Home Law Firm Law Library Laws

Jurisprudence

September 2017 - Philippine Supreme Court

Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme
Court Jurisprudence
Custom Search

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2017 >

ChanRobles On- September 2017 Decisions > G.R. No. 194189,
Line Bar Review September 14, 2017 - RAFAEL ALMEDA, EMERLINA
ALMEDA-LIRIO, ALODIA ALMEDA-TAN, LETICIA
ALMEDA-MAGNO, NORMA ALMEDA-MATIAS AND
PUBLIO TIBI,, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF PONCIANO
ALMEDA IN SUBSTITUTION OF ORIGINAL DEFENDANT
PONCIANO ALMEDA, INTESTATE ESTATE OF SPOUSES
PONCIANO AND EUFEMIA PEREZ-ALMEDA AND THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAGAYTAY CITY, Respondent.:

G.R. No. 194189, September 14, 2017 - RAFAEL

ALMEDA, EMERLINA ALMEDA-LIRIO, ALODIA ALMEDA-
TAN, LETICIA ALMEDA-MAGNO, NORMA ALMEDA-
MATIAS AND PUBLIO TIBI,, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF
PONCIANO ALMEDA IN SUBSTITUTION OF ORIGINAL
DEFENDANT PONCIANO ALMEDA, INTESTATE ESTATE
OF SPOUSES PONCIANO AND EUFEMIA PEREZ-ALMEDA
AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAGAYTAY CITY,
Respondent.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 194189, September 14, 2017

RAFAEL ALMEDA, EMERLINA ALMEDA-LIRIO,

ALODIA ALMEDA-TAN, LETICIA ALMEDA-MAGNO,
NORMA ALMEDA-MATIAS AND PUBLIO TIBI,
Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF PONCIANO ALMEDA IN
SUBSTITUTION OF ORIGINAL DEFENDANT
PONCIANO ALMEDA, INTESTATE ESTATE OF
SPOUSES PONCIANO AND EUFEMIA PEREZ-
ALMEDA AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
TAGAYTAY CITY, Respondent.

CESAR SANTOS, ROSANA SANTOS, NORMAN

SANTOS AND FERDINAND SANTOS, Unwilling
Plaintiffs/Petitioners.

DECISION

TIJAM, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the May

25, 2010 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-

G.R. CV No. 86953, denying Rafael Almeda (Rafael),
Emerlina Almeda-Lirio (Emerlina), Alodia Almeda-Tan
(Alodia), Leticia Almeda-Magno (Leticia), Norma
Almeda-Matias (Norma) and Publio Tibi's (Publio)

(collectively, the petitioners) appeal from the Order3

dated September 2, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Tagaytay City, Branch 18, in Civil Case No. TG-
1643, which dismissed their Complaint for Nullity of
Contracts, Partition of Properties and Reconveyance of

Title with Damages, and the CA Resolution4 dated

October 13, 2010 denying petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration.

The Facts

Spouses Venancio Almeda (Venancio) and Leonila

Laurel-Almeda (Leonila) were the parents of nine
children: Ponciano L. Almeda (Ponciano), Rafael,
Emerlina, Alodia, Leticia, Norma, Benjamin Almeda and
Severina Almeda-Santos (Severina) and Rosalina

Almeda-Tibi (Rosalina), Publio's deceased wife. 5

On May 19, 1976, a Power of Attorney6 was executed

by Venancio and Leonila, who were then 80 and 81

years old respectively,7 granting Ponciano, among

others, the authority to sell the parcels of land covered
by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) Nos. O-197 and O-
443 of the Office of the Register of Deeds for Tagaytay

City, which Leonila inherited8 from her parents.

OCT Nos. O-197 and O-443 were registered in the

name of "Leonila L. Almeda married to Venancio

Almeda." OCT No. O-1979 embraced four (4) parcels of

land with an aggregate area of 95,205 square meters
more or less, to wit: Lot 10 (48,512 sq m), Lot 17
(37,931 sq m), Lot 30 (8,047 sq m) and Lot 32 (715 sq

m); and OCT No. O-44310 covered Lot 9 measuring

33,946 sq m, more or less.

Venancio died at the age of 90 on February 27, 1985;

 Leonila died eight years later on April 3, 1993, aged

97.11 Within the year of Leonila's death on April 17,

1993,12 Rafael, Emerlina, Alodia, Leticia and Norma

filed a notice of adverse claim with the Register of

Deeds of Tagaytay City over their parents' properties.13

On October 10, 1996, a Complaint for Nullity of

Contracts, Partition of Properties and Reconveyance of

Titles with Damages,14 docketed as Civil Case No. TG-

1643, was filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City by the
petitioners against Ponciano and his wife Eufemia Perez
Almeda (Eufemia) and the Register of Deeds of
Tagaytay City, with Severina's surviving spouse, Cesar
Santos and children, Rosana, Norman and Ferdinand,

as unwilling plaintiffs.15 Petitioners alleged that the

parties were the only heirs of the late spouses
Venancio and Leonila who died without leaving any will

and without any legal obligation.16

In support of their Complaint, petitioners claimed that

Ponciano, taking advantage of his being the eldest child
and his close relationship with their parents, caused
the simulation and forgery of the following

SPONSORED SEARCHES documents:17

recent supreme court decisions

(1) Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 9,

law court cases
1976, over Lot 30 under OCT No. O-197,

sc cases executed by Ponciano as Venancio and

Leonila's attorney-in-fact, in favor of Julian
title deed transfer Y. Pabiloña, Virginia Go, Gemma Tan
Ongking, Arthur C. Chua and Lee Hiong Wee
property deeds
(Pabiloña, et al.), for the price of

P160,940.00;18 and
SPONSORED SEARCHES (2) Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 3,
recent supreme court decisions1978, executed by Venancio and Leonila in
favor of Ponciano, over the remaining lots
marriage annulment under OCT No. O-197 and Lot 9 under OCT
No. O-443, and over Lots 6, 4 and 9-A with
title deed transfer
a total area 71,520 sq m which then had no

property attorney technical description, for the total

consideration of P704,243.77.19
notarized document

SPONSORED SEARCHES
By virtue of the aforesaid Deeds of Absolute Sale, OCT
recent supreme court decisions
Nos. O-197 and O-443 were cancelled, the former with
title deed transfer respect only to Lots 10 and 17. Resultantly, Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-15125, T-24806, T-
notarized document
24807, T-24808 and T-24809,20 all of the Registry of

marriage annulment Deeds for Tagaytay City, were issued to Ponciano,21

while TCT No. T-10330 of the same Registry22 was

types of court cases in us issued to Julian Y. Pabiloña, Virginia Go, Gemma Tan

Ongking, Arthur C. Chua and Lee Hiong Wee.23

According to petitioners, their parents did not sign the

September-2017
October 3, 1978 Deed of Absolute Sale (1978 Deed) in
Jurisprudence
favor of Ponciano and their signatures may have been
forged. They also averred that their parents did not
receive due consideration for the transaction, and if
G.R. No. 217194,
Ponciano succeeded in making them sign said 1978
September 06, 2017
Deed, they did so without knowledge of its import.
- SOCIETE DES
Petitioners, however, would not claim rights and
PRODUITS, NESTLE,
interest legally transferred to third parties.24
S.A., Petitioner, v.
PUREGOLD PRICE
Petitioners further alleged that Ponciano withheld from
CLUB, INC.,
them the existence of the 1978 Deed in his favor, and
Respondent.
when they learned of it and demanded partition,
Ponciano merely promised to cause the same at a
G.R. No. 218628,
proper time. When petitioners could no longer wait,
September 06, 2017 they filed their notice of adverse claim with the
- EVERGREEN Register of Deeds.25
MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION, Petitioners, thus, prayed that the 1978 Deed in favor of
Petitioner, v. Ponciano be declared null and void; that OCT No. O-
REPUBLIC OF THE 197 be partitioned among the heirs of Venancio and
PHILIPPINES, Leonila; that the derivative titles obtained by Ponciano
REPRESENTED BY under his name be reconveyed to petitioners; that the
THE DEPARTMENT OF Register of Deeds for Tagaytay City be ordered to
PUBLIC WORKS AND cancel said derivative titles and to restore title to the
HIGHWAYS, property in the name of Venancio and Leonila; that the
Respondent.; G.R. unwilling plaintiffs be ordered to share in the expenses
No. 218631 - of the suit; and that Ponciano and his wife be ordered
REPUBLIC OF THE to pay moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees
PHILIPPINES,
and the costs of litigation.26
REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF
In their Answer,27 Ponciano and his wife, Eufemia,
PUBLIC WORKS AND
denied that the 1978 Deed was simulated or forged,
HIGHWAYS,
asserting its genuineness and execution for valuable
Petitioner, v.
consideration from which some of the petitioners,
EVERGREEN
including Rafael, received substantial pecuniary
MANUFACTURING
benefits. They asserted that Ponciano no longer
CORPORATION,
participated in the division of the estate of Venancio
Respondent.
and Leonila whose assets amounted to millions of
pesos. They accused petitioners of not coming to court
A.C. No. 11478,
with clean hands, claiming the latter may have
September 05, 2017
themselves resorted to falsification of documents to
- SPOUSES ANDRE
transfer said assets in their names and subsequently to
CHAMBON AND
other persons. Ponciano and Eufemia also averred that
MARIA FATIMA
petitioners were guilty of laches.
CHAMBON,
Complainants, v.
Ponciano died on October 16, 1997 and was substituted
ATTY. CHRISTOPHER
by his wife and children.28
S. RUIZ, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197745, Petitioners presented the lone testimony of Emerlina.29

