11/9/2019 G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v.

ner, v. SPOUSES EFREN AND LOLITA SORIANO, Res…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2018 > April 2018 Decisions > G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018 -
COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EFREN AND LOLITA SORIANO, Respondents.:

Custom Search
Search G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EFREN
AND LOLITA SORIANO, Respondents.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018

COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EFREN AND LOLITA SORIANO,
Respondents.

DECISION

TIJAM, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari1

under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeks to reverse and set aside
the Decision2 dated June 18, 2013 and Resolution3 dated February 4, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA G.R. CV No. 97687, affirming the Decision4 dated February 9, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 01, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, in Case No. 6821.

The Antecedents

The CA summarized the antecedents as follows:

Plaintiffs-appellees spouses Efren and Lolita Soriano are engaged in the business of selling
defendant-appellant Coca-Cola products in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. Sometime in 1999,
defendant-appellant thru Cipriano informed plaintiffs-appellees that the former required
security for the continuation of their business. Plaintiffs-appellees were convinced to hand
over two (2) certificates of titles over their property and were made to sign a document.
DebtKollect Company, Inc. Defendant Cipriano assured plaintiffs-appellees that it will be a mere formality and will
never be notarized.

Subsequently, plaintiffs-appellees informed defendant-appellant Coca-Cola of their

intention to stop selling Coca-Cola products due to their advanced age. Thus, plaintiffs-
appellees verbally demanded from defendant-appellant the return of their certificates of
titles. However, the titles were not given back to them.

When plaintiffs-appellees were contemplating on filing a petition for the issuance of new
titles, they discovered for the first time that their land was mortgaged in favor of
defendant-appellant Coca-Cola. Worse, the mortgage land was already foreclosed. Hence,
plaintiffs-appellees filed a complaint for annulment of sheriffs foreclosure sale. They
alleged that they never signed a mortgaged document and that they were never notified of
the foreclosure sale. In addition, plaintiffs-appellees aver that they never had monetary
obligations or debts with defendant-appellant. They always paid their product deliveries in
cash.

Furthermore, plaintiffs-appellees claimed that they merely signed a document in

Tuguegarao. They never signed any document in Ilagan, lsabela nor did they appear before
a certain Atty. Reymundo Ilagan on 06 January 2000 for the notarization of the said
mortgage document.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018aprildecisions.php?id=349 1/7
11/9/2019 G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EFREN AND LOLITA SORIANO, Res…
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
April-2018 Jurisprudence         during the notarization. Likewise, only one witness has signed the document, instead of
        
