil Code or other law([5"]
chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

*ow# the petitioner asAs2 9as his vested ri/ht over half of the co00on properties of the conEu/al partnership violated when the trial court forfeited the0 in favor of his children pursuant to Articles ;<($ and 1$+ of the @a0ilCodeR 9e respond in the ne/ative(
cralaw

?ndeed# the petitioner clai0s that his vested ri/hts have 4een i0paired# ar/uin/2 As earlier adverted to# the petitioner acBuired vested ri/hts over half of the conEu/al properties# the sa0e 4ein/ owned in co00on 4- the spouses( ?f the provisions of the @a0il- Code are to 4e /iven retroactive application to the point of authori6in/ the forfeiture of the petitionerGs share in the net re0ainder of the conEu/al partnership properties# the sa0e i0pairs his ri/hts acBuired prior to the effectivit- of the @a0il- Code( [5+] ?n other words# the petitioner is sa-in/ that since the propert- relations 4etween the spouses is /overned 4- the re/i0e of ConEu/al Partnership of 'ains under the Civil Code# the petitioner acBuired vested ri/hts over half of the properties of the ConEu/al Partnership of 'ains# pursuant to Article 14< of the Civil Code# which provides2 All propert- of the conEu/al partnership of /ains is owned in co00on 4- the hus4and and wife([;%] 1hus# since he is one of the owners of the properties covered 4the conEu/al partnership of /ains# he has a vested ri/ht over half of the said properties# even after the pro0ul/ation of the @a0il- CodeH and he insisted that no provision under the @a0il- Code 0a- deprive hi0 of this vested ri/ht 4- virtue of Article $5; of the @a0il- Code which prohi4its retroactive application of the @a0il- Code when it will preEudice a personGs vested ri/ht(
cralaw

5owever# the petitionerGs clai0 of vested ri/ht is not one which is written on stone( ?n ,o, /r. v. Co%rt of Appeals# [;1] we define and eDplained vested ri/ht in the followin/ 0anner2
chanro4le s virtualaw li4rar-

A vested ri/ht is one whose eDistence# effectivit- and eDtent do not depend upon events forei/n to the will of the holder# or to the eDercise of which no o4stacle eDists# and which is i00ediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contin/enc-( 1he ter0 vested ri/ht eDpresses the concept of present fiDed interest which# in ri/ht reason and natural Eustice# should 4e protected a/ainst ar4itrar- )tate action# or an innatel- Eust and i0perative ri/ht which enli/htened free societ-# sensitive to inherent and irrefra/a4le individual ri/hts# cannot den-(
cralaw

1o 4e vested# a ri/ht 0ust have 4eco0e a titleUle/al or eBuita4leUto the present or future enEo-0ent of propert-( [;$] (Citations o0itted ?n our en ban" Resolution dated 3cto4er 1"# $%%5 for ABA2A3A ,%ro 1art$ 6ist Affi"er )amson ). Al"antara, et al. v. The Hon. &(e"%tive )e"retar$ &d%ardo R. &rmita,[;<] we also eDplained2
chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

1he concept of vested ri/ht is a conseBuence of the -on/.1.u.1ona0 2uaran.y o3 5u, 4ro-,// that eDpresses a present fiDed interest which in ri/ht reason and natural Eustice is protected a/ainst ar4itrar- state actionH it includes not onl- le/al or eBuita4le title to the enforce0ent of a de0and 4ut also eDe0ptions fro0 new o4li/ations created after the ri/ht has 4eco0e vested( Ri/hts are considered vested when the ri/ht to enEo-0ent is a present interest# a4solute# unconditional# and perfect or fiDed and irrefuta4le( [;4] (I0phasis and underscorin/ supplied @ro0 the fore/oin/# it is clear that while one 0a- not 4e deprived of his vested ri/ht# he 0a- lose the sa0e if there is due process and such deprivation is founded in law and Eurisprudence(
cralaw

?n the present case# the petitioner was accorded his ri/ht to due process( *irst# he was well&aware that the respondent pra-ed in her co0plaint that all of the conEu/al properties 4e awarded to her( [;5] ?n fact# in his Answer# the petitioner pra-ed that the trial court divide the co00unit- assets 4etween the petitioner and the respondent as circu0stances and evidence warrant after the accountin/ and inventor- of all the co00unit- properties of the parties([;;] )e"ond, when the Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 was pro0ul/ated# the petitioner never Buestioned the trial courtGs rulin/ forfeitin/ what the trial court ter0ed as net profits# pursuant to Article 1$+(. of the @a0ilCode([;.] 1hus# the petitioner cannot clai0 4ein/ deprived of his ri/ht to due process(
cralaw

@urther0ore# we taAe note that the alle/ed deprivation of the petitionerGs vested ri/ht is one founded# not onl- in the provisions of the @a0il- Code# 4ut in Article 1.; of the Civil Code( 1his provision is liAe Articles ;< and 1$+ of the @a0il- Code on the forfeiture of the /uilt- spouseGs share in the conEu/al partnership profits( 1he said provision sa-s2
chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

Art( 1.;( ?n case of le/al separation# the /uilt- spouse shall forfeit his or her share of the conEu/al partnership profits# which shall 4e awarded to the children of 4oth# and the children of the /uilt- spouse had 4- a prior 0arria/e( 5owever# if the conEu/al partnership propert- ca0e 0ostl- or entirel- fro0 the worA or industr-# or fro0 the wa/es and salaries# or fro0 the fruits of the separate propert- of the /uilt- spouse# this forfeiture shall not appl-(
cralaw

?n case there are no children# the innocent spouse shall 4e entitled to all the net profits( @ro0 the fore/oin/# the petitionerGs clai0 of a vested ri/ht has no 4asis considerin/ that even under Article 1.; of the Civil Code# his share of the conEu/al partnership profits 0a- 4e forfeited if he is the /uilt- part- in a le/al separation case( 1hus# after trial and after the petitioner was /iven the chance to present his evidence# the petitionerGs vested ri/ht clai0 0a- in fact 4e set aside under the Civil Code since the trial court found hi0 the /uilt- part-(
cralaw

!ore# in Abalos v. 3r. Ma"atanga$, /r.#[;"] we reiterated our lon/&standin/ rulin/ that2

chanro4le s virtualaw li4rar-

[P]rior to the liBuidation of the conEu/al partnership# the interest of each spouse in the conEu/al assets is inchoate# a 0ere eDpectanc-# which constitutes neither a le/al nor an eBuita4le estate# and does not ripen into title until it appears that there are assets in the co00unit- as a result of the liBuidation and settle0ent( 1he interest of each spouse is li0ited to the net re0ainder or remanente li7%ido (haber ganan"ial resultin/ fro0 the liBuidation of the affairs of the partnership after its dissolution( 1hus# the ri/ht of the hus4and or wife to one&half of the conEu/al assets does not vest until the dissolution and liBuidation of the conEu/al partnership# or after dissolution of the 0arria/e# when it is finall- deter0ined that# after settle0ent of conEu/al o4li/ations# there are net assets left which can 4e divided 4etween the spouses or their respective heirs( [;+] (Citations o0itted @inall-# as earlier discussed# the trial court has alread- decided in its Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 that the applica4le law in this case is Article 1$+(. of the @a0il- Code( [.%] 1he petitioner did not file a 0otion for reconsideration nor a notice of appeal( 1hus# the petitioner is now precluded fro0 Buestionin/ the trial courtGs decision since it has 4eco0e final and eDecutor-( 1he doctrine of i00uta4ilit- and unaltera4ilit- of a final Eud/0ent prevents us fro0 distur4in/ the Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 4ecause final and eDecutor- decisions can no lon/er 4e reviewed nor reversed 4- this Court([.1]
chanro4le s virtual law li4rar-

@ro0 the a4ove discussions# Article 1$+ of the @a0il- Code clearl- applies to the present case since the partiesG propert- relation is /overned 4- the s-ste0 of relative co00unit- or conEu/al partnership of /ains and since the trial courtGs Decision has attained finalit- and i00uta4ilit-(
cralaw

T+, n,. 4ro31./ o3 .+, -on7u2a0 4ar.n,r/+14 o3 2a1n/ ar, a00 .+, 3ru1./ o3 .+, /,4ara., 4ro4,r.1,/ o3 .+, /4ou/,/ an5 .+, 4ro5u-./ o3 .+,1r 0a:or an5 1n5u/.ry. 1he petitioner inBuires fro0 us the 0eanin/ of net profits earned 4- the conEu/al partnership for purposes of effectin/ the forfeiture authori6ed under Article ;< of the @a0il- Code( 5e insists that since there is no other provision under the @a0il- Code# which defines net profits earned su4Eect of forfeiture as a result of le/al separation# then Article 1%$ of the @a0il- Code applies(
cralaw

9hat does Article 1%$ of the @a0il- Code sa-R ?s the co0putation of net profits earned in the conEu/al partnership of /ains the sa0e with the co0putation of net profits earned in the a4solute co00unit-R *ow# we clarif-(
cralaw

@irst and fore0ost# we 0ust distin/uish 4etween the applica4le law as to the propert- relations 4etween the parties and the applica4le law as to the definition of net profits( As earlier discussed# Article 1$+ of the @a0ilCode applies as to the propert- relations of the parties( ?n other words# the co0putation and the succession of events will follow the provisions under Article 1$+ of the said Code( !oreover# as to the definition of net profits# we cannot 4ut refer to Article 1%$(4 of the @a0il- Code# since it eDpressl- provides that for purposes of co0putin/ the net profits su4Eect to forfeiture under Article 4<# *o( ($ and Article ;<# *o( ($ # Article 1%$(4 applies( ?n this provision# net profits shall 4e the increase in value 4etween the 0arAet value of the co00unit- propert- at the ti0e of the cele4ration of the 0arria/e and the 0arAet value at the ti0e of its dissolution( [.$] 1hus# without aniota of dou4t# Article 1%$(4 applies to 4oth the dissolution of the a4solute co00unit- re/i0e under Article 1%$ of the @a0il- Code# and to the dissolution of the conEu/al partnership re/i0e under Article 1$+ of the @a0il- Code( 9here lies the differenceR As earlier shown# the difference lies in the processes used under the dissolution of the a4solute co00unit- re/i0e under Article 1%$ of the @a0il- Code# and in the processes used under the dissolution of the conEu/al partnership re/i0e under Article 1$+ of the @a0il- Code(
cralaw