September 06, 2017 After Ponciano's heirs/substitutes (private respondents)
- ATTY. MELITA S. failed to present their evidence despite several
RECTO-SAMBAJON, opportunities given them, the RTC considered the case
Petitioner, v. PUBLIC submitted for decision.30
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
Respondent. In the course of the trial, two other documents figured
in the dispute, which petitioners likewise impugned,
A.M. No. P-16-3521 showing:
[Formerly OCA I.P.I.
No. 15-4493-P],
September 04, 2017 (1) an Agreement to Sell31 dated November

- HON. MARIA 9, 1976 whereby Venancio and Leonila

CRISTINA C. agreed to sell to Ponciano the parcels of

BOTIGAN-SANTOS, land covered by OCT Nos. O-197 and O-

PRESIDING JUDGE OF 443, as well as Lots 6, 4 and 9-A, for the

THE MUNICIPAL total price of P1 Million with P200,000.00 as

TRIAL COURT, SAN down payment and the balance payable in

ILDEFONSO, one year without interest; and

BULACAN,
Complainant, v. (2) a Deed of Sale with Mortgage32 (Deed
LETICIA C. GENER, with Mortgage) dated November 11, 1977,
CLERK OF COURT OF which expressly superseded the Agreement
THE MUNICIPAL to Sell dated November 9, 1976, whereby
TRIAL COURT, SAN Venancio and Leonila sold to Ponciano the
ILDEFONSO, parcels of land covered by OCT Nos. 0-197
BULACAN, and 0-443, as well as Lots 6, 4 and 9-A, for
Respondent. P1 Million, with the payment of the
P700,000.00 balance secured by the said
G.R. No. 214880, properties. This Deed wih Mortgage was
September 06, 2017 expressly superseded by the 1978 Deed in
- PEOPLE OF THE favor of Ponciano.
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
AMANTE PADLAN Y
LEONES @ BUTOG, On September 2, 2004, the RTC issued an Order33

Accused-Appellant. dismissing petitioners' complaint. The dispositive

 portion of the order reads:
G.R. No. 202505,
September 06, 2017
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
- EXPRESS PADALA
same is hereby ordered DISMISSED.
(ITALIA) S.P.A., NOW
BDO REMITTANCE
SO ORDERED.34
(ITALIA) S.P.A.,
Petitioner, v. HELEN
M. OCAMPO,
Respondent. The RTC held that the questioned documents, having
been notarized and executed in the presence of two
G.R. No. 223262, instrumental witnesses, enjoy the presumption of
September 11, 2017 regularity, and petitioners failed to overcome this
- DENNIS M. presumption by clear and convincing evidence. It
CONCEJERO, stressed that petitioners failed to present any proof of
Petitioner, v. COURT simulation or forgery of the subject documents.
OF APPEALS AND
PHILIPPINE
In an Order35 dated November 29, 2005, the RTC
NATIONAL BANK,
denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
Respondents.

Petitioners brought the case to the CA on appeal which

G.R. No. 224886,
was denied in the assailed Decision36 dated May 25,
September 04, 2017
2010, the dispositive portion of which reads:
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE, the Appeal is
ROGER RACAL @ DENIED. The Order a quo is AFFIRMED.
RAMBO, Accused-
Appellant.
SO ORDERED.37

G.R. No. 201271,

September 20, 2017
- ROBERTO A. The CA held that petitioners failed to discharge their

TORRES, burden of proving the purported forgery with clear and

IMMACULADA convincing evidence. The CA stressed that such

TORRES-ALANON, evidence was especially needed in this case given that

AGUSTIN TORRES, the assailed documents, being notarized, enjoy the
AND JUSTO TORRES, presumption of regularity and of due execution and
JR., Petitioners, v. authenticity. The CA noted that petitioners merely
ANTONIA F. ARUEGO, relied on Emerlina's testimony that the questioned
Respondent. signatures were forged.38

G.R. No. 212731, The CA further stressed that mere variance in the
September 06, 2017 genuine and disputed signatures is not proof of
- SPOUSES FIRMO S.
forgery.39 To establish forgery, said the appellate court,
ROSARIO AND AGNES
presentation of documents bearing the genuine
ANNABELLE DEAN-
signatures of Venancio and Leonila was required, for
ROSARIO, Petitioners,
comparison with the alleged false signatures.40 The CA
v. PRISCILLA P.
held that petitioners' failure to submit such documents
ALVAR, Respondent.
was fatal as it was necessary for petitioners to show
not only the material differences between the
A.M. No. 16-05-
signatures, but also (1) the extent, kind and
142-RTC, September
significance of the variation; (2) that the variation was
05, 2017 - RE:
due to the operation of a different personality and not
REPORT ON THE
merely an expected and inevitable variation found in
PRELIMINARY
the genuine writing of the same writer; and (3) that
RESULTS OF THE
the resemblance was the result of a more or less
SPOT AUDIT IN THE
skillful imitation and not merely a habitual and
REGIONAL TRIAL
characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a
COURT, BRANCH 170,
genuine writing.41
MALABON CITY.

G.R. No. 225402, Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration42 was

September 04, 2017 subsequently denied in the Resolution43 dated October

- ENCARNACION 13, 2010.
CONSTRUCTION &
INDUSTRIAL Dissatisfied with the outcome of its appeal, petitioners
CORPORATION, filed the instant petition, asserting that the CA's ruling
Petitioner, v. was contrary to the evidence, the law and existing
PHOENIX READY MIX jurisprudence.
CONCRETE
DEVELOPMENT & The Court's Ruling
CONSTRUCTION,
INC., Respondent.
The petition lacks merit.
G.R. No. 226766,
September 27, 2017 Factual findings of the RTC, as
- ORIENTAL affirmed by the CA, deserve a high
SHIPMANAGEMENT degree of respect
CO., INC. AND/OR
MOL TANKSHIP Well-entrenched is the rule that the Supreme Court's
MANAGEMENT role in a petition under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing
(EUROPE) LTD. or reversing errors of law allegedly committed by the
AND/OR RAMON S. appellate court.44 Equally settled is the rule that this
HERRERA, Petitioners,
Court is not a trier of facts.45
v. WILLIAM DAVID P.
OCANGAS,
In Spouses Villaceran, et al. v. De Guzman,46 the Court
Respondent.
held that:

G.R. No. 225500,

September 11, 2017 The issue of the genuineness of a deed of
- PEOPLE OF THE sale is essentially a question of fact. It is
PHILIPPINES, settled that this Court is not duty-bound to
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. analyze and weigh again the evidence
JONAS GERONIMO Y considered in the proceedings below. This is
PINLAC, Accused- especially true where the trial court's factual
Appellant. findings are adopted and affirmed by the CA
as in the present case. Factual findings of
G.R. No. 227425, the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are final
September 04, 2017 and conclusive and may not be reviewed on
- THE PEOPLE OF THE appeal.47
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
BRAHIM LIDASAN,
NHOKIE MOHAMAD, At any rate, to remove any doubt as to the correctness

ROCKY MOCALAM, of the assailed ruling, We have examined the records

TENG USMAN, ALI and, nonetheless, reached the same conclusion.48

MATOC, MUSLIMEN
WAHAB, JIMMY Notarized documents enjoy the
ALUNAN, ROWENA presumption of regularity
AMAL RAJID,
ACCUSED, OMAR A notarized Deed of Absolute Sale has in its favor the
KAMIR, ALEX presumption of regularity, and it carries the evidentiary
DALIANO, AND weight conferred upon it with respect to its due
BAYAN ABBAS ADIL execution.49 It is admissible in evidence without
ALIAS "JORDAN," further proof of its authenticity and is entitled to full
Accused-Appellants.
faith and credit upon its face.50 Thus, a notarial
document must be sustained in full force and effect so
G.R. No. 225065,
long as he who impugns it does not present strong,
September 13, 2017
complete and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on
- PEOPLE OF THE
account of some flaws or defects.51
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Absent evidence of falsity so clear, strong and
ARMANDO LABRAQUE
convincing, and not merely preponderant, the
A.K.A. "ARMAN",
presumption of regularity must be upheld.52 The
Accused-Appellant.
burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due
execution of a notarial document lies on the party
A.M. No. P-13-3170
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. contesting the same.53

No. 12-3931-P),
September 18, 2017 Forgery is not presumed

- MA. ASUNCION SJ.