A.C. No. 9676, April 02, 2018 - IN RE: DECISION
DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 IN OMB-M-A-10-023-A,
ETC. AGAINST ATTY. ROBELITO* B. DIUYAN
G.R. No. 215305, April 03, 2018 - MARCELO G.
SALUDAY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-18-1911 (formerly A.M. No. 17-08-
98-MTC), April 16, 2018 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. WALTER
INOCENCIO V. ARREZA, JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT, PITOGO, QUEZON, Respondent.
G.R. No. 218703, April 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO
LLAMERA Y ATIENZA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 230751, April 25, 2018 - ESTRELLITA
TADEO-MATIAS, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 212866, April 23, 2018 - SPOUSES
FREDESWINDA DRILON YBIOSA AND ALFREDO
YBIOSA, Petitioners, v. INOCENCIO DRILON,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 215387, April 23, 2018 - NORTHERN
MINDANAO INDUSTRIAL PORT AND SERVICES
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ILIGAN CEMENT
CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 221029, April 24, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MARELYN TANEDO
MANALO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 218255, April 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY BUGNA Y
BRITANICO, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 194575, April 11, 2018 - ANGELITO N.
GABRIEL, Petitioner, v. PETRON CORPORATION,
ALFRED A. TRIO, AND FERDINANDO ENRIQUEZ,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 203435, April 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARDY AQUINO,
MARIO AQUINO, RECTO AQUINO, INYONG NARVANTE,
ROMY FERNANDEZ, FELIX SAPLAN, BONIFACIO
CAGUIOA AND JUANITO AQUINO, Accused.; MARDY
MARIO AQUINO, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 219957, April 04, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ELEUTERIO
URMAZA Y TORRES, Accused-Appellants.
G.R. No. 213225, April 04, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RENANTE
COMPRADO FBRONOLA, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 210446, April 18, 2018 - ANGELICA G.
CRUZ, ANNA MARIE KUDO, ALBERT G. CRUZ AND
ARTURO G. CRUZ, Petitioners, v. MARYLOU
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018aprildecisions.php?id=349
On their part, defendant-appellant alleged that plaintiffs-appellees are indebted to them.
Plaintiffs-appellees' admission that they signed the real estate mortgage document in
Tuguegarao, Cagayan indicates that the mortgage agreement was duly executed. The
failure of the parties to appear before the notary public for the execution ofthe document
does not render the same null and void or unenforceable.5
Ruling of the RTC
On February 9, 2011, the RTC rendered its decision nullifying the real estate mortgage and the
foreclosure proceedings. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby renders judgment in favor of the
plaintiffs and against the defendants as follows:
1. Declaring the real estate mortgage (Exhibit "A") to be null and void:
2. Declaring the Sheriff’s Certificate of Sale (Exhibit "B") to be null and void;
3. Declaring the claim of the defendants that the land of the plaintiffs had been mortgaged
to defendant corporation to be unlawful;
4. Declaring the cloud over the title and interest of the plaintiffs be removed;
5. Ordering the defendants to surrender and deliver TCT No. T-86200 and TCT No. T-84673
to the plaintiffs; and
6. Ordering the defendants in solidum to pay to plaintiffs the sum of P50,000.00 as moral
damages and P20,000.00 as attorney's fees.
No pronouncement as to cost.
SO DECIDED.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On June 18, 2013, the CA rendered the assailed decision affirming the RTC decision in toto. The CA ruled
that the Real Estate Mortgage deed (REM deed) failed to comply substantially with the required form.
Thus, it made the following findings:
A careful perusal of the mortgage deed has revealed that although the spouses signed the
real estate mortgage deed, they never acknowledged the same before the Clerk of Court
the required presence of two (2) witnesses as provided by law.
In the acknowledgment portion, only defendant Cipriano and defendant-appellant Coca
Cola has appeared and acknowledged the real estate mortgage deed before the Clerk of
Court. Nowhere did the plaintiffs-appellees acknowledge before the Clerk of Court the said
deed as their free and voluntary act. Contrary to defendant-appellant's contention, this
acknowledgment is not a mere superfluity because it is expressly required by law. Even
granting arguendo that the document should be considered properly notarized, the
aforementioned real estate mortgage deed still fell short of the legal requirements under
Section 112 of P.D. 1529.
Therefore, for failure to comply substantially with the required form, We find that plaintiffs-
appellees' land cannot be bound by the real estate mortgage. We uphold the court a quo in
finding both the real estate mortgage constituted over plaintiffs-appellees' property and
the subsequent extrajudicial foreclosure invalid.6
Hence, the instant petition before Us. In its Petition and Reply,7 petitioner argues that the defect in the
notarization of the REM deed does not in any way affect its validity. Section 112 of Presidential Decree
No. 1529 (P.D. 1529) only provides for the formal requirements for registrability and not validity.
Assuming that the mortgage contract cannot be registrable due to lack of certain requirements, its only
effect is that it does not bind third parties but the mortgage remains valid as between the parties.8
Finally, petitioner alleges that there was no forgery considering that respondents admitted the due
execution of the REM deed in their complaint. On the other hand, respondents, in their Comment9,
reiterated the findings of the courts a quo and asseverated that petitioner failed to show any reversible
error in the CA decision.
The Issue
Ultimately, the question posed before Us is the validity of a REM, the deed of which was: (1) admittedly
signed by the mortgagors, albeit in a place other than that stated in the document, on the belief that the
same would not be notarized; and (2) notarized without authority and compliance with the prescribed
form under Section 112 of P.D. 1529. Corollary to the validity of the said mortgage is the validity of the
foreclosure sale pursuant to it.
Our Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit.
At the outset, We stress that the registration of a REM deed is not essential to its validity. The law is clear
on the requisites for the validity of a mortgage, to wit:
Art. 2085. The following requisites are essential to the contracts of pledge and mortgage:
(1) That they be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation;
(2) That the pledgor or mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing pledged or
mortgaged;
(3) That the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of their
property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the purpose.
Third persons who are not parties to the principal obligation may secure the latter by
pledging or mortgaging their own property.
In relation thereto, Article 2125 provides:
Article 2125. In addition to the requisites stated in Article 2085, it is indispensable, in
order that a mortgage may be validly constituted, that the document in which it appears
be recorded in the Registry of Property. If the instrument is not recorded, the
mortgage is nevertheless binding between the parties. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, as between the parties to a mortgage, the non-registration of a REM deed is immaterial to its
validity. In the case of Paradigm Development Corporation of the Philippines, v. Bank of the Philippine
2/7
11/9/2019 G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EFREN AND LOLITA SORIANO, Res…
TOLENTINO AND THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF Islands,10 the mortgagee allegedly represented that it will not register one of the REMs signed by the
DEEDS OF MANDALUYONG CITY, Respondents. mortgagor. In upholding the validity of the questioned REM between the said parties, the Court ruled that
"with or without the registration of the REMs, as between the parties thereto, the same is valid and [the
G.R. No. 200075, April 04, 2018 - SALIC MAPANDI
mortgagor] is bound thereby." The Court, thus, cited its ruling in the case of Mobil Oil Philippines, Inc., v.
Y DIMAAMPAO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Ruth R. Diocares, et al.11 a portion of which reads:

G.R. No. 216714, April 04, 2018 - SPOUSES
GODFREY AND MA. TERESA TEVES, Petitioners, v.
INTEGRATED CREDIT & CORPORATE SERVICES, CO.
(NOW CAROL AQUI), Respondent.
G.R. No. 217805, April 02, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALSARIF BINTAIB
Y FLORENCIO A.K.A. "LENG," Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 189590, April 23, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN,
ROMEO G. PANGANIBAN, FE L. PANGANIBAN,
GERALDINE L. PANGANIBAN, ELSA P. DE LUNA AND
PURITA P. SARMIENTO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 219240, April 04, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRYAN GANABA Y
NAM-AY, Accused-Appellant.
Xxx. The codal provision is clear and explicit. Even if the instrument were not recorded,
"the mortgage is nevertheless binding between the parties." The law cannot be any clearer.
Effect must be given to it as written. The mortgage subsists; the parties are bound. As
between them, the mere fact that there is as yet no compliance with the
requirement that it be recorded cannot be a bar to foreclosure.
xxxx
Moreover to rule as the lower court did would be to show less than fealty to the purpose
that animated the legislators in giving expression to their will that the failure of the
instrument to be recorded does not result in the mortgage being any the less "binding
between the parties." In the language of the Report of the Code Commission: "In Article
[2125] an additional provision is made that if the instrument of mortgage is not recorded,
the mortgage, is nevertheless binding between the parties." We are not free to adopt then
an interpretation, even assuming that the codal provision lacks the forthrightness and
clarity that this particular norm does and therefore requires construction, that would
frustrate or nullify such legislative objective.12 (Citation omitted; emphasis ours)