Fet us now discuss the difference in the processes 4etween the a4solute co00unit- re/i0e and the conEu/al partnership re/i0e(
cralaw

3n A4solute Co00unit- Re/i0e2 9hen a couple enters into a r,218, o3 a:/o0u., -o88un1.y# the hus4and and the wife 4eco0es Eoint owners of all the properties of the 0arria/e( 9hatever propert- each spouse 4rin/s into the 0arria/e# and those acBuired durin/ the 0arria/e (eDcept those eDcluded under Article +$ of the @a0il- Code for0 the co00on 0ass of the coupleGs properties( And when the coupleGs 0arria/e or co00unit- is dissolved# that co00on 0ass is divided 4etween the spouses# or their respective heirs# eBuall- or in the proportion the parties have esta4lished# irrespective of the value each one 0a- have ori/inall- owned( [.<]
chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

Jnder Article 1%$ of the @a0il- Code# upon dissolution of 0arria/e# an inventor- is prepared# listin/ separatel- all the properties of the a4solute co00unit- and the eDclusive properties of eachH then the de4ts and o4li/ations of the a4solute co00unit- are paid out of the a4solute co00unit-Gs assets and if the co00unit-Gs properties are insufficient# the separate properties of each of the couple will 4e solidaril- lia4le for the unpaid 4alance( 9hatever is left of the separate properties will 4e delivered to each of the0( 1he net re0ainder of the a4solute co00unit- is its net assets# which shall 4e divided 4etween the hus4and and the wifeH and for purposes of co0putin/ the net profits su4Eect to forfeiture# said profits shall 4e the increase in value 4etween the 0arAet value of the co00unitpropert- at the ti0e of the cele4ration of the 0arria/e and the 0arAet value at the ti0e of its dissolution( [.4]
chanro4le s virtual law li4rar-

Appl-in/ Article 1%$ of the @a0il- Code# the net profits reBuires that we first find the 0arAet value of the properties at the ti0e of the co00unit-Gs dissolution( @ro0 the totalit- of the 0arAet value of all the properties# we su4tract the de4ts and o4li/ations of the a4solute co00unit- and this result to the net assets or net re0ainder of the properties of the a4solute co00unit-# fro0 which we deduct the 0arAet value of the properties at the ti0e of 0arria/e# which then results to the net profits([.5]
chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

'rantin/ without ad0ittin/ that Article 1%$ applies to the instant case# let us see what will happen if we applArticle 1%$2
chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

(a Accordin/ to the trial courtGs findin/ of facts# 4oth hus4and and wife have no separate properties# thus# the re0ainin/ properties in the list a4ove are all part of the a4solute co00unit-( And its 0arAet value at the ti0e of the dissolution of the a4solute co00unit- constitutes the 0arAet value at dissolution( (4 1hus# when the petitioner and the respondent finall- were le/all- separated# all the properties which re0ained will 4e lia4le for the de4ts and o4li/ations of the co00unit-( )uch de4ts and o4li/ations will 4e su4tracted fro0 the 0arAet value at dissolution(

(c 9hat re0ains after the de4ts and o4li/ations have 4een paid fro0 the total assets of the a4solute co00unitconstitutes the net re0ainder or net asset( And fro0 such net assetOre0ainder of the petitioner and respondentGs re0ainin/ properties# the 0arAet value at the ti0e of 0arria/e will 4e su4tracted and the resultin/ totalitconstitutes the net profits( (d S1n-, :o.+ +u/:an5 an5 913, +a;, no /,4ara., 4ro4,r.1,/ # and nothin/ would 4e returned to each of the0# what will 4e divided eBuall- 4etween the0 is si0pl- the net profits( 5owever# in the Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5# the trial court forfeited the half&share of the petitioner in favor of his children( 1hus# if we use Article 1%$ in the instant case (which should not 4e the case # nothin/ is left to the petitioner since 4oth parties entered into their 0arria/e without 4rin/in/ with the0 an- propert-(
cralaw

3n ConEu/al Partnership Re/i0e2

chanro4le s virtualaw li4rar-

7efore we /o into our disBuisition on the ConEu/al Partnership Re/i0e# we 0aAe it clear that Article 1%$(4 of the @a0il- Code applies in the instant case 3or 4ur4o/,/ on0y o3 5,31n1n2 Mn,. 4ro31.. As earlier eDplained# the definition of net profits in Article 1%$(4 of the @a0il- Code applies to 4oth the a4solute co00unit- re/i0e and conEu/al partnership re/i0e as provided for under Article ;<# *o( ($ of the @a0il- Code# relative to the provisions on Fe/al )eparation(
cralaw

*ow# when a couple enters into a r,218, o3 -on7u2a0 4ar.n,r/+14 o3 2a1n/ under Article 14$ of the Civil Code# the hus4and and the wife place in co00on fund the fruits of their separate propert- and inco0e fro0 their worA or industr-# and divide eBuall-# upon the dissolution of the 0arria/e or of the partnership# the net /ains or 4enefits o4tained indiscri0inatel- 4- either spouse durin/ the 0arria/e( [.;] @ro0 the fore/oin/ provision# each of the couple has his and her own propert- and de4ts( 1he law does not intend to effect a 0iDture or 0er/er of those de4ts or properties 4etween the spouses( Rather# it esta4lishes a co0plete separation of capitals( [..]
chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

Considerin/ that the coupleGs 0arria/e has 4een dissolved under the @a0il- Code# Article 1$+ of the sa0e Code applies in the liBuidation of the coupleGs properties in the event that the conEu/al partnership of /ains is dissolved# to wit2
chanro4le s virtualaw li4rar-

Art( 1$+( Jpon the dissolution of the conEu/al partnership re/i0e# the followin/ procedure shall appl-2

chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

(1 An inventor- shall 4e prepared# listin/ separatel- all the properties of the conEu/al partnership and the eDclusive properties of each spouse(
cralaw

($ A0ounts advanced 4- the conEu/al partnership in pa-0ent of personal de4ts and o4li/ations of either spouse shall 4e credited to the conEu/al partnership as an asset thereof(
cralaw

(< Iach spouse shall 4e rei04ursed for the use of his or her eDclusive funds in the acBuisition of propert- or for the value of his or her eDclusive propert-# the ownership of which has 4een vested 4- law in the conEu/al partnership(
cralaw

(4 1he de4ts and o4li/ations of the conEu/al partnership shall 4e paid out of the conEu/al assets( ?n case of insufficienc- of said assets# the spouses shall 4e solidaril- lia4le for the unpaid 4alance with their separate properties# in accordance with the provisions of para/raph ($ of Article 1$1(
cralaw

(5 9hatever re0ains of the eDclusive properties of the spouses shall thereafter 4e delivered to each of the0(

cralaw

(; Jnless the owner had 4een inde0nified fro0 whatever source# the loss or deterioration of 0ova4les used for the 4enefit of the fa0il-# 4elon/in/ to either spouse# even due to fortuitous event# shall 4e paid to said spouse fro0 the conEu/al funds# if an-(
cralaw

(. 1he net re0ainder of the conEu/al partnership properties shall constitute the profits# which shall 4e divided eBuall- 4etween hus4and and wife# unless a different proportion or division was a/reed upon in the 0arria/e settle0ents or unless there has 4een a voluntar- waiver or forfeiture of such share as provided in this Code(
cralaw

(" 1he presu0ptive le/iti0es of the co00on children shall 4e delivered upon the partition in accordance with Article 51(
cralaw

(+ ?n the partition of the properties# the conEu/al dwellin/ and the lot on which it is situated shall# unless otherwise a/reed upon 4- the parties# 4e adEudicated to the spouse with who0 the 0aEorit- of the co00on children choose to re0ain( Children 4elow the a/e of seven -ears are dee0ed to have chosen the 0other# unless the court has decided otherwise( ?n case there is no such 0aEorit-# the court shall decide# taAin/ into consideration the 4est interests of said children(

?n the nor0al course of events# the followin/ are the steps in the liBuidation of the properties of the spouses2

chanro4le s virtualaw li4rar-

(a An inventor- of all the actual properties shall 4e 0ade# separatel- listin/ the coupleGs conEu/al properties and their separate properties([."] ?n the instant case# .+, .r1a0 -our. 3oun5 .+a. .+, -ou40, +a/ no /,4ara., 4ro4,r.1,/ 9+,n .+,y 8arr1,5([.+] Rather# the trial court identified the followin/ conEu/al properties# to wit2 1( coffee 0ill in 7alon/a/an# Fas *ieves# A/usan del *orteH $( coffee 0ill in Durian# Fas *ieves# A/usan del *orteH <( corn 0ill in CasiAlan# Fas *ieves# A/usan del *orteH 4( coffee 0ill in Isperan6a# A/usan del )urH 5( a parcel of land with an area of 1#$%% sBuare 0eters located in 1un/ao# 7utuan Cit-H ;( a parcel of a/ricultural land with an area of 5 hectares located in !anila de 7u/a4os# 7utuan Cit-H .( a parcel of land with an area of "4 sBuare 0eters located in 1un/ao# 7utuan Cit-H "( 7ashier 7on @actor- located in 1un/ao# 7utuan Cit-( ["%]

chanro4les virtualaw li4rar-

(4 3rdinaril-# the 4enefit received 4- a spouse fro0 the conEu/al partnership durin/ the 0arria/e is returned in eBual a0ount to the assets of the conEu/al partnershipH ["1] and if the co00unit- is enriched at the eDpense of the separate properties of either spouse# a restitution of the value of such properties to their respective owners shall 4e 0ade(["$]
chanro4le s virtual law li4rar-

(c )u4seBuentl-# the coupleGs conEu/al partnership shall pa- the de4ts of the conEu/al partnershipH while the de4ts and o4li/ation of each of the spouses shall 4e paid fro0 their respective separate properties( 7ut if the conEu/al partnership is not sufficient to pa- all its de4ts and o4li/ations# the spouses with their separate properties shall 4e solidaril- lia4le(["<]
chanro4les virtual law li4rar-