SAMONTE, Furthermore, as a rule, forgery cannot be presumed.54
Complainant, v.REY P. An a1legation of forgery must be proved by clear,
RODEN, LEGAL positive and convincing evidence, and the burden of
RESEARCHER, proof lies on the party alleging forgery.55
BRANCH 36,
METROPOLITAN Petitioners failed to overcome the
TRIAL COURT, presumption of due execution
QUEZON CITY,
Respondent. Since petitioners are assailing the genuineness of the
1978 Deed, they evidently have the burden of making
G.R. No. 225142, out a clear-cut case that the questioned document is
September 13, 2017 bogus.56 Both the trial and appellate courts concluded
- NYK-FIL SHIP that petitioners failed to discharge this burden. We
MANAGEMENT, agree.
INCORPORATED,
Petitioner, v. GENER The Complaint, at the outset, did not allege in definite
G. DABU, terms that Venancio and Leonila's signatures on the
Respondent. 1978 Deed were forged. It stated:

G.R. No. 221620,

VIII
September 11, 2017
- TERESA R.
IGNACIO,
That [petitioners'] parents did not sign said
REPRESENTED BY
documents of sale purportedly to transfer
HER ATTORNEY-IN-
rights, titles and interest in favor of
FACT, ROBERTO R.
defendants, and, in fact their signatures
IGNACIO, Petitioner,
thereon may have been forged, and, that
v. OFFICE OF THE
they did not receive due consideration
CITY TREASURER OF
thereof, and, said documents are merely
QUEZON CITY,
simulated if ever defendant [Ponciano]
VICTOR B. ENDRIGA,
succeeded in making them [sign] the same
OFFICE OF THE CITY
without knowledge of the import thereof,
ASSESSOR OF
likewise, in making them appear as having
QUEZON CITY, THE
executed and affixed their signatures on
REGISTRAR OF
said controversial documents although the
DEEDS OF QUEZON
transactions were inexistent.57 (Emphasis
CITY, ATTY.
ours)
FELIXBERTO F. ABAD,
AND ALEJANDRO
RAMON AND Likewise, Emerlina's testimony, upon which petitioners'
RACQUEL case was built, is unclear and uncertain as to the
DIMALANTA, supposed forgery. Emerlina testified that the vendors'
Respondents. signatures appearing on the 1978 Deed did not belong

to her parents, Venancio and Leonila.58 Subsequently,

A.C. No. 8968,
however, she testified that if the latter did affix their
September 26, 2017
signatures, they did not know what they signed.59 Still
- MA. VILMA F.
further to her testimony, Emerlina declared that she
MANIQUIZ,
could not say if the signatures indeed belonged to her
Complainant, v. ATTY. parents.60 Eventually, she conceded to having two
DANILO C. EMELO, alternative answers to the question of forgery: first,
Respondent. that Venancio and Leonila did not sign the document,
and second, that it is possible that they signed it but
A.C. No. 11543,
without knowing the consequences of their action.61
September 26, 2017
- SUSAN BASIYO,
The uncertainty in petitioners' stance, as echoed in
AND ANDREW
Emerlina's testimony, clearly militates against their
WILLIAM SIMMONS,
claim of forgery.
Complainants, v.
ATTY. JOSELITO C.
Furthermore, it is undeniable that Emerlina stands to
ALISUAG,
benefit from a judgment annulling the 1978 Deed. Her
Respondent.
testimony denying the validity of the sale, having been
made by a party who has an interest in the outcome of
G.R. No. 168065,
the case, is not as reliable as written or documentary
September 06, 2017
evidence. Moreover, self-serving statements are
- TRINIDAD DIAZ-
inadequate to establish one's claims. Proof must be
ENRIQUEZ
presented to support the same.62
REPRESENTED BY
HER ATTORNEY-IN-
To establish forgery, the extent, kind and significance
FACT, JOSE MARCEL
of the variation in the standard and disputed signatures
E. PANLILIO,
must be demonstrated; it must be proved that the
SUBSTITUTED BY
variation is due to the operation of a different
MONTESOL
personality and not merely an expected and inevitable
DEVELOPMENT
variation found in the genuine writing of the same
CORPORATION,
writer; and it should be shown that the resemblance is
Petitioner, v.
a result of a more or less skillful imitation and not
DIRECTOR OF LANDS,
merely a habitual and characteristic resemblance which
COURT OF APPEALS,
naturally appears in a genuine writing.63 Emerlina's
GERONIMO SACLOLO,
uncorroborated testimony failed to demonstrate, based
JOSEFINO SACLOLO
on the foregoing criteria, that the questioned
AND RODRIGO
signatures were forgeries.
SACLOLO,
Respondents.; G.R.
Indeed, petitioners failed to present the requisite proof
No. 168070,
of falsity and forgery of the notarized 1978 Deed to
September 6, 2017 -
overcome the presumption of regularity and due
GERONIMO SACLOLO, execution.
JOSEFINO SACLOLO
AND RODRIGO Visual comparison of the questioned
SACLOLO, Petitioners, and admittedly genuine signatures
v. COURT OF reveal prominent similarities
APPEALS, TRINIDAD
DIAZ-ENRIQUEZ AND Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly
DIRECTOR OF LANDS, authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of
Respondents. the disputed handwriting with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party against whom the
G.R. No. 219123, evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the
September 11, 2017 satisfaction of the judge.64
- DESIDERIO C.
CUTANDA, Petitioner,
Petitioners assert that the 1976 Power of Attorney65
v. MARLOW
executed in favor of Ponciano, which bore the true and
NAVIGATION PHILS.,
genuine signatures of Venancio and Leonila, could have
INC., AND/OR
been used as basis for comparison with the questioned
MARLOW
signatures to determine their authenticity.66
NAVIGATION CO.
LTD. AND/OR
Comparing these two sets of signatures, the Court
ANTONIO GALVEZ,
finds prominent similarities as to indicate the habitual
JR., Respondents.
and characteristic writing of Venancio and Leonila.
Leonila's signature on the 1978 Deed, in particular,
G.R. No. 218830,
appears almost the same as her signature on the 1976
September 14, 2017
Power of Attorney. Venancio's signature on the 1978
- JESUS V. COSON,
Deed was not as smooth as his signature on the 1976
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
Power of Attorney, but the similarities in the angles and
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
slants cannot be ignored.
Respondent.

To support their claim of forgery, petitioners described

A.M. No. 17-08-01-
the questioned signatures as "wiri-wiri," or containing
SC, September 19,
"wild strokes."67 The Court, however, does not find
2017 - RE:
such wild strokes in the questioned signatures.
REQUESTS FOR
Leonila's was nearly as smooth as her signature on the
SURVIVORSHIP
1976 Power of Attorney. Venancio's signature gives the
PENSION BENEFITS
impression that it had been affixed by a less than
OF SPOUSES OF steady but determined hand, and though not as fluid as
JUSTICES AND his previous signature, reveals the characteristic
JUDGES WHO DIED imprint of his handwriting. Indeed, the resemblance in
PRIOR TO THE the questioned and standard signatures are more
EFFECTIVITY OF prominent or pronounced than the apparent variance
REPUBLIC ACT NO. which could be attributed to the signatories' old age.
9946
In fine, the apparent dissimilarities in the signatures
G.R. No. 215730, are overshadowed by the striking similarities and,
September 11, 2017 therefore, fail to overcome the presumption of validity
- PEOPLE OF THE in favor of a notarized document.68
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Presumption of competence was not
MELCHOR PANES Y adequately refuted
MAGSANOP, Accused-
Appellant. "The law presumes that every person is fully competent
to enter into a contract until satisfactory proof to the
G.R. No. 208095,
contrary is presented."69 The party claiming absence of
September 20, 2017
capacity to contract has the burden of proof and
- PEOPLE OF THE
discharging this burden requires that clear and
PHILIPPINES,
convincing evidence be adduced.70
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
JEFFERSON DEL
Petitioners have not satisfactorily shown that their
MUNDO Y ABAC AND
parents' mental faculties were impaired as to deprive
MITOS LACSON-DEL
them of reason or hinder them from freely exercising
MUNDO, Accused-
their own will or from comprehending the provisions of
Appellants.
the sale in favor of Ponciano.

G.R. No. 211721,

Petitioners assert that their parents were "uliyanin" or
September 20, 2017
forgetful, of advanced age and "at times" sickly during
- PEOPLE OF THE
the time of the execution of the 1978 Deed in favor of
PHILIPPINES,
Ponciano.71
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
WILLINGTON
Mere forgetfulness, however, without evidence that the
RODRIGUEZ Y
same has removed from a person the ability to
HERMOSA, Accused-
intelligently and firmly protect his property rights, will
Appellant. not by itself incapacitate a person from entering into
contracts.
G.R. No. 177246,
September 25, 2017 In Mendezona v. Ozamiz,72 the Court affirmed a
- ANTONIO A. vendor's capacity to contract despite a doctor's
SOMBILON, revelation that the former was afflicted with certain
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE infirmities and was, at times, forgetful, holding that:
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
The revelation of Dr. Faith Go did not also
shed light on the mental capacity of Carmen
G.R. No. 194944,
Ozamiz on the relevant day – April 28, 1989
September 18, 2017
when the Deed of Absolute Sale was
- PHILIPPINE
executed and notarized. At best, she
NATIONAL BANK,
merely revealed that Carmen Ozamiz
Petitioner, v.
was suffering from certain infirmities in
TERESITA FE A.
her body and at times, she was
GREGORIO,
forgetful, but there was no categorical
Respondent.
statement that Carmen Ozamiz
succumbed to what respondents
G.R. No. 179757,
suggest as her alleged "second
September 13, 2017
childhood" as early as 1987. The
- LEONARDO P.
petitioners' rebuttal witness, Dr. William
CASONA, Petitioner,
Buot, a doctor of neurology, testified that
v. PEOPLE OF THE
no conclusion of mental incapacity at
PHILIPPINES,
the time the said deed was executed
Respondents.
can be inferred from Dr. Faith Go's
clinical notes nor can such fact be
G.R. No. 208625,
deduced from the mere prescription of
September 06, 2017
a medication for episodic memory
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, loss.73 (Emphasis ours)

Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
RAMON FRANCICA Y
NAVALTA, Accused-
In this case, petitioners' claim that Venancio and
Appellant.
Leonila were forgetful and at times sickly was not even
supported by medical evidence. It was based solely on
 G.R. No. 207229, Emerlina's testimony, which failed to demonstrate that
September 20, 2017 Venancio and Leonila's mental state had prevented
- PEOPLE OF THE them from freely giving their consent to the 1978 Deed
PHILIPPINES, or from understanding the nature and effects of their
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. disposition.
SIEGFRED CABELLON
CABAÑERO, Accused- It is settled that a person is not incapacitated to enter
Appellant. into a contract merely because of advanced years or by
reason of physical infirmities, unless such age and
G.R. No. 213237, infirmities impair his mental faculties to the extent that
September 13, 2017 he is unable to properly, intelligently and fairly
- CIVIL SERVICE understand the provisions of said contract, or to
COMMISSION, AND protect his property rights.74
THE MUNICIPALITY
OF MASIU, LANAO
Petitioners' reliance on the case of Domingo v. CA75 is
DEL SUR,
misplaced. There, the Court declared a deed of sale
REPRESENTED BY
null and void given that the seller was already of
MAYOR NASSER P.
advanced age and senile at the time of its execution,
PANGANDAMAN, JR.,
thus:
Petitioners, v. SAMAD
M. UNDA,
Respondent.; G.R. The unrebutted testimony of Zosima

