ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 2
Tweet 4 Share 4 Share
Tweet Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > March 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 199113, March 18,
2015 - RENATO M. DAVID, Petitioner, v. EDITHA A. AGBAY AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.:

Custom Search Search

G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015 - RENATO M. DAVID, Petitioner, v. EDITHA A. AGBAY AND PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015

RENATO M. DAVID, Petitioner, v. EDITHA A. AGBAY AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondents.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 seeking to reverse the Order1 dated October 8, 2011 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, which denied the petition for certiorari filed
by Renato M. David (petitioner). Petitioner assailed the Order2 dated March 22, 2011 of the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) of Socorro, Oriental Mindoro denying his motion for redetermination of probable cause.

The factual antecedents: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

In 1974, petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon their
retirement, petitioner and his wife returned to the Philippines. Sometime in 2000, they purchased a 600-
square meter lot along the beach in Tambong, Gloria, Oriental Mindoro where they constructed a
residential house. However, in the year 2004, they came to know that the portion where they built their
house is public land and part of the salvage zone.
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
On April 12, 2007, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application3 (MLA) over the subject land with
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) at the Community Environment and
Natural Resources Office (CENRO) in Socorro. In the said application, petitioner indicated that he is a
Filipino citizen.

Private respondent Editha A. Agbay opposed the application on the ground that petitioner, a Canadian
citizen, is disqualified to own land. She also filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public documents
under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (I.S. No. 08-6463) against the petitioner.

Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the provisions of Republic Act No. 9225,4
(R.A. 9225) as evidenced by Identification Certificate No. 266-10-075 issued by the Consulate General of
the Philippines (Toronto) on October 11, 2007.