(d *ow# what re0ains of the separate or eDclusive properties of the hus4and and of the wife shall 4e returned to each of the0(["4] ?n the instant case# /1n-, 1. 9a/ a0r,a5y ,/.a:01/+,5 :y .+, .r1a0 -our. .+a. .+, /4ou/,/ +a;, no /,4ara., 4ro4,r.1,/#["5] .+,r, 1/ no.+1n2 .o r,.urn .o any o3 .+,8( 1he listed properties a4ove are considered part of the conEu/al partnership( 1hus# ordinaril-# what re0ains in the a4ove&listed properties should 4e divided eBuall- 4etween the spouses andOor their respective heirs( [";] 5owever# since the trial court found the petitioner the /uilt- part-# his share fro0 the net profits of the conEu/al partnership is forfeited in favor of the co00on children# pursuant to Article ;<($ of the @a0il- Code( A/ain# lest we 4e confused# liAe in the a4solute co00unit- re/i0e# nothin/ will 4e returned to the /uilt- part- in the conEu/al partnership re/i0e# 4ecause .+,r, 1/ no /,4ara., 4ro4,r.y 9+1-+ 8ay :, a--oun.,5 3or 1n .+, 2u10.y 4ar.yQ/ 3a;or. ?n the discussions a4ove# we have seen that in 4oth instances# the petitioner is not entitled to an- propert- at all( 1hus# we cannot 4ut uphold the Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 of the trial court( 5owever# we 0ust clarif-# as we alread- did a4ove# the 3rder dated ,anuar- "# $%%.(
cralaw

'HERE(ORE# the Decision dated 3cto4er 1%# $%%5 of the Re/ional 1rial Court# 7ranch 1 of 7utuan Citis A((IR ED( Actin/ on the !otion for Clarification dated ,ul- .# $%%; in the Re/ional 1rial Court# the 3rder dated ,anuar- "# $%%. of the Re/ional 1rial Court is here4- $!ARI(IED in accordance with the a4ove discussions( SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson , Brion, 1ere+, and )ereno, //.# concur(
cralaw

cralaw

Endnotes:
[1]

Rollo, pp( .&<5(

cralaw

[$]

Penned 4- ,ud/e Iduardo )( CasalsH id( at 115&1$$( ?d( at <;(

cralaw

cralaw

[<]

[4]

?d( at <;&5.( ?d( at 5;&5.(

cralaw

[5]

cralaw

[;]

A(!( *o( %$&11&11&)C( Rollo# p( 1"5( ?d( at 5+(

cralaw cralaw

cralaw

[.]

["]

[+]

?d( at 5"&5+( ?d( at 5+( ?d( at ;%(

cralaw

cralaw

[1%]

[11]

cralaw

[1$]

?d( at ;1&;+( ?d( at .%&.;( ?d( at .5(

cralaw

cralaw

[1<]

cralaw

[14]

[15]

?d( at .4&.5( ?d( at .5&.;( ?d( at ..&";( ?d( at ".&+1( ?d( at +%( ?d( at +1(
cralaw

cralaw

[1;]

cralaw

[1.]

cralaw

[1"]

cralaw

[1+]

[$%]

cralaw

[$1]

?d( at +$&+.(

cralaw

[$$]

?d( at 115&1$$( ?d( at 1"(

cralaw

cralaw

[$<]

[$4]

?d( at 14<&14;(

cralaw

[$5]

5%; Phil( ;1<# ;$+ ($%%5 ( ?d( at ;$;( ?d( at ;$.(

cralaw

cralaw

[$;]

[$.]

cralaw

[$"]

1C! 6easing and *inan"e, !n"., v. Milan# '(R( *o( 151$15# April 5# $%1%# ;1. )CRA $5"( Rollo# p( 1;;(
cralaw

cralaw

[$+]

[<%]

)ee !oreno# @ederico 7(# Philippine Faw Dictionar-# <rd ed(# 1+""# p( ++"( 1eople v. /%dge #avarro, 15+ Phil( ";<# ".4 (1+.5 ( R(A( *o( "<;+# )ection 5(d ( A(!( *o( %$&11&11&)C( ?d( at )ection $(c ( Rollo, p( <"(
cralaw cralaw cralaw cralaw cralaw

cralaw

[<1]

[<$]

[<<]

[<4]

[<5]

[<;]

)ps. &dillo v. )ps. 3%lpina# '(R( *o( 1""<;%# ,anuar- $1# $%1%# ;1% )CRA 5+%# ;%1&;%$(

cralaw

6im v. /%dge 5ian+on# 5$+ Phil( 4.$# 4"<&4"4 ($%%; H )ee also Herrera v. Barretto and /oa7%in# $5 Phil( $45# $5; (1+1< # citin/ Miller v. Ro.an, $51 ?ll(# <44(
[<.]
cralaw

[<"]

Rollo# pp( 5%&51( ?d( at 51( ?d(

cralaw cralaw

cralaw

[<+]

[4%]

[41]

?d( at 51&5$(

cralaw

[4$]

?d( at 5$ and 5;( ?d( at 5$( ?d( ?d( ?d(

cralaw cralaw

cralaw

[4<]

[44]

[45]

cralaw

[4;]

cralaw

[4.]

?d( at 5$&5<( ?d( at 5<(

cralaw

cralaw

[4"]

[4+]

?d( at 5<&54( ?d( at 55( ?d(

cralaw cralaw

cralaw

[5%]

[51]

[5$]

?d( at 5;( ?d( at 5.( ?d(

cralaw

cralaw

[5<]

cralaw

[54]

[55]

C?:?F C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)# Art( 11+( ?d( at Art( 14$( ?d( at Art( 14<(
cralaw

cralaw

[5;]

[5.]

cralaw

[5"]

@A!?FK C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)# Art( $5;( Rollo# p( $+(

cralaw

cralaw

[5+]

[;%]

C?:?F C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)# Art( 14<(

cralaw

[;1]

'(R( *o( 1.$%$.# ,ul- $+# $%1%# ;$; )CRA 1"%# $%1( ?d( at 1++(
cralaw

cralaw

[;$]

1he Court consolidated the followin/ cases2 ABA2A3A ,%ro 1art$ 6ist Affi"er )amson ). Al"antara, et al. v. The Hon. &(e"%tive )e"retar$ &d%ardo R. &rmita, ,.R. #o. =>?<J>K A7%ilino C. 1imentel, /r., et al. v. &(e"%tive )e"retar$ &d%ardo R. &rmita, et al., ,.R. #o. =>?L<MK Asso"iation of 1ilipinas )hell 3ealers, !n"., et al. v. Cesar 5. 1%risima, et al., ,.R. #o. =>?D>=K *ran"is /oseph ,. &s"%dero v. Cesar 5. 1%risima, et al, ,.R. #o. =>?D>;K and Bataan ,overnor &nri7%e T. ,ar"ia, /r. v. Hon. &d%ardo R. &rmita, et al. # '(R( *o( 1;".<%(
[;<]
cralaw

[;4]

?d(

cralaw

[;5]

Rollo# p( <.( ?d( at <+(

cralaw

cralaw

[;;]

[;.]

?d( at 55&5.(

cralaw

[;"]

4"$ Phil( "..&"+4 ($%%4 ( ?d( at "+%&"+1( Rollo, p( 55(

cralaw cralaw

cralaw

[;+]

[.%]

Mala$an &mplo$ees Asso"iation8**E v. Mala$an !ns%ran"e Co., !n". # '(R( *o( 1"1<5.# @e4ruar- $# $%1%# ;11 )CRA <+$# <++H Catmon )ales !ntNl. Corp. v. Att$. -ngson, /r.# '(R( *o( 1.+.;1# ,anuar- 15# $%1%# ;1% )CRA $<;# $45(
[.1]
cralaw

[.$]

@A!?FK C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)# Art( 1%$(4 (

cralaw

?d( at Art( +1H )ee also 1olentino# Arturo# !(# Co00entaries and ,urisprudence on the C?:?F C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)2 :olu0e 3ne with the @A!?FK C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)# <.+ (1++% (
[.<]
cralaw

[.4]

@A!?FK C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)# Art( 1%$(

cralaw

1olentino# Arturo# !(# Co00entaries and ,urisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines2 :olu0e 3ne with the @a0il- Code of the Philippines# 4%1&4%$ (1++% (
[.5]
cralaw

[.;]

C?:?F C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)# Art( 14$(

cralaw

1olentino# Arturo# !(# Co00entaries and ,urisprudence on the C?:?F C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)2 :olu0e 3ne# <;5 (1+.4 (
[..]
cralaw

1olentino# Arturo# !(# Co00entaries and ,urisprudence on the C?:?F C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)2 :olu0e 3ne with the @A!?FK C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)# 4.$ (1++% (
[."]
cralaw

[.+]

Rollo# p( 55(

cralaw

["%]

?d( at 5;&5.(

cralaw

["1]

@A!?FK C3DI 3@ 15I P5?F?PP?*I)# Art( 1$+($ ( ?d( at Art( 1$+(< ( ?d( at Art( 1$+(4 ( ?d( at Art( 1$+(5 ( Rollo, p( 55(
cralaw cralaw

cralaw

["$]

["<]

cralaw

["4]

cralaw

["5]

[";]

@a0il- Code of the Philippines# Art( 1$+(. (

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila

SECOND DIVISION

BRIGIDO B. QUIAO, Petitioner,

G.R. No $%&''& Present:

- versus -

CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRIO , P!R!", S!R! O, an# R!$!S, JJ.

RITA C. QUIAO, KITCHIE C. QUIAO, LOTIS C. QUIAO, PETCHIE C. QUIAO, represented ! t"eir #ot"er Promul%ate#: RITA QUIAO, &ul' (, )*+) Respondents. ,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------, DECISION RE(ES, J.) -he famil' is the basic an# the most important institution of societ'. It is in the famil' .here chil#ren are born an# mol#e# either to become useful citi/ens of the countr' or troublema0ers in the communit'. -hus, .e are sa##ene# .hen parents have to separate an# fi%ht over properties, .ithout re%ar# to the messa%e the' sen# to their chil#ren. ot.ithstan#in% this, .e must not shir0 from our obli%ation to rule on this case involvin% le%al separation escalatin% to 1uestions on #issolution an# partition of properties.