No. 213331 - THE Domingo shows that at the time of the

MUNICIPALITY OF alleged execution of the deed, Paulina was

MASIU, PROVINCE OF already incapacitated physically and

LANAO DEL SUR, mentally. She narrated that Paulina played

REPRESENTED BY with her waste and urinated in bed. Given

NASSER P. these circumstances, there is in our view

PANGANDAMAN, JR., sufficient reason to seriously doubt that she

MUNICIPAL MAYOR, consented to the sale of and the price for

Petitioner, v. SAMAD her parcels of land. x x x.76

M. UNDA,
Respondent.

No similar circumstances, indicating senility and clear

G.R. No. 208426,
incapacity to contract, have been alleged or proved in
September 20, 2017
the instant case.
- SAMUEL M.
ALVARADO,, "A person is presumed to be of sound mind at any
Petitioner, v. AYALA particular time and the condition is presumed to exist,
LAND, INC., AYALA in the absence of proof to the contrary."77 In this case,
HILLSIDE ESTATES petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving,
HOMEOWNERS' by clear and convincing evidence, that their parents
ASSOCIATION, INC., were mentally incompetent to execute the 1978 Deed
ALEXANDER P. in favor of Ponciano.
AGUIRRE, HORACIO
PAREDES, RICARDO Undue influence was not proved
F. DE LEON, REYNATO
Y. SAWIT, AGUSTIN "There is undue influence when a person takes
N. PEREZ, GERONIMO improper advantage of his power over the will of
M. COLLADO, another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of
EMMANUEL C.
choice."78
CHING,
MACABANGKIT
Other than petitioners' general allegation that Ponciano
LANTO, MANUEL
unduly took advantage of his being the eldest child and
DIZON, TARCISIO
his close relationship with their parents, no other
CALILUNG, IRINEO
circumstance or evidence has been presented to show
AGUIRRE, ERNESTO
how Ponciano exerted his undue influence or how
ORTIZ LUIS,
Venancio and Leonila were thereby deprived of the
BERNARDO
freedom to exercise sufficient judgment in selling the
JAMBALOS III,
subject properties to Ponciano.
FRANCISCO
ARCILLANA, LUIS S.
"[U]ndue influence that vitiated a party's consent must
TANJANGCO, AND
be established by full, clear and convincing evidence,
PABLITO VILLEGAS,
otherwise, the latter's presumed consent to the
Respondents.
contract prevails."79

G.R. No. 191652,

Lack or inadequacy of consideration
September 13, 2017
was not established
- TEAM IMAGE
ENTERTAINMENT,
While maintaining that the 1978 Deed was a forgery,
INC., AND FELIX S.
petitioners also insist that the deed was simulated. The
CO., Petitioners, v.
incompatibility of these two contentions does not help
SOLAR TEAM petitioners' case. Forgery suggests that no consent was
ENTERTAINMENT, given to the transaction, while simulation indicates a
INC., Respondent.; mutual agreement albeit to deceive third persons.
G.R. No. 191658,
September 13, 2017 Simulation has been defined as the declaration of a
- SOLAR TEAM fictitious will, made deliberately by mutual agreement
ENTERTAINMENT, of the parties, in order to produce the appearances of a
INC.,, Petitioner, v. juridical act which does not exist or is different from
TEAM IMAGE that which was really executed, for the purpose of
ENTERTAINMENT, deceiving third persons. Accordingly, simulation exists
INC., AND FELIX S. when: (a) there is an outward declaration of will
CO, Respondents. different from the will of the parties; (b) the false
appearance was intended by mutual agreement of the
G.R. No. 187869, parties; and (c) their purpose is to deceive third
September 13, 2017 persons.80
- TEODULFO E. LAO,
JR., ROGER A. None of the foregoing requisites have been shown to
ABADAY, ZALDY O. exist in this case.
OCON, AND ENRICO
D. SALCEDO, In claiming that the 1978 Deed was simulated,
Petitioners, v. LGU OF petitioners assert that there was no consideration and
CAGAYAN DE ORO the vouchers supposedly showing Ponciano's payment
CITY, MAYOR of P704,243.77 should not be considered as evidence
CONSTANTINO since private respondents failed to offer them, having
JARAULA, VICE been deemed to have waived their presentation of
MAYOR VICENTE T. evidence. Petitioners likewise argue that the price, in
EMANO, CITY
said amount, was unconscionable.81
COUNCILOR RAMON
TABOR, CITY
That the vouchers were not offered in evidence will not
COUNCILOR
serve to strengthen petitioners' theory of simulation.
REYNALDO
The notarized 1978 Deed shows on its face that the
ADVINCULA, CITY
properties were sold for the price of P704,243.77. The
COUNCILOR IAN
1978 Deed also appears to have gone through the
MARK NACAYA, CITY
procedure of registration, leading to the issuance of
COUNCILOR
TCT in Ponciano's name.
PRESIDENT ELIPE,
CITY COUNCILOR In Mendezona,82 the appellate court ruled that the
EMMANUEL assailed deed of absolute sale was a simulated contract
ABEJUELA, CITY since the petitioners therein, in whose favor the deed
COUNCILOR was executed, failed to prove that the consideration
ALFONSO GOKING, was actually paid. This Court disagreed with the CA's
CITY COUNCILOR ruling, holding that:
ALDEN DACAL, CITY
COUNCILOR
Contrary to the erroneous conclusions of the
ALEXANDER DACER,
appellate court, a simulated contract
CITY COUNCILOR
cannot be inferred from the mere non-
MARYCOR CALIZO,
production of the checks. It was not
CITY COUNCILOR
the burden of the petitioners to prove
AARON NERI, CITY
so. It is significant to note that the Deed of
COUNCILOR ADRIAN
Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1989 is a
BARBA, CITY
notarized document duly acknowledged
COUNCILOR IAN
before a notary public. As such, it has in its
CAESAR ACENAS,
favor the presumption of regularity, and it
CITY COUNCILOR
carries the evidentiary weight conferred
SIMEON LICAYAN,
upon it with respect to its due execution. It
CITY COUNCILOR
is admissible in evidence even without
KAREN VI POQUITA,
further proof of its authenticity and is
CITY COUNCILOR
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
DANTE PAJO, IN
THEIR PRIVATE
Payment is not merely presumed from
AND/OR OFFICIAL
the fact that the notarized Deed of
CAPACITIES AND
Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1989 has
MEGA INTEGRATED
gone through the regular procedure as
AGRO-LIVESTOCK
evidenced by the transfer certificates
FARM CORPORATION
of title issued in petitioners' names by
PRESIDENT ERWIN
the Register of Deeds. In other words,
BRYAN SEE*,
whosoever alleges the fraud or invalidity of
Respondents.
a notarized document has the burden of
proving the same by evidence that is clear,
A.M. No. RTJ-17-
convincing, and more than merely
2492 [Formerly OCA
preponderant. Therefore, with this well-
IPI No. 13-4103-RTJ],
September 26, 2017 recognized statutory presumption, the
- PROSECUTOR IVY A. burden fell upon the respondents to prove
TEJANO, their allegations attacking the validity and
Complainant, v. due execution of the said Deed of Absolute
PRESIDING JUDGE Sale. Respondents failed to discharge that
ANTONIO D. burden; hence, the presumption in favor of
MARIGOMEN AND the said deed stands. But more
UTILITY WORKER importantly, that notarized deed shows
EMELIANO C. CAMAY, on its face that the consideration of
JR.,1 BOTH OF One Million Forty Thousand Pesos
REGIONAL TRIAL (P1,040,000.00) was acknowledged to
COURT (RTC), have been received by Carmen Ozamiz.
BRANCH 61, BOGO
CITY, CEBU, xxxx
Respondents.
Considering that Carmen Ozamiz
G.R. No. 227863, acknowledged, on the face of the
September 20, 2017 notarized deed, that she received the
- PEOPLE OF THE consideration at One Million Forty
PHILIPPINES, Thousand Pesos (P1,040,000.00), the
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. appellate court should not have placed
PEDRITO ORDONA Y too much emphasis on the checks, the
RENDON, Accused- presentation of which is not really
Appellant. necessary. Besides, the burden to prove
alleged non-payment of the consideration of
G.R. No. 204663, the sale was on the respondents, not on the
September 27, 2017 petitioners. Also, between its conclusion
- MUNICIPAL RURAL based on inconsistent oral testimonies and a
BANK OF LIBMANAN, duly notarized document that enjoys
CAMARINES SUR, presumption of regularity, the appellate
Petitioner, v. court should have given more weight to the
VIRGINIA ORDOÑEZ, latter. Spoken words could be
Respondent. notoriously unreliable as against a
written document that speaks a
G.R. No. 205652, uniform language.83 (Citations omitted
September 06, 2017 and emphasis ours)
- PROCTER & GAMBLE
ASIA PTE LTD.,
Petitioner, v. Contending that the price paid by Ponciano for the
COMMISSIONER OF properties was unconscionably low, petitioners point to
INTERNAL REVENUE, the alleged sale of Lot 30, measuring 8,047 sq m, by
Respondent. Pabiloña, et al.84 to Cityland, Inc., on September 18,

1992 for P12,070,500.00.85

G.R. No. 180969,
September 11, 2017
Petitioners, however, have not demonstrated how the
- NOEL NAVAJA,
alleged selling price for Lot 30 in 1992 proves that the
Petitioner, v. HON.
price paid by Ponciano under the 1978 Deed was
MANUEL A. DE
unconscionable.
CASTRO OR HIS
SUCCESSOR, IN HIS
Furthermore, it is beyond dispute that the Deed of
CAPACITY AS
Absolute Sale in favor of Ponciano was executed in
PRESIDING JUDGE OF
1978, or nearly 14 years before the alleged sale of Lot
THE MUNICIPAL
30 to Cityland, Inc. Given the obvious difference in the
CIRCUIT TRIAL
time of transaction, the prevailing market conditions,
COURT OF JAGNA &
and the size of the properties, petitioners cannot
GARCIA-HERNANDEZ,
sweepingly conclude that the price paid by Ponciano in
JAGNA, BOHOL, AND
1978 was unconscionable on the basis of the 1992 sale
ATTY. EDGAR BORJE,
of Lot 30.
Respondents.