In his defense, petitioner averred that at the time he filed his application, he had intended to re-acquire
Philippine citizenship and that he had been assured by a CENRO officer that he could declare himself as a
Filipino. He further alleged that he bought the property from the Agbays who misrepresented to him that
the subject property was titled land and they have the right and authority to convey the same. The
dispute had in fact led to the institution of civil and criminal suits between him and private respondent�s
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
March-2015 Jurisprudence
A.C. No. 7158, March 09, 2015 - YOLANDA A.
ANDRES, MINETTE A. MERCADO, AND ELITO P.
ANDRES , Complainants, v. ATTY. SALIMATHAR V.
NAMBI, Respondent.
A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015 - DR. ELMAR O.
PEREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG
AND ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 211497, March 18, 2015 - HOCHENG
PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO
M. FARRALES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 190828, March 16, 2015 - ONOFRE V.
MONTERO, EDGARDO N. ESTRA�ERO, RENING P.
PADRE, GABRIEL A. MADERA, HERMINIO T. TACLA,
NELSON C. VILORIA, DEMETRIO Q. PAJARILLO,
ALFREDO R. AGANON, REYNALDO AVILA, ALBERT T.
RUIZ, NESTOR Y. YAGO, HARTY M. TUPASI, AGUSTIN
R. AVILA, JR. OR MARCOS R. AVILA, BONIFACIO B.
GAANO, JOSELITO D. CUENTA, JONAS P. ESTILONG,
DOMINADOR C. CANARIA, GENARO C. RONDARIS,
HERARDO M. DULAY, FRANKLIN A. RAVINA, JR., AND
RUBEN C. CABELLO, Petitioners, v. TIMES
TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND SANTIAGO
RONDARIS, MENCORP TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC.,
VIRGINIA R. MENDOZA AND REYNALDO MENDOZA,
Respondents.
A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015 - ALVIN S.
FELICIANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. CARMELITA
BAUTISTA-LOZADA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 195661, March 11, 2015 - UNKNOWN
OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V CHINA JOY, SAMSUN
SHIPPING LTD., AND INTER-ASIA MARINE
TRANSPORT, INC., Petitioners, v. ASIAN TERMINALS,
INC., Respondent.
A.C. No. 5914, March 11, 2015 - SPOUSES ROGELIO
AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO, Complainants, v.
ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP AND ATTY. WHELMA F.
SITON-YAP, Respondents.
G.R. No. 215630, March 09, 2015 - METROGUARDS
SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS BEEGUARDS CORPORATION) AND MS.
MILAGROS T. CHAN, Petitioners, v. ALBERTO N.
HILONGO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015 - RENATO M.
DAVID, Petitioner, v. EDITHA A. AGBAY AND PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 205300, March 18, 2015 - FONTERRA
BRANDS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. LEONARDO1
LARGADO AND TEOTIMO ESTRELLADO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 206019, March 18, 2015 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
family.
On January 8, 2008,6 the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor issued its Resolution7 finding probable cause
to indict petitioner for violation of Article 172 of the RPC and recommending the filing of the
corresponding information in court. Petitioner challenged the said resolution in a petition for review he
filed before the Department of Justice (DOJ).
On June 3, 2008, the CENRO issued an order rejecting petitioner�s MLA. It ruled that petitioner�s
subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship did not cure the defect in his MLA which was void ab
initio.8 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In the meantime, on July 26, 2010, the petition for review filed by petitioner was denied by the DOJ
which held that the presence of the elements of the crime of falsification of public document suffices to
warrant indictment of the petitioner notwithstanding the absence of any proof that he gained or intended
to injure a third person in committing the act of falsification.9 Consequently, an information for
Falsification of Public Document was filed before the MTC (Criminal Case No. 2012) and a warrant of
arrest was issued against the petitioner.
On February 11, 2011, after the filing of the Information and before his arrest, petitioner filed an Urgent
Motion for Re-Determination of Probable Cause10 in the MTC. Interpreting the provisions of the law relied
upon by petitioner, the said court denied the motion, holding that R.A. 9225 makes a distinction between
those who became foreign citizens during its effectivity, and those who lost their Philippine citizenship
before its enactment when the governing law was Commonwealth Act No. 6311 (CA 63). Since the crime
for which petitioner was charged was alleged and admitted to have been committed on April 12, 2007
before he had re-acquired his Philippine citizenship, the MTC concluded that petitioner was at that time
still a Canadian citizen. Thus, the MTC ordered: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused, and for lack of merit,
the motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.12
In his motion for reconsideration,13 petitioner questioned the foregoing order denying him relief on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction and insisted that the issue raised is purely legal. He argued that since his
application had yet to receive final evaluation and action by the DENR Region IV-B office in Manila, it is
academic to ask the citizenship of the applicant (petitioner) who had re-acquired Philippine citizenship six
months after he applied for lease of public land. The MTC denied the motion for reconsideration.14 chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Dissatisfied, petitioner elevated the case to the RTC via a petition15 for certiorari under Rule 65, alleging
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the MTC. He asserted that first, jurisdiction over the person of an
accused cannot be a pre-condition for the re-determination of probable cause by the court that issues a
warrant of arrest; and second, the March 22, 2011 Order disregarded the legal fiction that once a
natural-born Filipino citizen who had been naturalized in another country re-acquires his citizenship under
R.A. 9225, his Filipino citizenship is thus deemed not to have been lost on account of said naturalization.
In his Comment and Opposition,16 the prosecutor emphasized that the act of falsification was already
consummated as petitioner has not yet re-acquired his Philippine citizenship, and his subsequent oath to
re-acquire Philippine citizenship will only affect his citizenship status and not his criminal act which was
long consummated prior to said oath of allegiance.
On October 8, 2011, the RTC issued the assailed Order denying the petition for certiorari after finding no
grave abuse of discretion committed by the lower court, thus: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is hereby DENIED. At any rate petitioner is not left without any
remedy or recourse because he can proceed to trial where he can make use of his claim to
be a Filipino citizen as his defense to be adjudicated in a full blown trial, and in case of
conviction, to appeal such conviction.
SO ORDERED.17
Petitioner is now before us arguing that �
A. By supporting the prosecution of the petitioner for falsification, the lower court has
disregarded the undisputed fact that petitioner is a natural-born Filipino citizen, and
that by re-acquiring the same status under R.A. No. 9225 he was by legal fiction
�deemed not to have lost� it at the time of his naturalization in Canada and
through the time when he was said to have falsely claimed Philippine citizenship.
B. By compelling petitioner to first return from his legal residence in Canada and to
surrender or allow himself to be arrested under a warrant for his alleged false claim
to Philippine citizenship, the lower court has pre-empted the right of petitioner
through his wife and counsel to question the validity of the said warrant of arrest
against him before the same is implemented, which is tantamount to a denial of
due process.18
In his Comment, the Solicitor General contends that petitioner�s argument regarding the retroactivity of
R.A. 9225 is without merit. It is contended that this Court�s rulings in Frivaldo v. Commission on
Elections19 and Altarejos v. Commission on Elections20 on the retroactivity of one�s re-acquisition of
Philippine citizenship to the date of filing his application therefor cannot be applied to the case of herein
petitioner. Even assuming for the sake of argument that such doctrine applies in the present situation, it
will still not work for petitioner�s cause for the simple reason that he had not alleged, much less proved,
that he had already applied for reacquisition of Philippine citizenship before he made the declaration in
the Public Land Application that he is a Filipino. Moreover, it is stressed that in falsification of public
document, it is not necessary that the idea of gain or intent to injure a third person be present. As to
petitioner�s defense of good faith, such remains to be a defense which may be properly raised and
proved in a full-blown trial.
On the issue of jurisdiction over the person of accused (petitioner), the Solicitor General opines that in
seeking an affirmative relief from the MTC when he filed his Urgent Motion for Re-determination of
Probable Cause, petitioner is deemed to have submitted his person to the said court�s jurisdiction by his
voluntary appearance. Nonetheless, the RTC correctly ruled that the lower court committed no grave
abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner�s motion after a judicious, thorough and personal
evaluation of the parties� arguments contained in their respective pleadings, and the evidence
submitted before the court.
In sum, the Court is asked to resolve whether (1) petitioner may be indicted for falsification for
representing himself as a Filipino in his Public Land Application despite his subsequent re-acquisition of
Philippine citizenship under the provisions of R.A. 9225; and (2) the MTC properly denied petitioner�s