T"e C*se -his case comes before us via Petition for Revie. on Certiorari2+3 un#er Rule (4 of the Rules of Court. -he petitioner see0s that .e vacate an# set asi#e the Or#er2)3 #ate# &anuar' 5, )**6 of the Re%ional -rial Court 7R-C8, Branch +, Butuan Cit'. In lieu of the sai# or#er, .e are as0e# to issue a Resolution #efinin% the net profits sub9ect of the forfeiture as a result of the #ecree of le%al separation in accor#ance .ith the provision of Article +*)7(8 of the :amil' Co#e, or alternativel', in accor#ance .ith the provisions of Article +6; of the Civil Co#e.

Ante+edent ,*+ts On October );, )***, herein respon#ent Rita C. <uiao 7Rita8 file# a complaint for le%al separation a%ainst herein petitioner Bri%i#o B. <uiao 7Bri%i#o8. 2=3 Subse1uentl', the R-C ren#ere# a >ecision2(3 #ate# October +*, )**4, the #ispositive portion of .hich provi#es:
?@!R!:OR!, vie.e# from the fore%oin% consi#erations, 9u#%ment is hereb' ren#ere# #eclarin% the le%al separation of plaintiff Rita C. <uiao an# #efen#antrespon#ent Bri%i#o B. <uiao pursuant to Article 44. As such, the herein parties shall be entitle# to live separatel' from each other, but the marria%e bon# shall not be severe#. !,cept for Aetecia C. <uiao .ho is of le%al a%e, the three minor chil#ren, namel', Bitchie, Aotis an# Petchie, all surname# <uiao shall remain un#er the custo#' of the plaintiff .ho is the innocent spouse. :urther, e,cept for the personal an# real properties alrea#' foreclose# b' the RCBC, all the remainin% properties, namel': +. coffee mill in Balon%a%an, Aas ieves, A%usan #el orteC ). coffee mill in >urian, Aas ieves, A%usan #el orteC =. corn mill in Casi0lan, Aas ieves, A%usan #el orteC (. coffee mill in !speran/a, A%usan #el SurC 4. a parcel of lan# .ith an area of +,)** s1uare meters locate# in -un%ao, Butuan Cit'C ;. a parcel of a%ricultural lan# .ith an area of 4 hectares locate# in Manila #e Bu%abos, Butuan Cit'C 6. a parcel of lan# .ith an area of 5( s1uare meters locate# in -un%ao, Butuan Cit'C 5. Bashier Bon :actor' locate# in -un%ao, Butuan Cit'C shall be #ivi#e# e1uall' bet.een herein 2respon#ents3 an# 2petitioner3 sub9ect to the respective le%itimes of the chil#ren an# the pa'ment of the unpai# con9u%al liabilities of 2P3(4,6(*.**. 2PetitionerDs3 share, ho.ever, of the net profits earne# b' the con9u%al partnership is forfeite# in favor of the common chil#ren. @e is further or#ere# to reimburse 2respon#ents3 the sum of 2P3+E,***.** as attorne'Fs fees an# liti%ation e,penses of 2P34,***.**2.3 SO OR>!R!>.243

either part' file# a motion for reconsi#eration an# appeal .ithin the perio# provi#e# for un#er Section +67a8 an# 7b8 of the Rule on Ae%al Separation.2;3 On >ecember +), )**4, the respon#ents file# a motion for e,ecution 263 .hich the trial court %rante# in its Or#er #ate# >ecember +;, )**4, the #ispositive portion of .hich rea#s:
G?herefore, fin#in% the motion to be .ell ta0en, the same is hereb' %rante#. Aet a .rit of e,ecution be issue# for the imme#iate enforcement of the &u#%ment. SO OR>!R!>.H253

Subse1uentl', on :ebruar' +*, )**;, the R-C issue# a ?rit of !,ecution 2E3 .hich rea#s as follo.s:
O? -@!R!:OR!, that of the %oo#s an# chattels of the 2petitioner3 BRIII>O B. <JIAO 'ou cause to be ma#e the sums state# in the afore-1uote# >!CISIO 2sic3, to%ether .ith 'our la.ful fees in the service of this ?rit, all in the Philippine Currenc'. But if sufficient personal propert' cannot be foun# .hereof to satisf' this e,ecution an# 'our la.ful fees, then .e comman# 'ou that of the lan#s an# buil#in%s of the sai# 2petitioner3, 'ou ma0e the sai# sums in the manner re1uire# b' la.. $ou are en9oine# to strictl' observe# Section E, Rule =E, Rule 2sic3 of the +EE6 Rules of Civil Proce#ure. $ou are hereb' or#ere# to ma0e a return of the sai# procee#in%s imme#iatel' after the 9u#%ment has been satisfie# in part or in full in consonance .ith Section +(, Rule =E of the +EE6 Rules of Civil Proce#ure, as amen#e#.2+*3

On &ul' ;, )**;, the .rit .as partiall' e,ecute# .ith the petitioner pa'in% the respon#ents the amount of P(;,56*.**, representin% the follo.in% pa'ments: 7a8 P)),56*.** K as petitionerFs share of the pa'ment of the con9u%al shareC 7b8 P+E,***.** K as attorne'Fs feesC an# 7c8 P4,***.** K as liti%ation e,penses.2++3

On &ul' 6, )**;, or after more than nine months from the promul%ation of the >ecision, the petitioner file# before the R-C a Motion for Clarification, 2+)3 as0in% the R-C to #efine the term G et Profits !arne#.H -o resolve the petitionerFs Motion for Clarification, the R-C issue# an Or#er #ate# Au%ust =+, )**;, .hich hel# that the phrase G !- PRO:I- !AR !>H #enotes Gthe remain#er of the properties of the parties after #e#uctin% the separate properties of each 2of the3 spouse an# the #ebts.H2+(3 -he Or#er further hel# that after #eterminin% the remain#er of the properties, it shall be forfeite# in favor of the common chil#ren because the offen#in% spouse #oes not have an' ri%ht to an' share of the net profits earne#, pursuant to Articles ;=, o. 7)8 an# (=, o. 7)8 of the :amil' Co#e. 2+43 -he #ispositive portion of the Or#er states:
2+=3

?@!R!:OR!, there is no blatant #isparit' .hen the sheriff inten#s to forfeit all the remainin% properties after #e#uctin% the pa'ments of the #ebts for onl' separate properties of the #efen#ant-respon#ent shall be #elivere# to him .hich he has none. -he Sheriff is herein #irecte# to procee# .ith the e,ecution of the >ecision. I- IS SO OR>!R!>.2+;3

ot satisfie# .ith the trial courtFs Or#er, the petitioner file# a Motion for Reconsi#eration2+63 on September 5, )**;. Conse1uentl', the R-C issue# another Or#er2+53 #ate# ovember 5, )**;, hol#in% that althou%h the >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4 has become final an# e,ecutor', it ma' still consi#er the Motion for Clarification because the petitioner simpl' .ante# to clarif' the meanin% of Gnet profit earne#.H2+E3 :urthermore, the same Or#er hel#:
ALL TOLD, the Court Or#er #ate# Au%ust =+, )**; is hereb' or#ere# set asi#e. !- PRO:I- !AR !>, .hich is sub9ect of forfeiture in favor of 2the3 partiesF common chil#ren, is or#ere# to be compute# in accor#ance 2.ith3 par. ( of Article +*) of the :amil' Co#e.2)*3

On ovember )+, )**;, the respon#ents file# a Motion for Reconsi#eration, 2)+3 pra'in% for the correction an# reversal of the Or#er #ate# ovember 5, 2))3 )**;. -hereafter, on &anuar' 5, )**6, the trial court ha# chan%e# its rulin% a%ain an# %rante# the respon#entsF Motion for Reconsi#eration .hereb' the Or#er #ate# ovember 5, )**; .as set asi#e to reinstate the Or#er #ate# Au%ust =+, )**;.

ot satisfie# .ith the trial courtFs Or#er, the petitioner file# on :ebruar' )6, )**6 this instant Petition for Revie. un#er Rule (4 of the Rules of Court, raisin% the follo.in%: Iss-es I IS -@! >ISSOAJ-IO A > -@! CO S!<J! - AI<JI>A-IO O: -@! COMMO PROP!R-I!S O: -@! @JSBA > A > ?I:! B$ LIR-J! O: -@! >!CR!! O: A!IAA S!PARA-IO IOL!R !> B$ AR-ICA! +)4 7SIC8 O: -@! :AMIA$ CO>!M II ?@A- IS -@! M!A I I O: -@! !- PRO:I-S !AR !> B$ -@! CO &JIAA PAR- !RS@IP :OR PJRPOS!S O: !::!C-I I -@! :OR:!I-JR! AJ-@ORI"!> J >!R AR-ICA! ;= O: -@! :AMIA$ CO>!M III ?@A- AA? IOL!R S -@! PROP!R-$ R!AA-IO S B!-?!! -@! @JSBA > A > ?I:! ?@O IO- MARRI!> I +E66M CA -@! :AMIA$ CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S B! IIL! R!-ROAC-IL! !::!C- :OR PJRPOS!S O: >!-!RMI I I -@! !- PRO:I-S SJB&!C- O: :OR:!I-JR! AS A R!SJA- O: -@! >!CR!! O: A!IAA S!PARA-IO ?I-@OJ- IMPAIRI I L!S-!> RII@-S AAR!A>$ AC<JIR!> J >!R -@! CILIA CO>!M IL ?@A- PROP!R-I!S S@AAA B! I CAJ>!> I -@! :OR:!I-JR! O: -@! S@AR! O: -@! IJIA-$ SPOJS! I -@! !- CO &JIAA PAR- !RS@IP AS A R!SJA- O: -@! ISSJA C! O: -@! >!CR!! O: A!IAA S!PARA-IO M2)=3 O-r R-.in/

?hile the petitioner has raise# a number of issues on the applicabilit' of certain la.s, .e are .ell-a.are that the respon#ents have calle# our attention to the fact that the >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4 has attaine# finalit' .hen the Motion for Clarification .as file#.2)(3 -hus, .e are constraine# to resolve first the issue of the finalit' of the >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4 an# subse1uentl' #iscuss the matters that .e can clarif'. T"e De+ision d*ted O+to er $0, 100' "*s e+o#e 2in*. *nd e3e+-tor! *t t"e ti#e t"e 4otion 2or C.*ri2i+*tion 5*s 2i.ed on 6-.! %, 100&. Section =, Rule (+ of the Rules of Court provi#es:
Section =. Period of ordinary appeal. - -he appeal shall be ta0en .ithin fifteen 7+48 #a's from notice of the 9u#%ment or final or#er appeale# from. ?here a recor# on appeal is re1uire#, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal an# a recor# on appeal .ithin thirt' 7=*8 #a's from notice of the 9u#%ment or final or#er. -he perio# of appeal shall be interrupte# b' a timel' motion for ne. trial or reconsi#eration. o motion for e,tension of time to file a motion for ne. trial or reconsi#eration shall be allo.e#.