G.R. No. 211273, April 18, 2018 - RAYMOND A. Based on the foregoing, the CA, in the case at bar, clearly erred in ruling that the parties in the instant
SON, RAYMOND S. ANTIOLA, AND WILFREDO E. case cannot be bound by the REM deed. In arriving at such ruling, the CA relied on the following
POLLARCO, Petitioners, v. UNIVERSITY OF SANTO pronouncements of this Court in the case of Spouses Adelina S. Cuyco and Feliciano U Cuyco, v. Spouses
TOMAS, FR. ROLANDO DELA ROSA, DR. CLARITA Renaoa Cuyco and Filipina Cuyco: 13
CARILLO, DR. CYNTHIA LOZA, FR. EDGARDO
ALAURIN, AND THE COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS AND In order to constitute a legal mortgage, it must be executed in a public
DESIGN FACULTY COUNCIL, Respondents. document, besides being recorded. A provision in a private document, although
denominating the agreement as one of mortgage, cannot be considered as it is not
G.R. Nos. 192595-96, April 11, 2018 - NATIONAL
ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA), susceptible of inscription in the property registry. A mortgage in legal form is not
Petitioner, v. MAGUINDANAO ELECTRIC constituted by a private document, even if such mortgage be accompanied with delivery of
COOPERATIVE, INC., REPRESENTED BY possession of the mortgage property. Besides, by express provisions of Section 127
MAGUINDANAO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE-PALMA of Act No. 496, a mortgage affecting land, whether registered under said Act or
AREA (MAGELCO-PALMA), REPRESENTED BY ATTY. not registered at all, is not deemed to be sufficient in law nor may it be effective
LITTIE SARAH A. AGDEPPA, ANTONIO U. ACUB, to encumber or bind the land unless made substantially in the form therein
EDGAR L. LA VEGA, RET. JUDGE TERESITA CARREON prescribed. It is required, among other things, that the document be signed by the
LLABAN, EMILY LLABAN, ARMANDO C. LLABAN, AUDIE mortgagor executing the same, in the presence of two witnesses, and acknowledged as his
D. MACASARTE, WILFREDO Q. LLABAN, EVANGELINE free act and deed before a notary public. A mortgage constituted by means of a private
A. VARILLA, CORAZON TUMANG, AND PRESCILLA
document obviously does not comply with such legal requirements.14 (Citations omitted;
LANO, Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 192676-77, April 11,
2018 - COTABATO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. emphasis ours)
(COTELCO), REPRESENTED BY ALEJANDRO Q.
COLLADOS AS GENERAL MANAGER, Petitioner, v.
The aforecited pronouncements by this Court, however, relate to the issue on whether the subject realty
MAGUINDANAO ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE-PALMA of the REM was bound by the additional loans executed between the parties. The validity of the said REM
AREA (MAGELCO-PALMA), REPRESENTED BY ATTY. was not put into question in the said case. Thus, in the present case, the CA erred in relying on the said
LITTIE SARAH A. AGDEPPA, ANTONIO U. ACUB, pronouncements.
EDGAR L. LA VEGA, RET. JUDGE TERESITA CARREON
LLABAN EVANGELINE A. VARILLA, AND CORAZON To reiterate, the law is clear and explicit as to the validity of an unregistered REM between the parties.
TUMANG; AND MAGUINDANAO ELECTRIC Indeed, if an unregistered REM is binding between the parties thereto, all the more is a registered REM,
COOPERATIVE, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS such as the REM deed in this case.
PRESIDENT, DATU TUMAGANTANG ZAINAL,
Respondents. Here, although the REM deed was registered and annotated on the back of the title, the petitioner failed
to comply with the provisions under Section 112 of P.D. 1529, viz:
G.R. No. 232892, April 04, 2018 - ALFREDO
MALLARI MAGAT, Petitioner, v. INTERORIENT xxxx
MARITIME ENTERPRISES, INC., INTERORIENT
MARITIME ENTERPRISE LIBERIA FOR DROMON E.N.E. Deeds, conveyances, encumbrances, discharges, powers of attorney and other voluntary
AND JASMIN P. ARBOLEDA, Respondent. instruments, whether affecting registered or unregistered land, executed in accordance
with law in the form of public instruments shall be registerable: Provided, that, every
G.R. No. 208284, April 23, 2018 - THE IGLESIA DE such instrument shall be signed by the person or persons executing the same in the
JESUCRISTO JERUSALEM NUEVA OF MANILA, presence of at least two witnesses who shall likewise sign thereon, and shall
PHILIPPINES, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS
acknowledged to be the free act and deed of the person or persons executing the
PRESIDENT, FRANCISCO GALVEZ, Petitioner, v. LOIDA
DELA CRUZ USING THE NAME CHURCH OF JESUS same before a notary public or other public officer authorized by law to take
CHRIST, "NEW JERUSALEM" AND ALL PERSONS acknowledgment. Where the instrument so acknowledged consists of two or more pages
CLAIMING RIGHTS UNDER HER, Respondents. including the page whereon acknowledgment is written, each page of the copy which is to
be registered in the office of the Register of Deeds, or if registration is not contemplated,
G.R. No. 223321, April 02, 2018 - ROGELIO M. each page of the copy to be kept by the notary public, except the page where the
FLORETE, SR., THE ESTATE OF THE LATE TERESITA F. signatures already appear at the foot of the instrument, shall be signed on the left margin
MENCHAVEZ, REPRESENTED BY MARY ANN THERESE thereof by the person or persons executing the instrument and their witnesses, and all the
F. MENCHAVEZ, ROSIE JILL F. MENCHAVEZ, MA. pages sealed with the notarial seal, and this fact as well as the number of pages shall be
ROSARIO F. MENCHAVEZ, CRISTINE JOY F. stated in the acknowledgment. Where the instrument acknowledged relates to a sale,
MENCHAVEZ, AND EPHRAIM MENCHAVEZ, AND DIANE transfer, mortgage or encumbrance of two or more parcels of land, the number thereof
GRACE F. MENCHAVEZ, Petitioners, v. MARCELINO M. shall likewise be set forth in said acknowledgment. (Emphasis ours)
FLORETE, JR. AND MA. ELENA F. MUYCO, Respondents
Respondents thus argue that the REM agreement is not a public document because it was notarized by a
G.R. No. 233325, April 16, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
Clerk of Court of the RTC of Ilagan who is not allowed by law to notarize private documents not related to
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PASTORLITO V.
DELA VICTORIA, Accused-Appellant. their functions as clerk of court.