G.R. No. 204757, March 17, 2015 - ATTY. JANET D.
NACION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, MA.
GRACIA PULIDO-TAN, JUANITO ESPINO AND HEIDI
MENDOZA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 187836, March 10, 2015 - SOCIAL JUSTICE
SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S.
ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO,
Petitioners, v. ALFREDO S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent.; G.R.
No. 187916 - JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M.
ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIP-GARCIA, RAFAEL P.
BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWIS-ASUNCION, MINORS
MARIAN REGINA B. TARAN, MACAILA RICCI B.
TARAN, RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, REPRESENTED
AND JOINED BY THEIR PARENTS RICHARD AND
MARITES TARAN, MINORS CZARINA ALYSANDRA C.
RAMOS, CEZARAH ADRIANNA C. RAMOS, AND
CRISTEN AIDAN C. RAMOS REPRESENTED AND
JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER DONNA C. RAMOS,
MINORS JAZMIN SYLLITA T. VILA AND ANTONIO T.
CRUZ IV, REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR
MOTHER MAUREEN C. TOLENTINO, Petitioners, v.
MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR FRANCISCO
DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W. KOA, MOISES
T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N. CHUA,
VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C. NIETO,
ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R. YUPANGCO,
EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D. VALBUENA,
JOSEFINA M. SISCAR, SALVADOR PHILLIP H.
LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V. LOPEZ,
ERNESTO F. RIVERA,1 DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA,
JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H. LACUNA-PANGAN,
ERNESTO M. DIONISO, JR. AND ERICK IAN O. NIEVA,
Respondents.; CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON
CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION, Intervenors.
G.R. No. 187606, March 09, 2015 - NORMA V.
JAVATE, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES RENATO J. TIOTUICO
AND LERMA C. TIOTUICO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 207133, March 09, 2015 - SWIRE REALTY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JAYNE
YU, Respondent.
G.R. No. 207747, March 11, 2015 - SPOUSES CHIN
KONG WONG CHOI AND ANA O. CHUA, Petitioners, v.
UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Respondent.
G.R. No. 209383, March 11, 2015 - SEACREST
MARITIME MANAGEMENT, INC., ROLANDO B.
MAGCALE, AND SEALION SHIPPING LIMITED �
UNITED KINGDOM, Petitioners, v. MAURICIO G.
PICAR, JR., Respondent.
G.R. No. 183511, March 25, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EMETERIA G.
LUALHATI, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10679, March 10, 2015 - PO1 JOSE B.
CASPE, Complainant, v. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 203774, March 11, 2015 - CARGILL
PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 198024, March 16, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAFAEL
CUNANAN Y DAVID ALIAS �PAENG PUTOL�,
Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015 - ST. LUKE�S
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIA
THERESA V. SANCHEZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 200983, March 18, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HUANG TE FU, A.K.A.
ROBERT UY, Respondent.
G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015 - ATTY. JACINTO
C. GONZALES, Petitioner, v. MAILA CLEMEN F.
SERRANO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015 - TEOFILO B.
ADOLFO, Petitioner, v. FE. T. ADOLFO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 155701, March 11, 2015 - LIM TECK
CHUAN, Petitioner, v. SERAFIN UY AND LEOPOLDA
CECILIO, LIM SING CHAN @ HENRY LIM,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 176908, March 25, 2015 - PURISIMO M.
CABAOBAS, EXUPERIO C. MOLINA, GILBERTO V.
OPINION, VICENTE R. LAURON, RAMON M. DE PAZ,
JR., ZACARIAS E. CARBO, JULITO G. ABARRACOSO,
DOMINGO B. GLORIA, AND FRANCISCO P. CUMPIO,
Petitioners, v. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES,
INC., Respondents.
G.R. No. 200620, March 18, 2015 - ROBERTO L.
ABAD, MANUEL D. ANDAL, BENITO V. ARANETA,
PHILIP G. BRODETT, ENRIQUE L. LOCSIN AND
ROBERTO V. SAN JOSE, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE
COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION,
motion for re-determination of probable cause on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the
accused (petitioner).
R.A. 9225, otherwise known as the �Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003,� was signed
into law by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on August 29, 2003. Sections 2 and 3 of said law read: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.�It is hereby declared the policy of the State that all
Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have
lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.�Any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby
deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of
allegiance to the Republic: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
�I ______________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and
obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted
authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and
accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith
and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon myself
voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.�
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become
citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
aforesaid oath. (Emphasis supplied)
While Section 2 declares the general policy that Filipinos who have become citizens of another country
shall be deemed �not to have lost their Philippine citizenship,� such is qualified by the phrase �under
the conditions of this Act.� Section 3 lays down such conditions for two categories of natural-born
Filipinos referred to in the first and second paragraphs. Under the first paragraph are those natural-born
Filipinos who have lost their citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country who shall re-acquire their
Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. The second
paragraph covers those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect,
who shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the same oath. The taking of oath of allegiance is
required for both categories of natural-born Filipino citizens who became citizens of a foreign country, but
the terminology used is different, �re-acquired� for the first group, and �retain� for the second group.
The law thus makes a distinction between those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens before
and after the effectivity of R.A. 9225. Although the heading of Section 3 is �Retention of Philippine
Citizenship�, the authors of the law intentionally employed the terms �re-acquire� and �retain� to
describe the legal effect of taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. This is also
evident from the title of the law using both re-acquisition and retention.