In Neypes v. Court of Appeals,2)43 .e clarifie# that to stan#ar#i/e the appeal perio#s provi#e# in the Rules an# to affor# liti%ants fair opportunit' to appeal their cases, .e hel# that Git .oul# be practical to allo. a fresh perio# of +4 #a's .ithin .hich to file the notice of appeal in the R-C, counte# from receipt of the or#er #ismissin% a motion for a ne. trial or motion for reconsi#eration.H2);3 In Neypes, .e e,plaine# that the Nfresh perio# ruleN shall also appl' to Rule (* %overnin% appeals from the Municipal -rial Courts to the R-CsC Rule () on petitions for revie. from the R-Cs to the Court of Appeals 7CA8C Rule (= on appeals from 1uasi9u#icial a%encies to the CA an# Rule (4 %overnin% appeals b' certiorari to the Supreme Court. ?e also sai#, G-he ne. rule aims to re%iment or ma0e the appeal perio# uniform, to be counte# from receipt of the or#er #en'in% the motion for ne. trial, motion for reconsi#eration 7.hether full or partial8 or an' final or#er or resolution.H2)63 In other .or#s, a part' liti%ant ma' file his notice of appeal .ithin a fresh +4-#a' perio# from his receipt of the trial courtFs #ecision or final or#er #en'in%

his motion for ne. trial or motion for reconsi#eration. :ailure to avail of the fresh +4#a' perio# from the #enial of the motion for reconsi#eration ma0es the #ecision or final or#er in 1uestion final an# e,ecutor'. In the case at bar, the trial court ren#ere# its >ecision on October +*, )**4. -he petitioner neither file# a motion for reconsi#eration nor a notice of appeal. On >ecember +;, )**4, or after ;6 #a's ha# lapse#, the trial court issue# an or#er %rantin% the respon#entFs motion for e,ecutionC an# on :ebruar' +*, )**;, or after +)= #a's ha# lapse#, the trial court issue# a .rit of e,ecution. :inall', .hen the .rit ha# alrea#' been partiall' e,ecute#, the petitioner, on &ul' 6, )**; or after )6* #a's ha# lapse#, file# his Motion for Clarification on the #efinition of the Gnet profits earne#.H :rom the fore%oin%, the petitioner ha# clearl' slept on his ri%ht to 1uestion the R-CDs >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4. :or )6* #a's, the petitioner never raise# a sin%le issue until the #ecision ha# alrea#' been partiall' e,ecute#. -hus at the time the petitioner file# his motion for clarification, the trial courtDs #ecision has become final an# e,ecutor'. A 9u#%ment becomes final an# e,ecutor' .hen the re%lementar' perio# to appeal lapses an# no appeal is perfecte# .ithin such perio#. Conse1uentl', no court, not even this Court, can arro%ate unto itself appellate 9uris#iction to revie. a case or mo#if' a 9u#%ment that became final.2)53 -he petitioner ar%ues that the #ecision he is 1uestionin% is a voi# 9u#%ment. Bein% such, the petitionerFs thesis is that it can still be #isturbe# even after )6* #a's ha# lapse# from the issuance of the #ecision to the filin% of the motion for clarification. @e sai# that Ga voi# 9u#%ment is no 9u#%ment at all. It never attains finalit' an# cannot be a source of an' ri%ht nor an' obli%ation.H 2)E3 But .hat precisel' is a voi# 9u#%ment in our 9uris#ictionM ?hen #oes a 9u#%ment becomes voi#M GA 9u#%ment is null an# voi# .hen the court .hich ren#ere# it ha# no po.er to %rant the relief or no 9uris#iction over the sub9ect matter or over the parties or both.H2=*3 In other .or#s, a court, .hich #oes not have the po.er to #eci#e a case or that has no 9uris#iction over the sub9ect matter or the parties, .ill issue a voi# 9u#%ment or a coram non judice.2=+3 -he 1uestione# 9u#%ment #oes not fall .ithin the purvie. of a voi# 9u#%ment. :or sure, the trial court has 9uris#iction over a case involvin% le%al separation. Republic Act 7R.A.8 o. 5=;E confers upon an R-C, #esi%nate# as the :amil' Court of a cit', the e,clusive ori%inal 9uris#iction to hear an# #eci#e, amon%

others, complaints or petitions relatin% to marital status an# propert' relations of the husban# an# .ife or those livin% to%ether.2=)3 -he Rule on Ae%al Separation2==3 provi#es that Gthe petition 2for le%al separation3 shall be file# in the :amil' Court of the province or cit' .here the petitioner or the respon#ent has been resi#in% for at least si, months prior to the #ate of filin% or in the case of a non-resi#ent respon#ent, .here he ma' be foun# in the Philippines, at the election of the petitioner.H 2=(3 In the instant case, herein respon#ent Rita is foun# to resi#e in -un%ao, Butuan Cit' for more than si, months prior to the #ate of filin% of the petitionC thus, the R-C, clearl' has 9uris#iction over the respon#entFs petition belo.. :urthermore, the R-C also ac1uire# 9uris#iction over the persons of both parties, consi#erin% that summons an# a cop' of the complaint .ith its anne,es .ere serve# upon the herein petitioner on >ecember +(, )*** an# that the herein petitioner file# his Ans.er to the Complaint on &anuar' E, )**+. 2=43 -hus, .ithout #oubt, the R-C, .hich has ren#ere# the 1uestione# 9u#%ment, has 9uris#iction over the complaint an# the persons of the parties. :rom the aforecite# facts, the 1uestione# October +*, )**4 9u#%ment of the trial court is clearl' not voi# ab initio, since it .as ren#ere# .ithin the ambit of the courtFs 9uris#iction. Bein% such, the same cannot an'more be #isturbe#, even if the mo#ification is meant to correct .hat ma' be consi#ere# an erroneous conclusion of fact or la..2=;3 In fact, .e have rule# that for G2as3 lon% as the public respon#ent acte# .ith 9uris#iction, an' error committe# b' him or it in the e,ercise thereof .ill amount to nothin% more than an error of 9u#%ment .hich ma' be revie.e# or correcte# onl' b' appeal.H2=63 Irantin% .ithout a#mittin% that the R-CFs 9u#%ment #ate# October +*, )**4 .as erroneous, the petitionerFs reme#' shoul# be an appeal file# .ithin the re%lementar' perio#. Jnfortunatel', the petitioner faile# to #o this. @e has alrea#' lost the chance to 1uestion the trial courtFs #ecision, .hich has become immutable an# unalterable. ?hat .e can onl' #o is to clarif' the ver' 1uestion raise# belo. an# nothin% more. :or our convenience, the follo.in% matters cannot an'more be #isturbe# since the October +*, )**4 9u#%ment has alrea#' become immutable an# unalterable, to .it: 7a8 -he fin#in% that the petitioner is the offen#in% spouse since he cohabite# .ith a .oman .ho is not his .ifeC2=53 7b8 -he trial courtFs %rant of the petition for le%al separation of respon#ent RitaC2=E3 7c8 -he #issolution an# li1ui#ation of the con9u%al partnershipC2(*3

7#8 -he forfeiture of the petitionerFs ri%ht to an' share of the net profits earne# b' the con9u%al partnershipC2(+3 7e8 -he a.ar# to the innocent spouse of the minor chil#renFs custo#'C2()3 7f8 -he #is1ualification of the offen#in% spouse from inheritin% from the innocent spouse b' intestate successionC2(=3 7%8 -he revocation of provisions in favor of the offen#in% spouse ma#e in the .ill of the innocent spouseC2((3 7h8 -he hol#in% that the propert' relation of the parties is con9u%al partnership of %ains an# pursuant to Article ++; of the :amil' Co#e, all properties ac1uire# #urin% the marria%e, .hether ac1uire# b' one or both spouses, is presume# to be con9u%al unless the contrar' is prove#C2(43 7i8 -he fin#in% that the spouses ac1uire# their real an# personal properties .hile the' .ere livin% to%etherC2(;3 798 -he list of properties .hich Ri/al Commercial Ban0in% Corporation 7RCBC8 foreclose#C2(63 708 -he list of the remainin% properties of the couple .hich must be #issolve# an# li1ui#ate# an# the fact that respon#ent Rita .as the one .ho too0 char%e of the a#ministration of these propertiesC2(53 7l8 -he hol#in% that the con9u%al partnership shall be liable to matters inclu#e# un#er Article +)+ of the :amil' Co#e an# the con9u%al liabilities totalin% P4*=,5;).+* shall be char%e# to the income %enerate# b' these propertiesC2(E3 7m8 -he fact that the trial court ha# no .a' of 0no.in% .hether the petitioner ha# separate properties .hich can satisf' his share for the support of the famil'C24*3 7n8 -he hol#in% that the applicable la. in this case is Article +)E768C24+3

7o8 -he rulin% that the remainin% properties not sub9ect to an' encumbrance shall therefore be #ivi#e# e1uall' bet.een the petitioner an# the respon#ent .ithout pre9u#ice to the chil#renFs le%itimeC24)3 7p8 -he hol#in% that the petitionerFs share of the net profits earne# b' the con9u%al partnership is forfeite# in favor of the common chil#renC24=3 an# 718 -he or#er to the petitioner to reimburse the respon#ents the sum of P+E,***.** as attorne'Fs fees an# liti%ation e,penses ofP4,***.**.24(3 After #iscussin% len%thil' the immutabilit' of the >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4, .e .ill #iscuss the follo.in% issues for the enli%htenment of the parties an# the public at lar%e.