G.R. No. 218584, April 25, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

We find merit in the said argument.
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DENNIS
MANALIGOD Y SANTOS, Accused-Appellant. Jurisprudence is replete with cases declaring that the notarization of documents that have no relation to
the performance of official functions of the clerk of courts is now considered to be beyond the scope of
G.R. No. 234048, April 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE their authority as notaries public ex officio.15
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MALOU
ALVARADO Y FLORES, ALVIN ALVAREZ Y LONQUIAS Nonetheless, the defective notarization of the REM agreement merely strips it of its public
AND RAMIL DAL Y MOLIANEDA, Accused-Appellants. character and reduces it to a private document.16 Although Article 1358 of the New Civil Code
requires that the form of a contract transmitting or extinguishing real rights over immovable property
G.R. No. 219113, April 25, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE should be in a public document, the failure to observe such required form does not render the transaction
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLAND MIRAÑA
Y ALCARAZ, Accused-Appellant. invalid.17 The necessity of a public document for the said contracts is only for convenience; it is not
essential for its validity or enforceability. Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a
G.R. No. 202217, April 25, 2018 - PABLO C. document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard originally attached to a duly-notarized
HIDALGO, Petitioner, v. SONIA VELASCO, Respondent. document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of
evidence.18
G.R. No. 199161, April 18, 2018 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. JAMES T. CUA, Thus, in order to determine the validity of the REM in this case, the REM agreement shall be subject to
Respondent. the requirement of proof under Section 20, Rule 132, viz:
G.R. No. 197645, April 18, 2018 - CARLOS JAY Section 20. Proof of private document. - Before any private document offered as authentic
ADLAWAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE is received in evidence its due execution and authenticity must be proved either:
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018aprildecisions.php?id=349 3/7
11/9/2019 G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EFREN AND LOLITA SORIANO, Res…
G.R. No. 231053, April 04, 2018 - DESIDERIO
DALISAY INVESTMENTS, INC., Petitioner, v. SOCIAL
SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondent.
G.R. No. 192797, April 18, 2018 - EXCELLENT
ESSENTIALS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. EXTRA EXCEL INTERNATIONAL
PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 218108, April 11, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODOLFO
ADVINCULA Y MONDANO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 195814, April 04, 2018 - EVERSLEY
CHILDS SANITARIUM, REPRESENTED BY DR.
GERARDO M. AQUINO, JR. (NOW DR. PRIMO JOEL S.
ALVEZ) CHIEF OF SANITARIUM, Petitioner, v.
SPOUSES ANASTACIO AND PERLA BARBARONA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 212785, April 04, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. GO PEI HUNG,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 199513, April 18, 2018 - TERESA
GUTIERREZ YAMAUCHI, Petitioner, v. ROMEO F.
SUÑIGA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 226727, April 25, 2018 - UNIVERSITY OF
THE EAST AND DR. ESTER GARCIA, Petitioners, v.
VERONICA M. MASANGKAY AND GERTRUDO R.
REGONDOLA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 209031, April 16, 2018 - ABIGAEL AN
ESPINA-DAN, Petitioner, v. MARCO DAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 214367, April 04, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LAUREANA MALIJAN-
JAVIER AND IDEN MALIJAN-JAVIER, Respondents.
G.R. No. 220146, April 18, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLEN ABINA Y
LATORRE AND JESUS LATORRE Y DERAYA, Accused-
Appellants.
G.R. No. 202784, April 18, 2018 - JONNEL D.
ESPALDON, Petitioner, v. RICHARD E. BUBAN IN HIS
CAPACITY AS GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION OFFICER II, MEDWIN S. DIZON IN HIS
CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR, PIAB-A, ALEU A. AMANTE IN
HIS CAPACITY AS ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN, PAMO I,
AND CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES IN HER CAPACITY
AS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PETER L. CALIMAG, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, REVENUE AFFAIRS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
GROUP, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, RENATO M.
GARBO III, MA. LETICIA MALMALATEO, MARLON K.
TAULI, FRAYN M. BANAWA, AND JOHNNY CAGUIAT,
ALL NBI AGENTS, NATIONAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, ROGELIO M. SABADO, AND
PRUDENCIO S. DAR, JR., RAILWAY POLICE,
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, ANTONIO
MARIANO ALMEDA, IRENEO C. QUIZON, ARIEL
SARMIENTO, DOMINGO BEGUERAS, JOHN DOES/JANE
DOES, NBI AND/OR PNR, Respondents.
G.R. No. 216065, April 18, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNANTE
MANZANERO Y HABANA A.K.A. "NANTE," MARIO
TANYAG Y MARASIGAN A.K.A. "TAGA," ANGELITO
EVANGELISTA Y AVELINO A.K.A. "LITO," ARTHUR
FAJARDO Y MAMALAYAN, MARIO EVANGELISTA A.K.A.
"TIKYO," PATRICK ALEMANIA A.K.A. "BOBBY
PATRICK," TOYING PENALES A.K.A. "TOYING," A.K.A.