In fine, for those who were naturalized in a foreign country, they shall be deemed to have re-acquired
their Philippine citizenship which was lost pursuant to CA 63, under which naturalization in a foreign
country is one of the ways by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. As its title declares, R.A. 9225
amends CA 63 by doing away with the provision in the old law which takes away Philippine citizenship
from natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries and allowing dual
citizenship,21 and also provides for the procedure for re-acquiring and retaining Philippine citizenship. In
the case of those who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, they shall retain Philippine
citizenship despite having acquired foreign citizenship provided they took the oath of allegiance under the
new law.
Petitioner insists we should not distinguish between re-acquisition and retention in R.A. 9225. He asserts
that in criminal cases, that interpretation of the law which favors the accused is preferred because it is
consistent with the constitutional presumption of innocence, and in this case it becomes more relevant
when a seemingly difficult question of law is expected to have been understood by the accused, who is a
non-lawyer, at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. He further cites the letter-reply dated
January 31, 201122 of the Bureau of Immigration (BI) to his query, stating that his status as a natural-
born Filipino will be governed by Section 2 of R.A. 9225.
These contentions have no merit.
That the law distinguishes between re-acquisition and retention of Philippine citizenship was made clear
in the discussion of the Bicameral Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions of House Bill No.
4720 and Senate Bill No. 2130 held on August 18, 2003, where Senator Franklin Drilon was responding
to the query of Representative Exequiel Javier:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
REP. JAVIER. I have some questions in Section 3. Here, under Section 3 of the Senate
version, �Any provision of law on the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of
the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, shall� and so forth, ano, shall retain
their Philippine citizenship.
Now in the second paragraph, natural-born citizens who have lost their citizenship by
reason of their naturalization after the effectivity of this Act are deemed to have
reacquired�
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. DRILON). Prior to the effectivity.
REP. JAVIER. Well, you have two kinds of natural-born citizens here. Natural-born citizens
who acquired foreign citizenship after the effectivity of this act are considered to have
retained their citizenship. But natural-born citizens who lost their Filipino citizenship before
the effectivity of this act are considered to have reacquired. May I know the distinction? Do
you mean to say that natural-born citizens who became, let�s say, American citizens after
the effectivity of this act are considered natural-born?
Now in the second paragraph are the natural-born citizens who lost their citizenship before
the effectivity of this act are no longer natural born citizens because they have just
reacquired their citizenship. I just want to know this distinction, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. DRILON). The title of the Senate version is precisely retention and
reacquisition. The reacquisition will apply to those who lost their Philippine
citizenship by virtue of Commonwealth Act 63. Upon the effectivity -- assuming that
we can agree on this, upon the effectivity of this new measure amending Commonwealth
Act 63, the Filipinos who lost their citizenship is deemed to have reacquired their Philippine
citizenship upon the effectivity of the act.
REPRESENTED BY VICTOR AFRICA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015 - HEIRS OF PEDRO
ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO,
Complainants, v. ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 209843, March 25, 2015 - TAIWAN KOLIN
CORPORATION, LTD., Petitioner, v. KOLIN
ELECTRONICS CO., INC., Respondent.
G.R. No. 203655, March 18, 2015 - SM LAND, INC.,
Petitioner, v. BASES CONVERSION AND
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ARNEL PACIANO D.
CASANOVA, ESQ., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF BCDA, Respondents.
G.R. No. 209227, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLIE
OROSCO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 205469, March 25, 2015 - BPI FAMILY
SAVINGS BANK, INC., Petitioner, v. ST. MICHAEL
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Respondent.
OCA IPI NO. 14-220-CA-J, March 17, 2015 - RE:
COMPLAINT DATED JANUARY 28, 2014 OF
WENEFREDO PARRE�O, ET AL., AGAINST HON. CELIA
C. LIBREA-LEAGOGO, HON. ELIHU A. YBA�EZ AND
HON. AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, RELATIVE TO CA G.R. SP
NO. 108807
G.R. No. 206381, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANIEL MATIBAG
Y DE VILLA @ �DANI� OR �DANILO,� Accused-
Appellant.
G.R. No. 192284, March 11, 2015 - ALEX TIONCO Y
ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015 - TERESITA B.
ENRIQUEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. TRINA DE VERA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 183212, March 16, 2015 - WALLEM
PHILIPPINES SERVICES, INC. AND WALLEM SHIP
MANAGEMENT, LTD., Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF THE
LATE PETER PADRONES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 179640, March 18, 2015 - HACIENDA
CATAYWA/MANUEL VILLANUEVA, owner, JOEMARIE
VILLANUEVA, manager, MANCY AND SONS
ENTERPRISES, INC., Petitioners, v. ROSARIO
LOREZO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 212496, March 18, 2015 - NESTOR
BRACERO, Petitioner, v. RODULFO ARCELO AND THE
HEIRS OF VICTORIANO MONISIT, namely: LOURDES
MENCHAVEZ, ROGELIO RUELO, AND MARTINIANA
APOR, Respondents.
G.R. No. 196750, March 11, 2015 - MA. ELENA R.
DIVINAGRACIA, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE
ESTATE OF THE LATE SANTIAGO C. DIVINAGRACIA,
Petitioner, v. CORONACION PARILLA, CELESTIAL
NOBLEZA, CECILIA LELINA, CELEDONIO NOBLEZA,
AND MAUDE NOBLEZA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 209370, March 25, 2015 - FORT
BONIFACIO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. VALENTIN L. FONG, Respondent.
A.C. No. 8826, March 25, 2015 - SHIRLEY OLAYTA-
CAMBA, Complainant, v. ATTY. OTILIO SY BONGON,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 203240, March 18, 2015 - NORTHERN
ISLANDS, CO., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DENNIS
AND CHERYLIN* GARCIA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER
THE NAME AND STYLE �ECOLAMP MULTI
RESOURCES,�, Respondents.
A.C. No. 8776, March 22, 2015 - ANTONINA S.
SOSA, Complainant, v. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 209283, March 11, 2015 - CECILIA RACHEL
V. QUISUMBING, Petitioner, v. LORETTA ANN P.
ROSALES, MA. VICTORIA V. CARDONA AND
NORBERTO DELA CRUZ, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS
CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS, RESPECTIVELY, OF
THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Respondent.
A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015 - EDUARDO A.
MAGLENTE, Complainant, v. ATTY. DELFIN R.