Arti+.e $17 o2 t"e ,*#i.! Code *pp.ies to t"e present +*se sin+e t"e p*rties8 propert! re.*tion is /o9erned ! t"e s!ste# o2 re.*ti9e +o##-nit! or +on:-/*. p*rtners"ip o2 /*ins. -he petitioner claims that the court a quo is .ron% .hen it applie# Article +)E of the :amil' Co#e, instea# of Article +*). @e confusin%l' ar%ues that Article +*) applies because there is no other provision un#er the :amil' Co#e .hich #efines net profits earne# sub9ect of forfeiture as a result of le%al separation. Offhan#, the trial courtFs >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4 hel# that Article +)E768 of the :amil' Co#e applies in this case. ?e a%ree .ith the trial courtFs hol#in%. First, let us #etermine .hat %overns the coupleFs propert' relation. :rom the recor#, .e can #e#uce that the petitioner an# the respon#ent tie# the marital 0not on &anuar' ;, +E66. Since at the time of the e,chan%e of marital vo.s, the operative la. .as the Civil Co#e of the Philippines 7R.A. o. =5;8 an# since the' #i# not a%ree on a marria%e settlement, the propert' relations bet.een the petitioner an# the respon#ent is the s'stem of relative communit' or con9u%al partnership of %ains. 2443 Article ++E of the Civil Co#e provi#es:

Art. ++E. -he future spouses ma' in the marria%e settlements a%ree upon absolute or relative communit' of propert', or upon complete separation of propert', or upon an' other re%ime. In the absence of marria%e settlements, or .hen the same are voi#, the s'stem of relative communit' or con9u%al partnership of %ains as establishe# in this Co#e, shall %overn the propert' relations bet.een husban# an# .ife.

-hus, from the fore%oin% facts an# la., it is clear that .hat %overns the propert' relations of the petitioner an# of the respon#ent is con9u%al partnership of %ains. An# un#er this propert' relation, Gthe husban# an# the .ife place in a common fun# the fruits of their separate propert' an# the income from their .or0 or in#ustr'.H 24;3 -he husban# an# .ife also o.n in common all the propert' of the con9u%al partnership of %ains.2463 Second, since at the time of the #issolution of the petitioner an# the respon#entFs marria%e the operative la. is alrea#' the :amil' Co#e, the same applies in the instant case an# the applicable la. in so far as the li1ui#ation of the con9u%al partnership assets an# liabilities is concerne# is Article +)E of the :amil' Co#e in relation to Article ;=7)8 of the :amil' Co#e. -he latter provision is applicable because accor#in% to Article )4; of the :amil' Co#e G2t3his Co#e shall have retroactive effect insofar as it #oes not pre9u#ice or impair veste# or ac1uire# ri%hts in accor#ance .ith the Civil Co#e or other la..H2453 o., the petitioner as0s: ?as his veste# ri%ht over half of the common properties of the con9u%al partnership violate# .hen the trial court forfeite# them in favor of his chil#ren pursuant to Articles ;=7)8 an# +)E of the :amil' Co#eM ?e respon# in the ne%ative. In#ee#, the petitioner claims that his veste# ri%hts have been impaire#, ar%uin%: GAs earlier a#verte# to, the petitioner ac1uire# veste# ri%hts over half of the con9u%al properties, the same bein% o.ne# in common b' the spouses. If the provisions of the :amil' Co#e are to be %iven retroactive application to the point of authori/in% the forfeiture of the petitionerFs share in the net remain#er of the con9u%al partnership properties, the same impairs his ri%hts ac1uire# prior to the effectivit' of the :amil' Co#e.H24E3 In other .or#s, the petitioner is sa'in% that since the propert' relations bet.een the spouses is %overne# b' the re%ime of Con9u%al Partnership of Iains un#er the Civil Co#e, the petitioner ac1uire# veste# ri%hts over half of the properties of the Con9u%al Partnership of Iains, pursuant to Article +(= of the Civil Co#e, .hich

provi#es: GAll propert' of the con9u%al partnership of %ains is o.ne# in common b' the husban# an# .ife.H2;*3 -hus, since he is one of the o.ners of the properties covere# b' the con9u%al partnership of %ains, he has a veste# ri%ht over half of the sai# properties, even after the promul%ation of the :amil' Co#eC an# he insiste# that no provision un#er the :amil' Co#e ma' #eprive him of this veste# ri%ht b' virtue of Article )4; of the :amil' Co#e .hich prohibits retroactive application of the :amil' Co#e .hen it .ill pre9u#ice a personFs veste# ri%ht. @o.ever, the petitionerFs claim of veste# ri%ht is not one .hich is .ritten on stone. In o, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,2;+3 .e #efine an# e,plaine# Gveste# ri%htH in the follo.in% manner:
A veste# ri%ht is one .hose e,istence, effectivit' an# e,tent #o not #epen# upon events forei%n to the .ill of the hol#er, or to the e,ercise of .hich no obstacle e,ists, an# .hich is imme#iate an# perfect in itself an# not #epen#ent upon a contin%enc'. -he term Gveste# ri%htH e,presses the concept of present fi,e# interest .hich, in ri%ht reason an# natural 9ustice, shoul# be protecte# a%ainst arbitrar' State action, or an innatel' 9ust an# imperative ri%ht .hich enli%htene# free societ', sensitive to inherent an# irrefra%able in#ivi#ual ri%hts, cannot #en'. -o be veste#, a ri%ht must have become a titleOle%al or e1uitableOto the present or future en9o'ment of propert'. 2;)3 7Citations omitte#8

In our en banc Resolution #ate# October +5, )**4 for A!A"A#A uro Party $ist %fficer Samson S. Alcantara, et al. v. &he 'on. ()ecutive Secretary (duardo *. (rmita , 2;=3 .e also e,plaine#:
-he concept of Gveste# ri%htH is a conse1uence of the +onstit-tion*. /-*r*nt! o2 d-e pro+ess that e,presses a present fi,e# interest .hich in ri%ht reason an# natural 9ustice is protecte# a%ainst arbitrar' state actionC it inclu#es not onl' le%al or e1uitable title to the enforcement of a #eman# but also e,emptions from ne. obli%ations create# after the ri%ht has become veste#. Ri%hts are consi#ere# veste# .hen the ri%ht to en9o'ment is a present interest, absolute, uncon#itional, an# perfect or fi,e# an# irrefutable.2;(3 7!mphasis an# un#erscorin% supplie#8

:rom the fore%oin%, it is clear that .hile one ma' not be #eprive# of his Gveste# ri%ht,H he ma' lose the same if there is #ue process an# such #eprivation is foun#e# in la. an# 9urispru#ence.

In the present case, the petitioner .as accor#e# his ri%ht to #ue process. First, he .as .ell-a.are that the respon#ent pra'e# in her complaint that all of the con9u%al properties be a.ar#e# to her.2;43 In fact, in his Ans.er, the petitioner pra'e# that the trial court #ivi#e the communit' assets bet.een the petitioner an# the respon#ent as circumstances an# evi#ence .arrant after the accountin% an# inventor' of all the communit' properties of the parties. 2;;3 Second, .hen the >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4 .as promul%ate#, the petitioner never 1uestione# the trial courtFs rulin% forfeitin% .hat the trial court terme# as Gnet profits,H pursuant to Article +)E768 of the :amil' Co#e.2;63 -hus, the petitioner cannot claim bein% #eprive# of his ri%ht to #ue process. :urthermore, .e ta0e note that the alle%e# #eprivation of the petitionerFs Gveste# ri%htH is one foun#e#, not onl' in the provisions of the :amil' Co#e, but in Article +6; of the Civil Co#e. -his provision is li0e Articles ;= an# +)E of the :amil' Co#e on the forfeiture of the %uilt' spouseFs share in the con9u%al partnership profits. -he sai# provision sa's:
Art. +6;. In case of le%al separation, the %uilt' spouse shall forfeit his or her share of the con9u%al partnership profits, .hich shall be a.ar#e# to the chil#ren of both, an# the chil#ren of the %uilt' spouse ha# b' a prior marria%e. @o.ever, if the con9u%al partnership propert' came mostl' or entirel' from the .or0 or in#ustr', or from the .a%es an# salaries, or from the fruits of the separate propert' of the %uilt' spouse, this forfeiture shall not appl'. In case there are no chil#ren, the innocent spouse shall be entitle# to all the net profits.

:rom the fore%oin%, the petitionerFs claim of a veste# ri%ht has no basis consi#erin% that even un#er Article +6; of the Civil Co#e, his share of the con9u%al partnership profits ma' be forfeite# if he is the %uilt' part' in a le%al separation case. -hus, after trial an# after the petitioner .as %iven the chance to present his evi#ence, the petitionerFs veste# ri%ht claim ma' in fact be set asi#e un#er the Civil Co#e since the trial court foun# him the %uilt' part'. More, in Abalos v. #r. +acatan,ay, Jr.,2;53 .e reiterate# our lon%-stan#in% rulin% that:
2P3rior to the li1ui#ation of the con9u%al partnership, the interest of each spouse in the con9u%al assets is inchoate, a mere e,pectanc', .hich constitutes neither a le%al nor an e1uitable estate, an# #oes not ripen into title until it appears that there are assets in the communit' as a result of the li1ui#ation an# settlement. -he interest of each spouse is

limite# to the net remain#er or G remanente liquidoH 7haber ,anancial8 resultin% from the li1ui#ation of the affairs of the partnership after its #issolution. -hus, the ri%ht of the husban# or .ife to one-half of the con9u%al assets #oes not vest until the #issolution an# li1ui#ation of the con9u%al partnership, or after #issolution of the marria%e, .hen it is finall' #etermine# that, after settlement of con9u%al obli%ations, there are net assets left .hich can be #ivi#e# bet.een the spouses or their respective heirs.2;E3 7Citations omitte#8

:inall', as earlier #iscusse#, the trial court has alrea#' #eci#e# in its >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4 that the applicable la. in this case is Article +)E768 of the :amil' Co#e.26*3 -he petitioner #i# not file a motion for reconsi#eration nor a notice of appeal. -hus, the petitioner is no. preclu#e# from 1uestionin% the trial courtFs #ecision since it has become final an# e,ecutor'. -he #octrine of immutabilit' an# unalterabilit' of a final 9u#%ment prevents us from #isturbin% the >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4 because final an# e,ecutor' #ecisions can no lon%er be revie.e# nor reverse# b' this Court.26+3 :rom the above #iscussions, Article +)E of the :amil' Co#e clearl' applies to the present case since the partiesF propert' relation is %overne# b' the s'stem of relative communit' or con9u%al partnership of %ains an# since the trial courtFs >ecision has attaine# finalit' an# immutabilit'. T"e net pro2its o2 t"e +on:-/*. p*rtners"ip o2 /*ins *re *.. t"e 2r-its o2 t"e sep*r*te properties o2 t"e spo-ses *nd t"e prod-+ts o2 t"eir .* or *nd ind-str!. -he petitioner in1uires from us the meanin% of Gnet profitsH earne# b' the con9u%al partnership for purposes of effectin% the forfeiture authori/e# un#er Article ;= of the :amil' Co#e. @e insists that since there is no other provision un#er the :amil' Co#e, .hich #efines Gnet profitsH earne# sub9ect of forfeiture as a result of le%al separation, then Article +*) of the :amil' Co#e applies. ?hat #oes Article +*) of the :amil' Co#e sa'M Is the computation of Gnet profitsH earne# in the con9u%al partnership of %ains the same .ith the computation of Gnet profitsH earne# in the absolute communit'M o., .e clarif'.