In Ceballos v. Intestate Estate of the Late Mercado,86

G.R. No. 185938,
the Court had occasion to rule:
September 06, 2017
- ALICIA M.L.
COSETENG AND Harping on the alleged unconscionably low
DILIMAN selling price of the subject land, petitioner
PREPARATORY points out that it is located in a tourist area
SCHOOL, Petitioners, and golf haven in Cebu. Notably, she has
v. LETICIA P. PEREZ, failed to prove that on February 13, 1982,
Respondent. the date of the sale, the area was already
the tourist spot and golf haven that she
A.C. No. 9832, describes it to be. In 1990, the property
September 04, 2017 might have been worth ten million pesos, as
- LOLITA R. MARTIN, she claimed; however, at the time of the
Complainant, v. ATTY. sale, the area was still undeveloped. Hence,
JESUS M. DELA her contention that the selling price was
CRUZ, Respondent. unconscionably low lacks sufficient

substantiation.87 (Citations omitted)

G.R. No. 213200,
September 19, 2017
- NAYONG PILIPINO
With more reason should the Court, in this case, hold
FOUNDATION, INC.,
that petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of an
Petitioner, v.
unconscionable selling price, considering that they have
CHAIRPERSON MA.
not shown any evidence of either the condition of the
GRACIA M. PULIDO
subject properties in 1978 or other factors affecting
TAN, COMMISSIONER
their valuation, which may possibly indicate the gross
HEIDI L. MENDOZA,
inadequacy of the price paid by Ponciano.
COMMISSIONER
ROWENA V.
Petitioners would have this Court appreciate, as
GUANZON, THE
additional indications of simulation of the 1978 Deed,
COMMISSIONERS,
the alleged late registration thereof in 1993 or 15 years
COMMISSION ON
after the sale, and the Tax Declarations that were
AUDIT (COA),
allegedly still in Leonila's name up to the time the
Respondents.
Complaint was filed.88 These contentions, however, do

G.R. No. 214762, not suffice to constitute the strong, positive and

September 20, 2017 convincing evidence that will overcome the

- PEOPLE OF THE presumption of due execution of a notarized document.

PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. In any event, records show that the 1978 Deed was in

ROMMEL RONQUILLO, fact registered in 1984, during Venancio and Leonila's

Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 213953,
September 26, 2017
- ENGR. OSCAR A.
MARMETO, Petitioner,
v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
lifetime. Both OCT No. O-19789 and OCT No. O-44390
bear an annotation referring to the 1978 Deed,
inscribed on November 12, 1984, and based on such
annotation, new transfer certificates of title were issued
in lieu of OCT No. O-197 and OCT No. O-443 in
Ponciano's name; TCT No. 15125,91 in particular,
appears to have been issued on November 12, 1984.
By such registration and by obtaining certificates of
(COMELEC), title in his name, Ponciano had clearly asserted his
Respondent. ownership over the properties. Thus, that the Tax
Declarations were still in Leonila's name cannot be the
G.R. No. 230324, basis to conclude that the 1978 Deed was a simulation.
September 19, 2017
- LORIE MARIE A contract or conduct apparently honest and lawful
TOMAS CALLO, must be treated as such until it is shown to be
Petitioner, v. otherwise by either positive or circumstantial evidence.
COMMISSIONER A duly executed contract enjoys the presumption of
JAIME H. MORENTE, validity, and the party assailing its regularity has the
BUREAU OF burden to prove its simulation. Indeed, it is settled that
IMMIGRATION, OIC notarized documents carry the presumption of due
ASSOCIATES execution, lending truth to the statements therein
COMMISSIONERS, contained and to the authenticity of the signatures
BUREAU OF thereto affixed.92 Petitioners have failed to adduce the
IMMIGRATION, AND requisite clear and convincing evidence to overturn this
BRIAN ALAS, BUREAU presumption.
OF IMMIGRATION,
Respondents. Alleged defects in the notarization
were raised only before this Court
G.R. No. 227185,
September 27, 2017 Petitioners argue that the parties' Acknowledgment of
- PEOPLE OF THE the 1978 Deed before the Notary Public, Federico
PHILIPPINES, Magdangal, whose notarial commission was for Makati
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. City, was done outside the latter's "territorial limits"
EEE, Accused- because the property is in Tanauan, Batangas.
Appellant. Furthermore, while the Acknowledgment was done in
Makati City, its printed text expressly states that the
G.R. No. 228617, parties personally appeared before the Notary Public in
September 20, 2017
Tanauan, Batangas.93 Petitioners also assert that their
- PLANTERS
parents were residents of Tanauan, Batangas, and
DEVELOPMENT BANK,
given their advanced age, would not have gone to
Petitioner, v.
Makati on the same day that the 1978 Deed was
SPOUSES
executed, to have the same notarized.94
VICTORIANO AND
MELANIE RAMOS,
Petitioners further assert that while the
Respondents. Acknowledgment indicated that Ponciano exhibited his
residence certificate to the Notary Public, it did not
G.R. No. 228112, reflect any identification document from Venancio and
September 13, 2017 Leonila. They argue that the absence of such document
- SPOUSES contravened the Notary Public's statement that
ROSALINO R. REYES, Venancio and Leonila were known to him.95
JR. AND SYLVIA S.
REYES, Petitioners, v. As private respondents have pointed out, however,
SPOUSES HERBERT these claims were only raised for the first time before
BUN HONG G. CHUNG
this Court.96
AND WIENNA T.
CHUNG,
"It is well-settled that issues not raised in the court a
Respondents.
quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal in the
Supreme Court without violating the basic rules of fair
G.R. No. 225808,
play, justice and due process."97 Due process dictates
September 11, 2017
that when a party who adopts a certain theory upon
- SPOUSES EDGARDO
which the case is tried and decided by the lower court,
M. AGUINALDO AND
he should not be allowed to change his theory on
NELIA T. TORRES-
appeal. The reviewing court will not consider a theory
AGUINALDO,
of the case which has not been brought to the lower
Petitioners, v.
court's attention; a new theory cannot be raised for the
ARTEMIO T. TORRES,
first time at such late stage.98 Thus, We cannot bend
JR., Respondent.
backwards to examine the issue belatedly raised by
petitioners at this late stage in the proceedings.
G.R. No. 223679,
September 27, 2017
Granting the Acknowledgment was defective, the same
- PEOPLE OF THE
will merely strip the document of its public character
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. and reduce it to a private instrument.99 It remains

WILFREDO LAYUG, incumbent upon petitioners to prove, by preponderance

NOEL BUAN AND of evidence, their allegation that the deed of sale was

REYNALDO LANGIT, forged even though that document no longer enjoys

Accused, WILFREDO any significantly weighted presumption as to its

LAYUG AND NOEL validity.100

BUAN, Accused-
Appellants. The Court has explained "preponderance of evidence"
 thus:
G.R. Nos. 224308-
09, September 27,
"Preponderance of evidence" is the weight,
2017 - FABRICATOR
credit, and value of the aggregate evidence
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
on either side and is usually considered to
Petitioner, v. JEANIE
be synonymous with the term "greater
ROSE Q. ESTOLAS,
weight of the evidence" or "greater weight
Respondent.
of the credible evidence." Preponderance of
evidence is a phrase which, in the last
G.R. No. 207946,
analysis, means probability of the truth. It
September 27, 2017
is evidence which is more convincing to the
- PEOPLE OF THE
court as worthy of belief than that which is
PHILIPPINES,
offered in opposition thereto.101 (Italics
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ours)
ALFREDO REYES
ALIAS "BOY REYES,"
Accused-Appellant.