AGCAOILI, JR., Respondent.
G.R. No. 208908, March 11, 2015 - THE COFFEE
BEAN AND TEA LEAF PHILIPPINES, INC. AND
WALDEN CHU, Petitioners, v. ROLLY P. ARENAS,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 10695, March 18, 2015 - CRESCENCIANO
M. PITOGO, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY
SUELLO, Respondent.
The second aspect is the retention of Philippine citizenship applying to future
instances. So that�s the distinction.
REP. JAVIER. Well, I�m just asking this question because we are here making distinctions
between natural-born citizens. Because this is very important for certain government
positions, �no, because natural-born citizens are only qualified for a specific�
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. DRILON). That is correct.
REP. JAVIER. ...positions under the Constitution and under the law.
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. DRILON). Yes. We can get to that later on. It�s one of the
provisions, yes. But just for purposes of the explanation, Congressman Javier, that is our
conceptualization. Reacquired for those who previously lost [Filipino citizenship]
by virtue of Commonwealth Act 63, and retention for those in the future.
(Emphasis supplied)
Considering that petitioner was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of R.A. 9225, he
belongs to the first category of natural-born Filipinos under the first paragraph of Section 3 who lost
Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country. As the new law allows dual citizenship, he was
able to re-acquire his Philippine citizenship by taking the required oath of allegiance.
For the purpose of determining the citizenship of petitioner at the time of filing his MLA, it is not
necessary to discuss the rulings in Frivaldo and Altarejos on the retroactivity of such reacquisition
because R.A. 9225 itself treats those of his category as having already lost Philippine citizenship, in
contradistinction to those natural-born Filipinos who became foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 came into
force. In other words, Section 2 declaring the policy that considers Filipinos who became foreign citizens
as not to have lost their Philippine citizenship, should be read together with Section 3, the second
paragraph of which clarifies that such policy governs all cases after the new law�s effectivity.
As to the letter-reply of BI, it simply quoted Section 2 of R.A. 9225 without any reference to Section 3 on
the particular application of reacquisition and retention to Filipinos who became foreign citizens before
and after the effectivity of R.A. 9225.
Petitioner�s plea to adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused is likewise misplaced. Courts
adopt an interpretation more favorable to the accused following the time-honored principle that penal
statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.23 R.A. 9225,
however, is not a penal law.
Falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 17224 in relation to Article 17125 of the RPC refers
to falsification by a private individual, or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his
official position, of public, private, or commercial documents. The elements of falsification of documents
under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the RPC are: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(1) that the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not
take advantage of his official position;
(2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the
RPC; and
(3) that the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document.26
Petitioner made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public document, that he is a Filipino citizen at
the time of the filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a Canadian citizen. Under CA 63,
the governing law at the time he was naturalized as Canadian citizen, naturalization in a foreign country
was among those ways by which a natural-born citizen loses his Philippine citizenship. While he re-
acquired Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six months later, the falsification was already a
consummated act, the said law having no retroactive effect insofar as his dual citizenship status is
concerned. The MTC therefore did not err in finding probable cause for falsification of public document
under Article 172, paragraph 1.
The MTC further cited lack of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner accused as ground for denying
petitioner�s motion for re-determination of probable cause, as the motion was filed prior to his arrest.
However, custody of the law is not required for the adjudication of reliefs other than an application for
bail.27 In Miranda v. Tuliao,28 which involved a motion to quash warrant of arrest, this Court discussed
the distinction between custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person, and held that jurisdiction
over the person of the accused is deemed waived when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative relief,
except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over
his person. Thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In arguing, on the other hand, that jurisdiction over their person was already acquired by
their filing of the above Urgent Motion, petitioners invoke our pronouncement, through
Justice Florenz D. Regalado, in Santiago v. Vasquez: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the court acquires
jurisdiction over his person, is accomplished either by his pleading to the
merits (such as by filing a motion to quash or other pleadings requiring the
exercise of the court�s jurisdiction thereover, appearing for arraignment,
entering trial) or by filing bail. On the matter of bail, since the same is
intended to obtain the provisional liberty of the accused, as a rule the same
cannot be posted before custody of the accused has been acquired by the
judicial authorities either by his arrest or voluntary surrender.
cralawred
Our pronouncement in Santiago shows a distinction between custody of the law and
jurisdiction over the person. Custody of the law is required before the court can act upon
the application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of other reliefs sought by
the defendant where the mere application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the law is accomplished
either by arrest or voluntary surrender, while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
acquired upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. One can be under the custody of the law
but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, such as when a person
arrested by virtue of a warrant files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. On
the other hand, one can be subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, and yet
not be in the custody of the law, such as when an accused escapes custody after his trial
has commenced. Being in the custody of the law signifies restraint on the person, who is
thereby deprived of his own will and liberty, binding him to become obedient to the will of
the law. Custody of the law is literally custody over the body of the accused. It includes,
but is not limited to, detention.
xxxx