:irst an# foremost, .e must #istin%uish bet.een the applicable la. as to the propert' relations bet.een the parties an# the applicable la. as to the #efinition of Gnet profits.H As earlier #iscusse#, Article +)E of the :amil' Co#e applies as to the propert' relations of the parties. In other .or#s, the computation an# the succession of events .ill follo. the provisions un#er Article +)E of the sai# Co#e. Moreover, as to the #efinition of Gnet profits,H .e cannot but refer to Article +*)7(8 of the :amil' Co#e, since it e,pressl' provi#es that for purposes of computin% the net profits sub9ect to forfeiture un#er Article (=, o. 7)8 an# Article ;=, o. 7)8, Article +*)7(8 applies. In this provision, net profits Gshall be the increase in value bet.een the mar0et value of the communit' propert' at the time of the celebration of the marria%e an# the mar0et value at the time of its #issolution.H 26)3 -hus, .ithout an' iota of #oubt, Article +*)7(8 applies to both the #issolution of the absolute communit' re%ime un#er Article +*) of the :amil' Co#e, an# to the #issolution of the con9u%al partnership re%ime un#er Article +)E of the :amil' Co#e. ?here lies the #ifferenceM As earlier sho.n, the #ifference lies in the processes use# un#er the #issolution of the absolute communit' re%ime un#er Article +*) of the :amil' Co#e, an# in the processes use# un#er the #issolution of the con9u%al partnership re%ime un#er Article +)E of the :amil' Co#e. Aet us no. #iscuss the #ifference in the processes bet.een the absolute communit' re%ime an# the con9u%al partnership re%ime. On Absolute Communit' Re%ime: ?hen a couple enters into a re/i#e o2 * so.-te +o##-nit!, the husban# an# the .ife becomes 9oint o.ners of all the properties of the marria%e. ?hatever propert' each spouse brin%s into the marria%e, an# those ac1uire# #urin% the marria%e 7e,cept those e,clu#e# un#er Article E) of the :amil' Co#e8 form the common mass of the coupleFs properties. An# .hen the coupleFs marria%e or communit' is #issolve#, that common mass is #ivi#e# bet.een the spouses, or their respective heirs, e1uall' or in the proportion the parties have establishe#, irrespective of the value each one ma' have ori%inall' o.ne#.26=3 Jn#er Article +*) of the :amil' Co#e, upon #issolution of marria%e, an inventor' is prepare#, listin% separatel' all the properties of the absolute communit' an# the e,clusive properties of eachC then the #ebts an# obli%ations of the absolute communit' are pai# out of the absolute communit'Fs assets an# if the communit'Fs properties are

insufficient, the separate properties of each of the couple .ill be soli#aril' liable for the unpai# balance. ?hatever is left of the separate properties .ill be #elivere# to each of them. -he net remain#er of the absolute communit' is its net assets, .hich shall be #ivi#e# bet.een the husban# an# the .ifeC an# for purposes of computin% the net profits sub9ect to forfeiture, sai# profits shall be the increase in value bet.een the mar0et value of the communit' propert' at the time of the celebration of the marria%e an# the mar0et value at the time of its #issolution.26(3 Appl'in% Article +*) of the :amil' Co#e, the Gnet profitsH re1uires that .e first fin# the mar0et value of the properties at the time of the communit'Fs #issolution. :rom the totalit' of the mar0et value of all the properties, .e subtract the #ebts an# obli%ations of the absolute communit' an# this result to the net assets or net remain#er of the properties of the absolute communit', from .hich .e #e#uct the mar0et value of the properties at the time of marria%e, .hich then results to the net profits.2643 Irantin% .ithout a#mittin% that Article +*) applies to the instant case, let us see .hat .ill happen if .e appl' Article +*): 7a8 Accor#in% to the trial courtFs fin#in% of facts, both husban# an# .ife have no separate properties, thus, the remainin% properties in the list above are all part of the absolute communit'. An# its mar0et value at the time of the #issolution of the absolute communit' constitutes the Gmar0et value at #issolution.H 7b8 -hus, .hen the petitioner an# the respon#ent finall' .ere le%all' separate#, all the properties .hich remaine# .ill be liable for the #ebts an# obli%ations of the communit'. Such #ebts an# obli%ations .ill be subtracte# from the Gmar0et value at #issolution.H 7c8 ?hat remains after the #ebts an# obli%ations have been pai# from the total assets of the absolute communit' constitutes the net remain#er or net asset. An# from such net assetPremain#er of the petitioner an# respon#entFs remainin% properties, the mar0et value at the time of marria%e .ill be subtracte# an# the resultin% totalit' constitutes the Gnet profits.H 7#8 Sin+e ot" "-s *nd *nd 5i2e "*9e no sep*r*te properties, an# nothin% .oul# be returne# to each of them, .hat .ill be #ivi#e# e1uall' bet.een them is simpl' the Gnet profits.H @o.ever, in the >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4, the trial court

forfeite# the half-share of the petitioner in favor of his chil#ren. -hus, if .e use Article +*) in the instant case 7.hich shoul# not be the case8, nothin% is left to the petitioner since both parties entere# into their marria%e .ithout brin%in% .ith them an' propert'. On Con9u%al Partnership Re%ime: Before .e %o into our #is1uisition on the Con9u%al Partnership Re%ime, .e ma0e it clear that Article +*)7(8 of the :amil' Co#e applies in the instant case 2or p-rposes on.! o2 de2inin/ ;net pro2it.H As earlier e,plaine#, the #efinition of Gnet profitsH in Article +*)7(8 of the :amil' Co#e applies to both the absolute communit' re%ime an# con9u%al partnership re%ime as provi#e# for un#er Article ;=, o. 7)8 of the :amil' Co#e, relative to the provisions on Ae%al Separation. o., .hen a couple enters into a re/i#e o2 +on:-/*. p*rtners"ip o2 /*ins un#er Article +() of the Civil Co#e, Gthe husban# an# the .ife place in common fun# the fruits of their separate propert' an# income from their .or0 or in#ustr', an# #ivi#e e1uall', upon the #issolution of the marria%e or of the partnership, the net %ains or benefits obtaine# in#iscriminatel' b' either spouse #urin% the marria%e.H 26;3 :rom the fore%oin% provision, each of the couple has his an# her o.n propert' an# #ebts. -he la. #oes not inten# to effect a mi,ture or mer%er of those #ebts or properties bet.een the spouses. Rather, it establishes a complete separation of capitals.2663 Consi#erin% that the coupleFs marria%e has been #issolve# un#er the :amil' Co#e, Article +)E of the same Co#e applies in the li1ui#ation of the coupleFs properties in the event that the con9u%al partnership of %ains is #issolve#, to .it:
Art. +)E. Jpon the #issolution of the con9u%al partnership re%ime, the follo.in% proce#ure shall appl': 7+8 An inventor' shall be prepare#, listin% separatel' all the properties of the con9u%al partnership an# the e,clusive properties of each spouse. 7)8 Amounts a#vance# b' the con9u%al partnership in pa'ment of personal #ebts an# obli%ations of either spouse shall be cre#ite# to the con9u%al partnership as an asset thereof. 7=8 !ach spouse shall be reimburse# for the use of his or her e,clusive fun#s in the ac1uisition of propert' or for the value of his or her e,clusive propert', the o.nership of .hich has been veste# b' la. in the con9u%al partnership.

7(8 -he #ebts an# obli%ations of the con9u%al partnership shall be pai# out of the con9u%al assets. In case of insufficienc' of sai# assets, the spouses shall be soli#aril' liable for the unpai# balance .ith their separate properties, in accor#ance .ith the provisions of para%raph 7)8 of Article +)+. 748 ?hatever remains of the e,clusive properties of the spouses shall thereafter be #elivere# to each of them. 7;8 Jnless the o.ner ha# been in#emnifie# from .hatever source, the loss or #eterioration of movables use# for the benefit of the famil', belon%in% to either spouse, even #ue to fortuitous event, shall be pai# to sai# spouse from the con9u%al fun#s, if an'. 768 -he net remain#er of the con9u%al partnership properties shall constitute the profits, .hich shall be #ivi#e# e1uall' bet.een husban# an# .ife, unless a #ifferent proportion or #ivision .as a%ree# upon in the marria%e settlements or unless there has been a voluntar' .aiver or forfeiture of such share as provi#e# in this Co#e. 758 -he presumptive le%itimes of the common chil#ren shall be #elivere# upon the partition in accor#ance .ith Article 4+. 7E8 In the partition of the properties, the con9u%al #.ellin% an# the lot on .hich it is situate# shall, unless other.ise a%ree# upon b' the parties, be a#9u#icate# to the spouse .ith .hom the ma9orit' of the common chil#ren choose to remain. Chil#ren belo. the a%e of seven 'ears are #eeme# to have chosen the mother, unless the court has #eci#e# other.ise. In case there is no such ma9orit', the court shall #eci#e, ta0in% into consi#eration the best interests of sai# chil#ren.