Petitioners have argued that their evidence is of

G.R. No. 211111, greater weight since private respondents did not at all
September 25, 2017 present any evidence, particularly, to prove the
- C.F. SHARP CREW notarization of the 1978 Deed and the genuineness of
MANAGEMENT, INC.,
their parents' signatures thereon.102
ITS PRESIDENT, AND
GULF ENERGY
We are not convinced. Time and again, this Court has
MARITIME,
ruled that:
Petitioners, v. NOEL
N. ORBETA,
Respondent. In civil cases, it is a basic rule that the
party making allegations has the
G.R. No. 198225, burden of proving them by a
September 27, 2017 preponderance of evidence. The parties
- TSM SHIPPING must rely on the strength of their own
(PHILS.), INC., AND evidence and not upon the weakness of
MST MARINE the defense offered by their opponent.
SERVICES PHILS., This rule holds true especially when the
INC., Petitioners, v. latter has had no opportunity to
SHIRLEY G. DE present evidence because of a default
CHAVEZ,1 order. Needless to say, the extent of the
Respondent. relief that may be granted can only be
so much as has been alleged and
G.R. No. 202578, proved with preponderant evidence
September 27, 2017 required under Section 1 of Rule
- HEIRS OF GILBERTO 133.103 (Citations omitted and emphasis
ROLDAN, NAMELY: ours)
ADELINA ROLDAN,
ROLANDO ROLDAN,
GILBERTO ROLDAN,
The same principle applies here where private
JR., MARIO ROLDAN,
respondents were considered to have waived the
DANNY ROLDAN,
presentation of their evidence at trial. "Ei incumbit
LEONARDO ROLDAN,
probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. He who asserts, not
ELSA ROLDAN,
ERLINDA ROLDAN- he who denies, must prove."104 "We have consistently

CARAOS, THELMA applied the ancient rule that if the plaintiff, upon whom

ROLDAN-MASINSIN, rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to

GILDA ROLDAN- show in a satisfactory manner facts on which he bases

DAWAL AND his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove

RHODORA ROLDAN- his exception or defense."105

ICAMINA, Petitioners,
v. HEIRS OF SILVELA Thus, petitioners' evidence must stand on its own merit
ROLDAN, NAMELY: and must be scrutinized for veracity and probative
ANTONIO R. DE value. It is not rendered conclusive simply because it
GUZMAN, AUGUSTO was not met with evidence from the defense.
R. DE GUZMAN,
ALICIA R. VALDORIA- Section 1, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court
PINEDA, AND SALLY states how preponderance of evidence is determined,
R. VALDORIA, AND viz:
HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO
MAGTULIS, NAMELY:
In determining where the preponderance or
CYNTHIA YORAC-
superior weight of evidence on the issues
MAGTULIS, LEA
involved lies, the court may consider all the
JOYCE MAGTULIS-
facts and circumstances of the case,
MALABORBOR,
the witnesses' manner of testifying,
DHANCY MAGTULIS, their intelligence, their means and
FRANCES DIANE opportunity of knowing the facts to
MAGTULIS, AND which [they] are testifying, the nature
JULIERTO MAGTULIS- of the facts to which they testify, the
PLACER, probability or improbability of their
Respondents. testimony, their interest or want of
interest, and also their personal
G.R. No. 207943, credibility so far as the same may
September 11, 2017 legitimately appear upon the trial. The court
- PEOPLE OF THE may also consider the number of witnesses,
PHILIPPINES, though the preponderance is not necessarily
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. with the greater number. (Emphasis ours)
ROBERT BALANZA,
Accused-Appellant.

Considering all the circumstances of this case and all

G.R. No. 198952,
evidence adduced in support of the complaint, We find
September 06, 2017
that even by the standard of preponderance of
- PEOPLE OF THE
evidence, petitioners have failed to establish the
PHILIPPINES,
alleged simulation or forgery of the 1978 Deed.
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
DANILO SULAYAO Y
As previously explained, petitioners' claim of forgery is
LABASBAS, Accused-
built on Emerlina's testimony which we have found to
Appellant.
be both uncertain and self-serving. More importantly, a
visual comparison of the disputed and admittedly
G.R. No. 197718,
genuine signatures of Venancio and Leonila has led this
September 06, 2017
Court to find striking similarities that negate
- PRIMITIVO
petitioners' claim of forgery. Petitioners have likewise
MACALANDA, JR.,
failed to substantiate their claims that their parents
Petitioner, v. ATTY.
were mentally incapable of executing the 1978 Deed,
ROQUE A. ACOSTA,
that Ponciano exerted undue influence on their parents,
Respondent.
and that there was no consideration for the sale or that
it was unconscionable.
A.M. No. P-17-3754
(Formerly OCA IPI
All told, We find that the CA did not err in upholding
No. 14-4285-P),
the RTC's decision to dismiss petitioners' complaint.
September 26, 2017
- MARIA MAGDALENA WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision
R. JOVEN, JOSE RAUL dated May 25, 2010 and Resolution dated October 13,
C. JOVEN, AND NONA 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 86953
CATHARINA are AFFIRMED.
NATIVIDAD JOVEN
CARNACETE, SO ORDERED.
Complainants, v.
LOURDES G. CAOILI, Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del
CLERK OF COURT, Castillo, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT IN CITIES,
Endnotes:
BRANCH 1, BAGUIO
CITY, BENGUET,
1Rollo, pp. 13-36.
Respondent.

G.R. No. 224507, 2 Penned by Associate Justice Michael P.

September 20, 2017 Elbinias, concurred in by Associate Justices

- PRIVATIZATION Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Celia C.
AND MANAGEMENT Librea-Leagogo; id. at 38-47.
OFFICE, Petitioner, v.
EDGARDO V. 3 Penned by Assisting Judge Reuben P. De

QUESADA, MA. La Cruz; id. at 164-172.

GRACIA QUESADA-
MANALO, ELIZABETH 4 Id. at 49-50.
QUESADA-JOSE,
EUGENIO V.
5 Id. at 17, 39, 169 and 222-223.
QUESADA,
REPRESENTED BY
6 Id. at 75.
THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-
FACT, EUGENIO V.
7 Id. at 17 and 166.
QUESADA,
Respondents.
8 Id. at 102, 166 and 257.

G.R. No. 196945,

September 27, 2017 9 Id. at 77-82.

- DANILO REMEGIO,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE 10 Id. at 83-86.

OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent. 11 Id. at 16, 39, 169, and 224.

G.R. No. 224973, 12 Id. at 135.

September 27, 2017
- GINA LEFEBRE,
13 Id. at 167 and 225.
JOINED BY HER
HUSBAND, DONALD
14 Id. at 40, 119-126, and 164.
LEFEBRE, Petitioners,
v. A BROWN
15 Id. at 40.
COMPANY, INC.,
Respondent.
16 Id. at 120.

G.R. No. 230744,

September 26, 2017 17 Id. at 121 and 164.
- MARIO O.
SALVADOR, Petitioner, 18 Id. at 87-88.
v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND
19 Id. at 102-106.
ALEXANDER S.
BELENA,
20 Records show that Transfer Certificate of
Respondents.
Title (TCT) No. T-15125 was issued over

G.R. No. 199018, Lots 10 and 17. When Lot 10 was

September 27, 2017 subsequently subdivided, TCT No. T-15125

- ROLANDO DACANAY was cancelled and TCT Nos. T-24806, T-

Y LACASTE, 24807, T-24808 and T-24809 were issued

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE over the subdivided lots. TCT No. T-24806

OF THE PHILIPPINES, was cancelled by virtue of a Deed of

Respondent. Absolute Sale dated May 25, 1992 in favor

of Cariño & Sons Agri-Development Corp.

G.R. No. 192128 & Records also show that TCT No. 15126 was

192135-36, issued in lieu of OCT No. O-443. Id. at 77-

September 13, 2017 86, 107-114 and 117-118.

- GMA NETWORK,
INC., Petitioner, v. 21 Id. at 40 and 169-170.

NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS 22 Records show that TCT No. T-10330 was
COMMISSION,
subsequently cancelled by reason of a 1977
Respondent.
Deed of Sale in favor of Nenita Chua So.
TCT No. 12406 was subsequently issued
G.R. No. 214249,
over the same land in the names of Julian Y.
September 25, 2017
Pabiloña, Virginia Go, Gemma Tan Ongking,
- HENRY E. YU,
Arthur C. Chua and Nenita Chua So. TCT
MARIANITO M.
No. T-12406 was in turn cancelled by virtue
MARBAS, EDWIN R.
of a 1992 Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
BAYBAY, VICTOR
Cityland, Inc. Id. at 89-90 and 115-116.
RUALES, CEPRIANO J.
DOSDOS, JR., 23 Id. at 169-170.
REYNALDO C. GATO,
PABLITO GRAME
24 Id. at 122.
OLAYON, FELICITO G.
DAAN, SR., EDGAR R.
25 Id.
REBAGOS, SR.,
RONALDO T.
26 Id. at 124-125.
LANSANG, MARIJUL
O. ONDAP, ROGELIO
M. UBOS, SR., ELANE 27 Id. at 156-160.

M. AGAPAY, GERSON
S. AGAPAY, SR., 28 Elenita P. Cervantes, Susana Almeda-
GENES S. CAPON, Alcazar, Laurence P. Almeda, Florecita
MARK DECYRL B. Almeda-Datoc, Romel P. Almeda, Edwin P.
OSORIO, FREDDIE M. Almeda, Wenilda Almeda-Diaz, Marlon P.
BELTRAN, ROBERT F. Almeda, Alan P. Almeda and Carolyn
COLMINAS, WILLIAM Almeda-Santos. Id. at 226.
M. ESTORQUE, SR.,
ERIC G. MARAON, 29 Id. at 166.
LEONARD S.
VILLAREN, JUNIFER
30 Id. at 162-163 and 169.
QUITA, JEBRYAN
QUITA, JOVANIE
BANTILAN, GERRY A. 31 Id. at 91-95.

QUITA, REY S.
AGAPAY, ADOLITO S. 32 Id. at 96-101.
BULTRON, JANIFER C.
DAAN, ARNEL L. 33 Id. at 164-172.
LUNASIN, JOSE
CEPEDA SABIO, ROEL
34 Id. at 172.
E. VALLESPIN, PETER
JOHN D. CORDOVA,
35 Id. at 181.
RONILO D.
CORDOVA, CRISANTO
36 Id. at 38-47.
D. DIAPOLET, ALDO
D. DIAPOLET, VINSON
M. ALEJANDRO 37 Id. at 46.