G.R. No. 200759, March 25, 2015 - FAJ
CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. SUSAN M. SAULOG, Respondent.
G.R. No. 207988, March 11, 2015 - THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIAN
MERCADO Y SARMIENTO, Accused-Appellant.
While we stand by our above pronouncement in Pico insofar as it concerns bail, we clarify
that, as a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is deemed to have
submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. As we held in the aforecited case of
Santiago, seeking an affirmative relief in court, whether in civil or criminal
proceedings, constitutes voluntary appearance.
xxxx

G.R. No. 185374, March 11, 2015 - SIMPLICIA
CERCADO-SIGA AND LIGAYA CERCADO-BELISON,
Petitioners, v. VICENTE CERCADO, JR., MANUELA C.
ARABIT, LOLITA C. BASCO, MARIA C. ARALAR AND
VIOLETA C. BINADAS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 176033, March 11, 2015 - FELILIBETH
AGUINALDO AND BENJAMIN PEREZ, Petitioners, v.
REYNALDO P. VENTUS AND JOJO B. JOSON,
Respondent.
To recapitulate what we have discussed so far, in criminal cases, jurisdiction over the
person of the accused is deemed waived by the accused when he files any
pleading seeking an affirmative relief, except in cases when he invokes the
special jurisdiction of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person.
Therefore, in narrow cases involving special appearances, an accused can invoke the
processes of the court even though there is neither jurisdiction over the person nor
custody of the law. However, if a person invoking the special jurisdiction of the court
applies for bail, he must first submit himself to the custody of the law.29 (Emphasis
supplied)