"REY," AND A.K.A. "MARLON," ACCUSED, ARTHUR
FAJARDO Y MAMALAYAN, Accused-Appellant.
A.C. No. 11821 (formerly CBD Case No. 15-4477),
April 02, 2018 - DARIO TANGCAY, Complainant, v.
HONESTO ANCHETA CABARROGUIS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 193572, April 04, 2018 - TSUNEISHI
HEAVY INDUSTRIES (CEBU), INC., Petitioner, v. MIS
MARITIME CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 199353, April 04, 2018 - LEVISTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INC., Petitioner, v. LEGASPI
TOWERS 200, INC., AND VIVIAN Y. LOCSIN AND
PITONG MARCORDE, RESPONDENTS. ENGR. NELSON
Q. IRASGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL
BUILDING OFFICIAL OF MAKATI, METRO MANILA AND
HON. JOSE P. DE JESUS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS, THIRD PARTY, Respondents.; G.R. NO.
199389, April 04, 2018 - LEGASPI TOWERS 200, INC.,
Petitioner, v. LEVISTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INC.,
ENGR. NELSON Q. IRASGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
MUNICIPAL BLDG. OFFICIAL OF MAKATI, METRO
MANILA, AND HON. JOSE P. DE JESUS, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 185530, April 18, 2018 - MAKATI TUSCANY
CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MULTI-
REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
G.R. No. 223399, April 23, 2018 - FATIMA O. DE
GUZMAN-FUERTE, MARRIED TO MAURICE GEORGE
FUERTE, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES SILVINO S.ESTOMO
AND CONCEPCION C. ESTOMO, Respondents.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018aprildecisions.php?id=349
b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
(Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, the party invoking the validity of the private document has the burden of proving its due
execution and authenticity.19 Here, the respondents claim that their signature was a forgery because
they signed the REM deed in Tuguegarao and not in Isabela, as stated therein. Further, they alleged that
they were assured by petitioner that the same will not be notarized and is a mere formality.
Although the burden was on the petitioner to prove the REM deed's due execution and authenticity,
respondents' allegations and admissions should be weighed against their favor.
In the case of Gloria and Teresita Tan Ocampo v. Land Bank of the Philippines Urdaneta, Pangasinan
Branch and Ex Officio Provincial Sheriff of Pangasinan,20 the mortgagors sought the nullity of the REM on
the ground of forgery. The Court ruled that forgery is present when any writing is counterfeited by the
signing of another's name with intent to defraud. However, the Court affirmed the CA in finding no reason
to discuss forgery in light of the admission by the mortgagor that she had affixed her signature to the
subject Deed of REM.21
Likewise, in this case, it is undisputed that the respondents signed the REM deed. They merely invoke the
nullity of the same on the grounds that it was not signed in the place stated therein and that they were
made to believe that it will not be notarized. Thus, in their Amended Complaint22, respondents alleged:
That defendants through the machinations and manipulations of defendant Reynaldo C.
Cipriano as the General Manager, convinced the plaintiffs to give them titles of whatever
lands as guaranty for the subsequent deliveries of coca-cola products and there is nothing
to worry because the titles shall be returned any time after their accounts are fully settled;
as the plaintiffs were in good faith, handed the titles of their lands described in paragraph
4, of this complaint to defendant Reynaldo C. Cipriano (why) who assured plaintiffs that is
only a formality, and there is nothing to worry; plaintiffs signed the said document in
Tuguegarao City and not in Hagan, lsabela and defendant Reynaldo C. Cipriano
assured the plaintiffs that the document will not be notarized. (Emphasis ours)
Clearly, the respondents did not specifically deny the due execution and genuineness of the REM deed.
The early case of Lamberto Songco, v. George C. Sellner23 is instructive on how to deny the genuineness
and due execution of an actionable document, to wit:
X x x. This means that the defendant must declare under oath that he did not sign the
document or that it is otherwise false or fabricated. Neither does the statement of the
answer to the effect that the instrument was procured by fraudulent representation raise
any issue as to its genuineness or due execution. On the contrary such a plea is an
admission both of the genuineness and due execution thereof, since it seeks to avoid
the instrument upon a ground not affecting either. x x x (Emphasis ours)
In light of the foregoing, We find merit in petitioner's argument that the due execution and genuineness
of the REM deed was impliedly admitted by the respondents when they admitted signing the same. A
perusal of all the pleadings filed by the respondents reveal that their arguments are anchored on the
supposed fraud employed by the petitioner that led to their acts of surrendering the titles and signing the
REM deed. Thus, respondents essentially seeks the annulment of the REM on the ground of fraud.
Under Article 1344 of the Civil Code, fraud, as a ground for annulment of a contract, should be serious
and should not have been employed by both contracting parties. Article 1338 of the same Code further
provides that there is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting
parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would not have agreed to.