In the normal course of events, the follo.in% are the steps in the li1ui#ation of the properties of the spouses: 7a8 An inventor' of all the actual properties shall be ma#e, separatel' listin% the coupleFs con9u%al properties an# their separate properties. 2653 In the instant case, t"e tri*. +o-rt 2o-nd t"*t t"e +o-p.e "*s no sep*r*te properties 5"en t"e! #*rried. 26E3 Rather, the trial court i#entifie# the follo.in% con9u%al properties, to .it:
+. coffee mill in Balon%a%an, Aas ieves, A%usan #el orteC ). coffee mill in >urian, Aas ieves, A%usan #el orteC =. corn mill in Casi0lan, Aas ieves, A%usan #el orteC (. coffee mill in !speran/a, A%usan #el SurC 4. a parcel of lan# .ith an area of +,)** s1uare meters locate# in -un%ao, Butuan Cit'C

;. a parcel of a%ricultural lan# .ith an area of 4 hectares locate# in Manila #e Bu%abos, Butuan Cit'C 6. a parcel of lan# .ith an area of 5( s1uare meters locate# in -un%ao, Butuan Cit'C 5. Bashier Bon :actor' locate# in -un%ao, Butuan Cit'.25*3

7b8 Or#inaril', the benefit receive# b' a spouse from the con9u%al partnership #urin% the marria%e is returne# in e1ual amount to the assets of the con9u%al partnershipC 25+3 an# if the communit' is enriche# at the e,pense of the separate properties of either spouse, a restitution of the value of such properties to their respective o.ners shall be ma#e.25)3 7c8 Subse1uentl', the coupleFs con9u%al partnership shall pa' the #ebts of the con9u%al partnershipC .hile the #ebts an# obli%ation of each of the spouses shall be pai# from their respective separate properties. But if the con9u%al partnership is not sufficient to pa' all its #ebts an# obli%ations, the spouses .ith their separate properties shall be soli#aril' liable.25=3 7#8 o., .hat remains of the separate or e,clusive properties of the husban# an# of the .ife shall be returne# to each of them. 25(3 In the instant case, sin+e it 5*s *.re*d! est* .is"ed ! t"e tri*. +o-rt t"*t t"e spo-ses "*9e no sep*r*te properties, 2543t"ere is not"in/ to ret-rn to *n! o2 t"e#. -he liste# properties above are consi#ere# part of the con9u%al partnership. -hus, or#inaril', .hat remains in the above-liste# properties shoul# be #ivi#e# e1uall' bet.een the spouses an#Por their respective heirs. 25;3 @o.ever, since the trial court foun# the petitioner the %uilt' part', his share from the net profits of the con9u%al partnership is forfeite# in favor of the common chil#ren, pursuant to Article ;=7)8 of the :amil' Co#e. A%ain, lest .e be confuse#, li0e in the absolute communit' re%ime, nothin% .ill be returne# to the %uilt' part' in the con9u%al partnership re%ime, because t"ere is no sep*r*te propert! 5"i+" #*! e *++o-nted 2or in t"e /-i.t! p*rt!8s 2*9or. In the #iscussions above, .e have seen that in both instances, the petitioner is not entitle# to an' propert' at all. -hus, .e cannot but uphol# the >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4 of the trial court. @o.ever, .e must clarif', as .e alrea#' #i# above, the Or#er #ate# &anuar' 5, )**6.

<HERE,ORE, the >ecision #ate# October +*, )**4 of the Re%ional -rial Court, Branch + of Butuan Cit' is A,,IR4ED. Actin% on the Motion for Clarification #ate# &ul' 6, )**; in the Re%ional -rial Court, the Or#er #ate# &anuar' 5, )**6 of the Re%ional -rial Court is hereb' CLARI,IED in accor#ance .ith the above #iscussions. SO ORDERED.

BIENVENIDO L. RE(ES Associate &ustice <E CONCUR)

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Senior Associate &ustice Chairperson, Secon# >ivision

ARTURO D. BRION Associate &ustice

6OSE PORTUGAL PERE= Associate &ustice

4ARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate &ustice

CERTI,ICATION
I certif' that the conclusions in the above >ecision ha# been reache# in consultation before the case .as assi%ne# to the .riter of the opinion of the CourtDs >ivision.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO Senior Associate &ustice 7Per Section +), R.A. )E; -he &u#iciar' Act of +E(5, as amen#e#8

2+3 2)3

*ollo, pp. 6-=4. Penne# b' &u#%e !#uar#o S. CasalsC i#. at ++4-+)). 2=3 I#. at =;. 2(3 I#. at =;-46. 243 I#. at 4;-46. 2;3 A.M. o. *)-++-++-SC. 263 *ollo, p. +54. 253 I#. at 4E. 2E3 I#. at 45-4E. 2+*3 I#. at 4E. 2++3 I#. at ;*. 2+)3 I#. at ;+-;E. 2+=3 I#. at 6*-6;. 2+(3 I#. at 64. 2+43 I#. at 6(-64. 2+;3 I#. at 64-6;. 2+63 I#. at 66-5;. 2+53 I#. at 56-E+. 2+E3 I#. at E*. 2)*3 I#. at E+. 2)+3 I#. at E)-E6. 2))3 I#. at ++4-+)). 2)=3 I#. at +5. 2)(3 I#. at +(=-+(;. 2)43 4*; Phil. ;+=, ;)E 7)**48. 2);3 I#. at ;);. 2)63 I#. at ;)6. 2)53 PC- $easin, and Finance, -nc., v. +ilan, I.R. o. +4+)+4, April 4, )*+*, ;+6 SCRA )45. 2)E3 *ollo, p. +;;. 2=*3 See Moreno, :e#erico B., Philippine $a. #ictionary, =r# e#., +E55, p. EE5. 2=+3 People v. Jud,e Navarro, +4E Phil. 5;=, 56( 7+E648. 2=)3 R.A. o. 5=;E, Section 47#8. 2==3 A.M. o. *)-++-++-SC. 2=(3 I#. at Section )7c8. 2=43 *ollo, p. =5. 2=;3 Sps. (dillo v. Sps. #ulpina, I.R. o. +55=;*, &anuar' )+, )*+*, ;+* SCRA 4E*, ;*+-;*). 2=63 $im v. Jud,e /ian0on, 4)E Phil. (6), (5=-(5( 7)**;8C See also 'errera v. !arretto and Joaquin , )4 Phil. )(4, )4; 7+E+=8, citin% +iller v. *o.an, )4+ Ill., =((. 2=53 *ollo, pp. 4*-4+. 2=E3 I#. at 4+. 2(*3 I#. 2(+3 I#. at 4+-4). 2()3 I#. at 4) an# 4;.

2(=3 2((3

I#. at 4). I#. 2(43 I#. 2(;3 I#. 2(63 I#. at 4)-4=. 2(53 I#. at 4=. 2(E3 I#. at 4=-4(. 24*3 I#. at 44. 24+3 I#. 24)3 I#. at 4;. 24=3 I#. at 46. 24(3 I#. 2443 CILIA CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S, Art. ++E. 24;3 I#. at Art. +(). 2463 I#. at Art. +(=. 2453 :AMIA$ CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S, Art. )4;. 24E3 *ollo, p. )E. 2;*3 CILIA CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S, Art. +(=. 2;+3 I.R. o. +6)*)6, &ul' )E, )*+*, ;); SCRA +5*, )*+. 2;)3 I#. at +EE. 2;=3 -he Court consoli#ate# the follo.in% cases: A!A"A#A uro Party $ist %fficer Samson S. Alcantara, et al. v. &he 'on. ()ecutive Secretary (duardo *. (rmita , I.R. o. +;5*4;C Aquilino 1. Pimentel, Jr., et al. v. ()ecutive Secretary (duardo *. (rmita, et al., I.R. o. +;5)*6C Association of Pilipinas Shell #ealers, -nc., et al. v. Cesar /. Purisima, et al.,I.R. o. +;5(;+C Francis Joseph . (scudero v. Cesar /. Purisima, et al, I.R. o. +;5(;=C an# !ataan overnor (nrique &. arcia, Jr. v. 'on. (duardo *. (rmita, et al., I.R. o. +;56=*. 2;(3 I#. 2;43 *ollo, p. =6. 2;;3 I#. at =E. 2;63 I#. at 44-46. 2;53 (5) Phil. 566-5E( 7)**(8. 2;E3 I#. at 5E*-5E+. 26*3 *ollo, p. 44. 26+3 +alayan (mployees Association2FF3 v. +alayan -nsurance Co., -nc. , I.R. o. +5+=46, :ebruar' ), )*+*, ;++ SCRA =E), =EEC Catmon Sales -nt4l. Corp. v. Atty. 5n,son, Jr.,I.R. o. +6E6;+, &anuar' +4, )*+*, ;+* SCRA )=;, )(4. 26)3 :AMIA$ CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S, Art. +*)7(8. 26=3 I#. at Art. E+C See also -olentino, Arturo, M., COMM! -ARI!S A > &JRISPRJ>! C! O -@! CILIA CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S: LOAJM! O ! ?I-@ -@! :AMIA$ CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S, =6E 7+EE*8. 26(3 :AMIA$ CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S, Art. +*). 2643 -olentino, Arturo, M., COMM! -ARI!S A > &JRISPRJ>! C! O -@! CILIA CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S: LOAJM! O ! ?I-@ -@! :AMIA$ CO>! O: -@!P@IAIPPI !S, (*+-(*) 7+EE*8. 26;3 CILIA CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S, Art. +(). 2663 -olentino, Arturo, M., COMM! -ARI!S A > &JRISPRJ>! C! O -@! CILIA CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S: LOAJM! O !, =;4 7+E6(8. 2653 -olentino, Arturo, M., COMM! -ARI!S A > &JRISPRJ>! C! O -@! CILIA CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S: LOAJM! O ! ?I-@ -@! :AMIA$ CO>! O: -@!P@IAIPPI !S, (6) 7+EE*8. 26E3 *ollo, p. 44. 25*3 I#. at 4;-46. 25+3 :AMIA$ CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S, Art. +)E7)8. 25)3 I#. at Art. +)E7=8. 25=3 I#. at Art. +)E7(8. 25(3 I#. at Art. +)E748. 2543 *ollo, p. 44. 25;3 :AMIA$ CO>! O: -@! P@IAIPPI !S, Art. +)E768.