JERYLYNN Q.
GALANG, JOVILITO 38 Id. at 42-43.
MAESTRADO, JR.,
CONSTANCIO B. 39Rivera v. Turiano, 546 Phil. 495, 498
MADRONA, JR.,
(2007).
JOHNNA D. LLEMIT,
VIRGILIA A.
40Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical
EMPERON, JIMMY G.
Mission, United Presbyterian Church, USA,
ALBER, JERRY L.
432 Phil. 895, 909 (2002).
LOPEZ, RONITO A.
RAMA, EVELYN G.
41Rivera v. Turiano, supra note 39, at 502.
MANSAL, RUBEN
MARAON, SELVERIO
42Rollo, pp. 51-61.
P. OMBICO, JR., AND
DIEGO GONZAGA,
Petitioners, v. SR 43 Id. at 49-50.

METALS, INC. (SRMI),

ELOISA E. SEGARRA, 44Ceballos v. Intestate Estate of the Late

FRANCIS ERIC Mercado, 474 Phil. 363, 372 (2004).

GUTIERREZ, JIMWELL
ORPILLA AND 45See Sps. Bernales v. Heirs of Julian
GODOFREDO NARDO,
Sambaan, 624 Phil. 88, 97 (2010).
Respondents.
46 682 Phil. 426 (2012).

G.R. No. 172193,

September 13, 2017 47 Id. at 436.
- CELERINO CHUA
ALIAS SUNTAY, 48Sps. Bernales v. Heirs of Julian Sambaan,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
supra note 45, at 98.
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
49Dr. Yason v. Arciaga, 490 Phil. 338, 352

(2005), citing Mendezona v. Ozamiz, 426

G.R. No. 170316,
Phil. 888, 903 (2002).
September 18, 2017
- REPUBLIC OF THE
50 Mendezona v. Ozamiz, supra note 49, at
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. 903-904.

SPOUSES JOEL AND

51 Dr. Yason v. Arciaga, supra note 49.
ANDREA NOVAL,
ELLEN N. DELOS
REYES, DALE Y. 52Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co, Inc. v. CA,

NOVAL, WINNIE T. 517 Phil. 380, 388-389 (2006); Ladignon v.

REFI, ZENAIDA LAO, CA, 390 Phil. 1161, 1169 (2000).
AND DAISY N.
MORALES, 53Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v.
Respondents CA, supra note at 389.

G.R. No. 213581, 54Ladignon v. CA, supra note 52, at 1169.

September 19, 2017
- BANGKO SENTRAL
55 Id., Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co. Inc.
NG PILIPINAS,
v. CA, supra note 52, at 389.
Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON
56Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v.
AUDIT, Respondent.
CA, supra note at 389.

G.R. No. 179732,

57Rollo, p. 122.
September 13, 2017
- DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND 58 Id. at 43-44.

HIGHWAYS,
Petitioner, v. 59 Id. at 324.
CMC/MONARK/PACIFIC/HI-
TRI JOINT VENTURE, 60 Id. at 325.
Respondent.

61 Id.
G.R. No. 218425,
September 27, 2017
62Ceballos v. Intestate Estate of the Late
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Mercado, supra note 44, at 377.

Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
63Manzano, Jr. v. Garcia, 677 Phil. 376, 385
WILSON CACHO Y
SONGCO, Accused- (2011), citing Rivera v. Turiano, supra note
Appellant. 39, at 502, Ladignon v. CA, supra note 52,
at 1171.
G.R. No. 198119,
September 27, 2017 64Manzano, Jr. v. Garcia, supra note 63, at

- PEOPLE OF THE 384, citing Sps. Estavio v. Dr. Jaranilla, 462

PHILIPPINES, Phil. 723, 733 (2003) and Pontaoe, et al. v.
Petitioner, v. Pontaoe, et al., 575 Phil. 283, 292 (2008).
SANDIGANBAYAN
AND JUAN1 ROBERTO 65Rollo, pp. 75-76.
L. ABLING,
Respondents. 66 Id. at 27.

G.R. No. 194189,

67 Id. at 25-26.
September 14, 2017
- RAFAEL ALMEDA,
68Ceballos v. Intestate Estate of the Late
EMERLINA ALMEDA-
LIRIO, ALODIA Mercado, supra note 44, at 373.

ALMEDA-TAN,
69Dr. Yason v. Arciaga, supra note 49, at
LETICIA ALMEDA-
MAGNO, NORMA 346.
ALMEDA-MATIAS AND
PUBLIO TIBI,, 70 Id.
Petitioners, v. HEIRS
OF PONCIANO 71Rollo, pp. 167, 176, 191, 192 and 195.

ALMEDA IN
SUBSTITUTION OF 72 Supra note 49.
ORIGINAL
DEFENDANT 73 Id. at 906.
PONCIANO ALMEDA,
INTESTATE ESTATE
74Dr. Yason v. Arciaga, supra note 49, at
OF SPOUSES
350-351, Mendezona v. Ozamiz, supra note
PONCIANO AND
49, at 906.
EUFEMIA PEREZ-
ALMEDA AND THE
75 419 Phil. 651 (2001).
REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF TAGAYTAY CITY,
76 Id. at 664.
Respondent.

G.R. No. 205695, 77Mendezona v. Ozamiz, supra note 49, at

September 27, 2017 907.

- JESUS APARENTE,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE 78Heirs of Sevilla v. Sevilla, 450 Phil. 598,
OF THE PHILIPPINES, 611 (2003).
Respondent.

79 Id. at 612.
G.R. No. 209306,
September 27, 2017
80Mendezona v. Ozamiz, supra note 49, at
- COMMISSIONER OF
903.
INTERNAL REVENUE,
Petitioner, v. HEDCOR
81Rollo, p. 32.
SIBULAN, INC.,
Respondent.
82 Supra note 49.

G.R. No. 204663,

September 27, 2017 83 Id. at 903-905.

- MUNICIPAL RURAL
BANK OF LIBMANAN, 84See note 22.

CAMARINES SUR,
Petitioner, v. 85Rollo, p. 32.

VIRGINIA ORDOÑEZ,
Respondent. 86 Supra note 44.

G.R. No. 205652, 87 Id. at 376.

September 06, 2017
- PROCTER & GAMBLE
88Rollo, pp. 31-32 and 177.
ASIA PTE LTD.,
Petitioner, v.
89 Id. at 81.
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
90 Id. at 84.
Respondent.

G.R. No. 180969, 91 Id. at 117-118.

September 11, 2017

- NOEL NAVAJA, 92Delfin v. Billones, 519 Phil. 720, 732
Petitioner, v. HON. (2006).
MANUEL A. DE
CASTRO OR HIS 93Rollo, pp. 29-30.
SUCCESSOR, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS
94 Id. at 354.
PRESIDING JUDGE OF
THE MUNICIPAL
95 Id. at 30.
CIRCUIT TRIAL
COURT OF JAGNA &
96 Id. at 334.
GARCIA-HERNANDEZ,
JAGNA, BOHOL, AND
ATTY. EDGAR BORJE, 97Pua v. CA, 398 Phil. 1064, 1080 (2000).

Respondents.
98Kings Properties Corp. v. Galido, 621 Phil.

G.R. No. 185938, 126, 144 (2009), citing Philippine Ports

September 06, 2017 Authority v. City of Iloilo, 453 Phil. 927, 934
- ALICIA M.L. (2003).
COSETENG AND
DILIMAN 99 Adelaida Meneses (deceased) v.
PREPARATORY
Venturozo, 675 Phil. 641, 652 (2011).
SCHOOL, Petitioners,
v. LETICIA P. PEREZ, 100 Id., Dela Rama, et al. v. Papa, et al.,
Respondent. 597 Phil 227, 244 (2009).

A.C. No. 9832, 101Rep. of the Phils. v. De Guzman, 667

September 04, 2017
Phil. 229, 246 (2011), citing Encinas v.
- LOLITA R. MARTIN,
National Bookstore, Inc., 485 Phil. 683, 695
Complainant, v. ATTY.
(2004).
JESUS M. DELA
CRUZ, Respondent. 102Rollo, p. 175.

G.R. No. 213200,

103Otero v. Tan, 692 Phil. 714, 729 (2012),
September 19, 2017
Gajudo v. Traders Royal Bank, 519 Phil.
- NAYONG PILIPINO
791, 803 (2006).
FOUNDATION, INC.,
Petitioner, v.
104Heirs of Sevilla v. Sevilla, supra note 78,
CHAIRPERSON MA.
GRACIA M. PULIDO at 612.

TAN, COMMISSIONER
105 Id.
HEIDI L. MENDOZA,
COMMISSIONER
ROWENA V.
GUANZON, THE
COMMISSIONERS,
COMMISSION ON Back to Home | Back to Main
AUDIT (COA),
Respondents.

G.R. No. 213953,

September 26, 2017
- ENGR. OSCAR A.
MARMETO, Petitioner,
v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS
(COMELEC),
Respondent.
 G.R. No. 214762,
September 20, 2017
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ROMMEL RONQUILLO,
Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 230324,

September 19, 2017
- LORIE MARIE
TOMAS CALLO,
Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER
JAIME H. MORENTE,
BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION, OIC
ASSOCIATES
COMMISSIONERS,
BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION, AND
BRIAN ALAS, BUREAU
OF IMMIGRATION,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 227185,

September 27, 2017
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
EEE, Accused-
Appellant.