In PDCP24, this Court refused to annul the REMs on the ground of fraud consisting of the mortgagee's
assurances that the REMs already signed by the mortgagor would not be registered, thus:
In the present case, even if FEBTC represented that it will not register one of the REMs,
PDCP cannot disown the REMs it executed after FEBTC reneged on its alleged promise. As
earlier stated, with or without the registration of the REMs, as between the parties thereto,
the same is valid and PDCP is already bound thereby. The signature of PDCP's
President coupled with its act of surrendering the titles to the four properties to
FEBTC is proof that no fraud existed in the execution of the contract. Arguably at
most, FEBTC's act of registering the mortgage only amounted to dolo incidente
which is not the kind of fraud that avoids a contract. (Emphasis supplied)
The foregoing factual circumstances in PDCP are attendant in the present case. The respondents herein
also signed the REM deed and surrendered the titles of the properties to the petitioner. Thus, We find that
a claim of fraud in favor of the respondents does not persuade.
Moreover, in the case of Ocampo,25 the mortgagor maintained that when she signed the questioned REM
deed in blank form, she was led to believe by the mortgagee that such would only be used to process her
loan application. The Court, likewise, was not persuaded by such claim of fraud, thus:
Unfortunately, Ocampo was unable to establish clearly and precisely how the Land Bank
committed the alleged fraud. She failed to convince Us that she was deceived, through
misrepresentations and/or insidious actions, into signing a blank form for use as security to
her previous loan. Quite the contrary, circumstances indicate the weakness of her
submissions. The Court of Appeals aptly held that:
Granting, for the sake of argument, that appellant bank did not apprise the
appellees of the real nature of the real estate mortgage, such stratagem,
deceit or misrepresentations employed by defendant bank are facts
constitutive of fraud which is defined in Article 1338 of the Civil Code as that
insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, by which
the other is induced to enter into a contract which without them, he would
not have agreed to. When fraud is employed to obtain the consent of the
other party to enter into a contract, the resulting contract is merely a
voidable contract, that is a valid and subsisting contract until annulled or set
aside by a competent court. x x x
With the foregoing, We find that the preponderance of evidence tilts in favor of the petitioner. The due
execution and genuineness of the REM deed was proven by the admission of the respondents that they
signed the same. This is bolstered by the fact that the titles were surrendered to the petitioner. Other
than bare allegations, respondents' claim of fraud is not supported by preponderance of evidence.
Further, the courts a quo, in declaring the REM deed null and void, erred in ruling that registration and
compliance with the prescribed form are essential in the validity of a REM. In fine, We rule that the REM
between the parties herein is valid.
As to the issue on the validity of the foreclosure proceedings, We find no cogent reason to nullify the
same. Basic is the rule that unless the parties stipulate, personal notice to the mortgagor in extrajudicial
foreclosure proceedings is not necessary because Section 3 of Act No. 3135 only requires the posting of
the notice of sale in three public places and the publication of that notice in a newspaper of general
4/7
11/9/2019 G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EFREN AND LOLITA SORIANO, Res…
G.R. No. 213617, April 18, 2018 - ARCH. EUSEBIO
B. BERNAL, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND
STYLE CONTEMPORARY BUILDERS, Petitioner, v. DR.
VIVENCIO VILLAFLOR AND DRA. GREGORIA
VILLAFLOR, Respondents.
G.R. No. 214803, April 23, 2018 - ALONA G.
ROLDAN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES CLARENCE I.
BARRIOS AND ANNA LEE T. BARRIOS, ROMMEL
MATORRES, AND HON. JEMENA ABELLAR ARBIS, IN
HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 6,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, AKLAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 228470, April 23, 2018 - LOADSTAR
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING, INC., Petitioner, v.
ERNESTO AWITEN YAMSON, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
HEIRS GEORGIA M. YAMSON AND THEIR CHILDREN,
NAMELY: JENNIE ANN MEDINA YAMSON, KIMBERLY
SHEEN MEDINA YAMSON, JOSHUA MEDINA YAMSON
AND ANGEL LOUISE MEDINA YAMSON, Respondents.
circulation.26 Moreover, the same was not put into issue in this case. The foreclosure proceedings were
nullified by the courts a quo merely as a consequence of the nullification of the REM deed. Consequently,
We find that the foreclosure proceedings are likewise valid.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED. The Decisions of the Regional Trial Court
dated February 9, 2011 and the Court of Appeals dated June 18, 2013 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The complaint filed by the respondents Spouses Efren and Lolita Soriano is hereby DISMISSED for lack
of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Leonardo-De Castro* and Peralta,**JJ., concur.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson) and Del Castillo, J., on leave.
Endnotes:
*Designated as Acting Chairperson pursuant to Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28,
2018.

G.R. No. 201414, April 18, 2018 - PEDRO PEREZ, ** Designated as additional member, as per Raffle dated February 14, 2018.
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. 1Rollo, pp. 3-15.
G.R. No. 198393, April 04, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE 2
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. RODOLFO M. CUENCA, Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser and concurred in by Associate Justices
FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, Amelita G. Tolentino and Ramon R. Garcia; id. at 46-53.
ROBERTO S. CUENCA, MANUEL I. TINIO, VICTOR
3 Id. at 71-73.
AFRICA, MARIO K. ALFELOR, DON M. FERRY AND
OSCAR BELTRAN, Respondents.
4 Penned by Judge Pablo M. Agustin; id. at 40-44.
G.R. No. 208091, April 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BENITO MOLEJON, 5 Id. at 46-47.
Accused-Appellant.
6 Id. at 52.
G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018 - COCA-COLA
BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES 7
EFREN AND LOLITA SORIANO, Respondents. Id. at 94-100.
8 Id. at 98-99.
A.C. No. 9186, April 11, 2018 - ATTY. JUAN PAULO
VILLONCO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMEO G. ROXAS,
9 Id. at 74-83.
Respondent.

G.R. No. 226590, April 23, 2018 - SHIRLEY T. LIM, 10 G.R. No. 191174, June 07, 2017.
MARY T. LIMLEON AND JIMMY T. LIM, Petitioners, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. 11 140 Phil. 171 (1969).
G.R. No. 206529, April 23, 2018 - RENANTE B. 12 Id. at 176-177.
REMOTICADO, Petitioner, v. TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION
TRADING CORP. AND ROMMEL M. ALIGNAY, 13
Respondents. 521 Phil. 796 (2006).
14 Id. at 810.
G.R. No. 229047, April 16, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMONCITO
15Mathaeus v. Medequiso, 780 Phil. 309 (2016); Coquia v. Laforteza, A.C. No. 9364,
CORNEL Y ASUNCION, Accused-Appellants.
February 8, 2017.
G.R. No. 211187, April 16, 2018 - SCANMAR
MARITIME SERVICES, INC. AND CROWN 16Rural Bank of Cabadbaran, Inc., v. Melecio-Yap, et al., 740 Phil. 35 (2014).
SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioners, v. CELESTINO
M. HERNANDEZ, JR., Respondent. 17Bitte, et al., v. Sps. Jonas, 775 Phil. 447, 462-463 (2015).
G.R. No. 216922, April 18, 2018 - JAYLORD DIMAL 18Castillo v. Security Bank Corporation, et al., 740 Phil. 145, 154 (2014).
AND ALLAN CASTILLO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. 19Bitte, et al., v. Sps. Jonas, supra at 464.
G.R. No. 230249, April 24, 2018 - ATTY. PABLO B.
20 609 Phil. 337, 346 (2009).
FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND ATTY. JOHNIELLE KEITH P. NIETO,
Respondents. 21 Id.

G.R. No. 196020, April 18, 2018 - MANILA 22Rollo, p. 26.

ELECTRIC COMPANY, VICENTE MONTERO, MR.
BONDOC, AND MR. BAYONA, Petitioners, v. NORDEC 23 G.R. No. L-11513, December 4, 1917.
PHILIPPINES AND/OR MARVEX INDUSTRIAL CORP.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, DR. POTENCIANO 24PDCP v. BPI, supra note 10.
R. MALVAR, Respondents.; G.R. No. 196116, April 18,
2018 - NORDEC PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY ITS 25Ocampo,
PRESIDENT, DR. POTENCIANO R. MALVAR, Petitioner, et al., v. Land Bank of the Philippines. et al., supra note 20, id. at 350.
v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, VICENTE MONTERO,
26PDCP v. BPI, supra note 10.
MR. BONDOC, AND MR. BAYONA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 191310, April 11, 2018 - PRINCESS

TALENT CENTER PRODUCTION, INC., AND/OR LUCHI
SINGH MOLDES, Petitioners, v. DESIREE T. MASAGCA,
Respondent.
Back to Home | Back to Main
G.R. No. 232131, April 24, 2018 - REY NATHANIEL
C. IFURUNG, Petitioner, v. HON. CONCHITA C. CARPIO
MORALES IN HER CAPACITY AS THE OMBUDSMAN,
HON. MELCHOR ARTHUR H. CARANDANG, HON. QUICK SEARCH
GERARD ABETO MOSQUERA, HON. PAUL ELMER M.
CLEMENTE, HON. RODOLFO M. ELMAN, HON. CYRIL
ENGUERRA RAMOS IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS
DEPUTIES OMBUDSMAN, AND THE OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, Respondents. 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
G.R. No. 223660, April 02, 2018 - LOURDES
VALDERAMA, Petitioner, v. SONIA ARGUELLES AND 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
LORNA ARGUELLES, Respondents. 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
G.R. No. 219953, April 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGELITA REYES 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
Y GINOVE AND JOSEPHINE SANTA MARIA Y SANCHEZ,
Accused-Appellants. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. Nos. 232197-98, April 16, 2018 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), ALEJANDRO 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
E. GAMOS, AND ROSALYN G. GILE, Respondents.
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018aprildecisions.php?id=349 5/7
11/9/2019 G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EFREN AND LOLITA SORIANO, Res…
G.R. No. 214759, April 04, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DINA CALATES Y
DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellants. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. 194765, April 23, 2018 - MARSMAN &
COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v. RODIL C. STA. RITA, 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Respondent.

A.M. No. MTJ-15-1860 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-

2224-MTJ), April 03, 2018 - ROSILANDA M.
KEUPPERS, Complainant, v. JUDGE VIRGILIO G.
MURCIA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES,
BRANCH 2, ISLAND GARDEN CITY OF SAMAL,
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
Respondent.

IPI No. 17-267-CA-J, April 24, 2018 - RE: VERIFIED

COMPLAINT OF FERNANDO CASTILLO AGAINST
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIFLOR PUNZALAN-
CASTILLO, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA.

G.R. No. 210518, April 18, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MARTIN NIKOLAI Z.
JAVIER AND MICHELLE K. MERCADO-JAVIER,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 210580, April 18, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LUDYSON C. CATUBAG,
Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 201225-26 (From CTA-EB Nos. 649 &

651), April 18, 2018 - TEAM SUAL CORPORATION
(FORMERLY MIRANT SUAL CORPORATION),
Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.; G.R. No. 201132 (From CTA-
EB No. 651), April 18, 2018; COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. TEAM SUAL
CORPORATION (FORMERLY MIRANT SUAL
CORPORATION), Respondent.; G.R. No. 201133 (From
CTA-EB No. 649), April 18, 2018; COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. TEAM SUAL
CORPORATION (FORMERLY MIRANT SUAL
CORPORATION), Respondent.