G.R. No. 228617,

September 20, 2017
- PLANTERS
DEVELOPMENT BANK,
Petitioner, v.
SPOUSES
VICTORIANO AND
MELANIE RAMOS,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 228112,

September 13, 2017
- SPOUSES
ROSALINO R. REYES,
JR. AND SYLVIA S.
REYES, Petitioners, v.
SPOUSES HERBERT
BUN HONG G. CHUNG
AND WIENNA T.
CHUNG,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 225808,

September 11, 2017
- SPOUSES EDGARDO
M. AGUINALDO AND
NELIA T. TORRES-
AGUINALDO,
Petitioners, v.
ARTEMIO T. TORRES,
JR., Respondent.

G.R. Nos. 224308-

09, September 27,
2017 - FABRICATOR
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
Petitioner, v. JEANIE
ROSE Q. ESTOLAS,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 207946,

September 27, 2017
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ALFREDO REYES
ALIAS "BOY REYES,"
Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 211111,

September 25, 2017
- C.F. SHARP CREW
MANAGEMENT, INC.,
ITS PRESIDENT, AND
GULF ENERGY
MARITIME,
Petitioners, v. NOEL
N. ORBETA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 198225,

September 27, 2017
- TSM SHIPPING
(PHILS.), INC., AND
MST MARINE
SERVICES PHILS.,
INC., Petitioners, v.
SHIRLEY G. DE
CHAVEZ,1
Respondent.

G.R. No. 202578,

September 27, 2017
- HEIRS OF GILBERTO
ROLDAN, NAMELY:
ADELINA ROLDAN,
ROLANDO ROLDAN,
GILBERTO ROLDAN,
JR., MARIO ROLDAN,
DANNY ROLDAN,
LEONARDO ROLDAN,
ELSA ROLDAN,
ERLINDA ROLDAN-
CARAOS, THELMA
ROLDAN-MASINSIN,
GILDA ROLDAN-
DAWAL AND
RHODORA ROLDAN-
ICAMINA, Petitioners,
v. HEIRS OF SILVELA
ROLDAN, NAMELY:
ANTONIO R. DE
GUZMAN, AUGUSTO
R. DE GUZMAN,
ALICIA R. VALDORIA-
PINEDA, AND SALLY
R. VALDORIA, AND
HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO
MAGTULIS, NAMELY:
CYNTHIA YORAC-
MAGTULIS, LEA
JOYCE MAGTULIS-
MALABORBOR,
DHANCY MAGTULIS,
FRANCES DIANE
MAGTULIS, AND
JULIERTO MAGTULIS-
PLACER,
Respondents.
 G.R. No. 207943,
September 11, 2017
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ROBERT BALANZA,
Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 197718,

September 06, 2017
- PRIMITIVO
MACALANDA, JR.,
Petitioner, v. ATTY.
ROQUE A. ACOSTA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 198952,

September 06, 2017
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
DANILO SULAYAO Y
LABASBAS, Accused-
Appellant.

A.M. No. P-17-3754

(Formerly OCA IPI
No. 14-4285-P),
September 26, 2017
- MARIA MAGDALENA
R. JOVEN, JOSE RAUL
C. JOVEN, AND NONA
CATHARINA
NATIVIDAD JOVEN
CARNACETE,
Complainants, v.
LOURDES G. CAOILI,
CLERK OF COURT,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT IN CITIES,
BRANCH 1, BAGUIO
CITY, BENGUET,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 196945,

September 27, 2017
- DANILO REMEGIO,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 224507,

September 20, 2017
- PRIVATIZATION
AND MANAGEMENT
OFFICE, Petitioner, v.
EDGARDO V.
QUESADA, MA.
GRACIA QUESADA-
MANALO, ELIZABETH
QUESADA-JOSE,
EUGENIO V.
QUESADA,
REPRESENTED BY
THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-
FACT, EUGENIO V.
QUESADA,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 224973,

September 27, 2017
- GINA LEFEBRE,
JOINED BY HER
HUSBAND, DONALD
LEFEBRE, Petitioners,
v. A BROWN
COMPANY, INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 226213,

September 27, 2017
- G. HOLDINGS, INC.,
Petitioner, v.
CAGAYAN ELECTRIC
POWER AND LIGHT
COMPANY, INC.
(CEPALCO) AND
FERROCHROME
PHILIPPINES, INC.,
Respondents.

A.M. No. P-16-3511

(Formerly OCA IPI
No. 14-4346-P),
September 06, 2017
- ROLANDO SOLIVA,
Complainant, v.
REYNALDO TALEON,
SHERIFF IV,
REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 10,
DIPOLOG CITY,
ZAMBOANGA DEL
NORTE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 209969,

September 27, 2017
- JOSE SANICO AND
VICENTE CASTRO,
Petitioners, v.
WERHERLINA P.
COLIPANO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 210571,

September 19, 2017
- ORESTES S.
MIRALLES, Petitioner,
v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.

G.R. No. 199018,

September 27, 2017
- ROLANDO DACANAY
Y LACASTE,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 230744,

September 26, 2017
- MARIO O.
SALVADOR, Petitioner,
v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND
ALEXANDER S.
BELENA,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 192128 &

192135-36,
September 13, 2017
- GMA NETWORK,
INC., Petitioner, v.
NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 214249,

September 25, 2017
- HENRY E. YU,
MARIANITO M.
MARBAS, EDWIN R.
BAYBAY, VICTOR
RUALES, CEPRIANO J.
DOSDOS, JR.,
REYNALDO C. GATO,
PABLITO GRAME
OLAYON, FELICITO G.
DAAN, SR., EDGAR R.
REBAGOS, SR.,
RONALDO T.
LANSANG, MARIJUL
O. ONDAP, ROGELIO
M. UBOS, SR., ELANE
M. AGAPAY, GERSON
S. AGAPAY, SR.,
GENES S. CAPON,
MARK DECYRL B.
OSORIO, FREDDIE M.
BELTRAN, ROBERT F.
COLMINAS, WILLIAM
M. ESTORQUE, SR.,
ERIC G. MARAON,
LEONARD S.
VILLAREN, JUNIFER
QUITA, JEBRYAN
QUITA, JOVANIE
BANTILAN, GERRY A.
QUITA, REY S.
AGAPAY, ADOLITO S.
BULTRON, JANIFER C.
DAAN, ARNEL L.
LUNASIN, JOSE
CEPEDA SABIO, ROEL
E. VALLESPIN, PETER
JOHN D. CORDOVA,
RONILO D.
CORDOVA, CRISANTO
D. DIAPOLET, ALDO
D. DIAPOLET, VINSON
M. ALEJANDRO
JERYLYNN Q.
GALANG, JOVILITO
MAESTRADO, JR.,
CONSTANCIO B.
MADRONA, JR.,
JOHNNA D. LLEMIT,
VIRGILIA A.
EMPERON, JIMMY G.
ALBER, JERRY L.
LOPEZ, RONITO A.
RAMA, EVELYN G.
MANSAL, RUBEN
MARAON, SELVERIO
P. OMBICO, JR., AND
DIEGO GONZAGA,
Petitioners, v. SR
METALS, INC. (SRMI),
ELOISA E. SEGARRA,
FRANCIS ERIC
GUTIERREZ, JIMWELL
ORPILLA AND
GODOFREDO NARDO,
Respondents.
 G.R. No. 204412,
September 20, 2017
- VICENTE L. LUNTAO
AND NANETTE L.
LUNTAO, Petitioners,
v. BAP CREDIT
GUARANTY
CORPORATION AND
EFREN M. PINEDA,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 172193,

September 13, 2017
- CELERINO CHUA
ALIAS SUNTAY,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 170316,

September 18, 2017
- REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v.
SPOUSES JOEL AND
ANDREA NOVAL,
ELLEN N. DELOS
REYES, DALE Y.
NOVAL, WINNIE T.
REFI, ZENAIDA LAO,
AND DAISY N.
MORALES,
Respondents

G.R. No. 213581,

September 19, 2017
- BANGKO SENTRAL
NG PILIPINAS,
Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.

G.R. No. 208185,

September 06, 2017
- PRISCILLA ZAFRA
ORBE, Petitioner, v.
FILINVEST LAND,
INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 179732,

September 13, 2017
- DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS,
Petitioner, v.
CMC/MONARK/PACIFIC/HI-
TRI JOINT VENTURE,
Respondent.

GR. No. 196072,

September 20, 2017
- STEAMSHIP
MUTUAL
UNDERWRITING
ASSOCIATION
(BERMUDA) LIMITED,
Petitioner, v.
SULPICIO LINES,
INC., Respondent.;
G.R. NO. 208603 -
SULPICIO LINES,
INC., Petitioner, v.
STEAMSHIP MUTUAL
UNDERWRITING
ASSOCIATION
(BERMUDA) LIMITED,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 218425,

September 27, 2017
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
WILSON CACHO Y
SONGCO, Accused-
Appellant.

G.R. No. 198119,

September 27, 2017
- PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v.
SANDIGANBAYAN
AND JUAN1 ROBERTO
L. ABLING,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 194189,

September 14, 2017
- RAFAEL ALMEDA,
EMERLINA ALMEDA-
LIRIO, ALODIA
ALMEDA-TAN,
LETICIA ALMEDA-
MAGNO, NORMA
ALMEDA-MATIAS AND
PUBLIO TIBI,,
Petitioners, v. HEIRS
OF PONCIANO
ALMEDA IN
SUBSTITUTION OF
ORIGINAL
DEFENDANT
PONCIANO ALMEDA,
INTESTATE ESTATE
OF SPOUSES
PONCIANO AND
EUFEMIA PEREZ-
ALMEDA AND THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF TAGAYTAY CITY,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 205695,

September 27, 2017
- JESUS APARENTE,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 209306,

September 27, 2017
- COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
Petitioner, v. HEDCOR
SIBULAN, INC.,
Respondent.

Copyright © 1995 - 20201995 - 2020 REDiaz