G.R. No. 197930, April 17, 2018 - EFRAIM C.

GENUINO, ERWIN F. GENUINO AND SHERYL G. SEE,
Petitioners, v. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, IN HER
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, AND RICARDO
V. PARAS III, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF STATE
COUNSEL, CRISTINO L. NAGUIAT, JR. AND THE
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Respondents.; G.R. No.
199034, April 17, 2018 - MA. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-
ARROYO, Petitioner, v. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, AS
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., AS COMMISSIONER OF THE
BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, Respondents.; G.R. No.
199046, April 17, 2018 - JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO,
Petitioner, v. HON. LEILA M. DE LIMA, AS SECRETARY
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO V.
PARAS III, AS CHIEF STATE COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE AND RICARDO A. DAVID, JR., IN HIS
CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION, Respondents.

G.R. No. 210475, April 11, 2018 - RAMON K.

ILUSORIO, MA. LOURDES C. CRISTOBAL, ROMEO G.
RODRIGUEZ, EDUARDO C. ROJAS, CESAR B. CRISOL,
VIOLETA J. JOSEF, ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO, SHEREEN
K. ILUSORIO, AND CECILIA A. BISUÑA, Petitioners, v.
SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 232247, April 23, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONILLO LOPEZ,
JR. Y MANTALABA @ "DODONG", Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 226481, April 18, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAYCENT MOLA Y
SELBOSA A.K.A. "OTOK", Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 222861, April 23, 2018 - PO2 JESSIE

FLORES Y DE LEON, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 214886, April 04, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BERNIE
CONCEPCION, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 195320, April 23, 2018 - BUREAU OF

INTERNAL REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
v. HON. ERNESTO D. ACOSTA, ET AL. OF THE SPECIAL
FIRST DIVISION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND
CHEVRON PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY CALTEX
PHILIPPINES, INC.), Respondents.

G.R. No. 195962, April 18, 2018 - PRESIDENTIAL

COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioner, v.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, PLACIDO L. MAPA, JR.,
RECIO M. GARCIA, LEON O. TY, JOSE R. TENGCO, JR.,
ALEJANDRO MELCHOR, VICENTE PATERNO, RUBEN
ANCHETA, RAFAEL SISON, HILARION M. HENARES,
JR., CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA AND GENEROSO F.
TENSECO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 230473, April 23, 2018 - SEACREST

MARITIME MANAGEMENT, INC. AND/OR HERNING
SHIPPING ASIA PTE. LTD., Petitioners, v. ALMA Q.
RODEROS, AS WIDOW AND LEGAL HEIR OF
FRANCISCO RODEROS, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-18-3833 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-

4370-P), April 16, 2018 - JULIUS E. PADUGA,

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018aprildecisions.php?id=349 6/7
11/9/2019 G.R. No. 211232, April 11, 2018 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES EFREN AND LOLITA SORIANO, Res…
Complainant, v. ROBERTO "BOBBY" R. DIMSON,
SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF VALENZUELA
CITY, BRANCH 171, Respondent.

G.R. No. 226656, April 23, 2018 - ARNEL T. GERE,

Petitioner, v. ANGLO-EASTERN CREW MANAGEMENT
PHILS., INC. AND/OR ANGLO-EASTERN CREW
MANAGEMENT (ASIA), LTD., Respondents.; G.R. No.
226713, April 23, 2018 - ANGLO-EASTERN CREW
MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. AND/OR ANGLO-EASTERN
CREW MANAGEMENT (ASIA), LTD., Petitioners, v.
ARNEL T. GERE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 213994, April 18, 2018 - MARGIE SANTOS

MITRA, Petitioner, v. PERPETUA L. SABLAN--
GUEVARRA, REMEGIO L. SABLAN, ET AL.,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 200256, April 11, 2018 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NORTHERN CEMENT
CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 193499, April 23, 2018 - BANCO DE ORO

UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. VTL REALTY, INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 222070, April 16, 2018 - EMMANUEL M. LU,

ROMMEL M. LU, CARMELA M. LU, KAREN GRACE P. LU
AND JAMES MICHAEL LU, Petitioners, v. MARISSA LU
CHIONG AND CRISTINA LU NG, Respondents.

A.M. No. 17-12-135-MeTC, April 16, 2018 - RE:

DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MR. ARNO D. DEL
ROSARIO, COURT STENOGRAPHER II, BRANCH 41,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT (METC), QUEZON CITY.

G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BASHER
TOMAWIS Y ALI, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 227982, April 23, 2018 - MARIO DIESTA

BAJARO, Petitioner, v. METRO STONERICH CORP.,
AND/OR IBRAHIM M. NUÑO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 171101, April 24, 2018 - HACIENDA

LUISITA INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, LUISITA
INDUSTRIAL PARK CORPORATION AND RIZAL
COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, Petitioners-
in-Intervention, v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN
REFORM COUNCIL; SECRETARY NASSER
PANGANDAMAN OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM; ALYANSA NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID
NG HACIENDA LUISITA, RENE GALANG, NOEL
MALLARI, AND JULIO SUNIGA AND HIS SUPERVISORY
GROUP OF THE HACIENDA LUISITA, INC. AND
WINDSOR ANDAYA, Respondents.

 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2018aprildecisions.php?id=349 7/7