G.R. No. 205492, March 11, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DANTE
AND LOLITA BENIGNO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202805, March 23, 2015 - ROSARIO
BANGUIS-TAMBUYAT, Petitioner, v. WENIFREDA
BALCOM-TAMBUYAT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 202943, March 25, 2015 - THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, AND THE FOOD AND
DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FORMERLY THE BUREAU OF
FOOD AND DRUGS), REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF HEALTH NICOLAS B. LUTERO III,
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, Petitioners, v. PHILIP MORRIS
Considering that petitioner sought affirmative relief in filing his motion for re-determination of probable
cause, the MTC clearly erred in stating that it lacked jurisdiction over his person. Notwithstanding such
erroneous ground stated in the MTC�s order, the RTC correctly ruled that no grave abuse of discretion
was committed by the MTC in denying the said motion for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Order dated October 8, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of
Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro in Civil Case No. SCA-07-11 (Criminal Case No. 2012) is hereby
AFFIRMED and UPHELD.
With costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe,*JJ., concur. cralawlawlibrary

PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING, INC., Respondent.

Endnotes:
G.R. No. 160914, March 25, 2015 - MARCELA M.
DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO Q. HERMANO
AND HIS WIFE REMEDIOS HERMANO, Respondent. * Designated additional member per Raffle dated March 9, 2015.

G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE 1Rollo, pp. 26-29. Penned by Presiding Judge Recto A. Calabocal.
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RECTO ANGNGAO
Y MAKAY AND ROBERT CARLIN Y PECDASEN, 2
ACCUSED, RECTO ANGNGAO Y MAKAY, Accused- Id. at 67-71. Penned by Acting MTC Judge Benuardo B. Manalo.
Appellant.
3 Id. at 32.
G.R. No. 202989, March 25, 2015 - COMGLASCO
CORPORATION/AGUILA GLASS, Petitioner, v. 4 AN ACT MAKING THE CITIZENSHIP OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENS WHO ACQUIRE FOREIGN
SANTOS CAR CHECK CENTER CORPORATION, CITIZENSHIP PERMANENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 63,
Respondent.
AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015 - BANK OF THE
5Rollo, p. 33.
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECURITIES CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. EDGARDO V. GUEVARA, Respondent.
6 Should be January 8, 2009, id. at 13 & 50; records, pp. 6 &30.
G.R. No. 183531, March 25, 2015 - EASTERN
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC., 7Rollo, pp. 36-38.
Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.
8 Id. at 34-35.
G.R. No. 184301, March 23, 2015 - GE MONEY
BANK, INC. (FORMERLY KEPPEL BANK PHILIPPINES, 9 Id. at 50-53.
INC.), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICTORINO M. DIZON
AND ROSALINA L. DIZON, Respondent. 10 Id. at 54-58.
G.R. No. 198753, March 25, 2015 - JOSE �PEPE�
11AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE WAYS IN WHICH PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP MAY BE LOST
SANICO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND JENNIFER SON-TENIO, Respondent. OR REACQUIRED, approved on October 21, 1936.

G.R. No. 202970, March 25, 2015 - NATANYA JOANA 12Rollo, p. 71.
D. ARGEL, Petitioner, v. GOV. LUIS C. SINGSON, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS THE GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE 13
OF ILOCOS SUR, Respondent. Id. at 72-75.

14 Id. at 76.
G.R. No. 197556, March 25, 2015 - WATERFRONT
CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL, INC. AND MARCO
PROTACIO, Petitioners, v. ILDEBRANDO LEDESMA, 15 Records, pp. 1-16.
Respondent.
16 Id. at 65-67.
G.R. No. 211199, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RANDY
17Rollo, p. 29.
ROLLO Y LAGASCA, Defendant and Appellant.

G.R. No. 173241, March 25, 2015 - SILICON 18 Id. at 16.

PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES
MANUFACTURING, INC.), Petitioner, v. 19
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 327 Phil. 521 (1996).
Respondent.
20 484 Phil. 609 (2004).
G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015 - SATURNINO
NOVECIO, GAVINO NOVECIO, ANASTACIO GOLEZ, 21AASJS (Advocates and Adherents of Social Justice for School Teachers and Allied
ABUNDIO SOMBILON, BERTING RODRIGUEZ, Workers) v. Datumanong, 551 Phil. 110, 117-118 (2007).
MELITON CATALAN, Petitioners, v. HON. RODRIGO F.
LIM, JR., AS CHAIRMAN, HON. LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA 22Rollo,
AS PONENTE AND AS MEMBER AND HON. ANGELITA p. 59.
A. GACUTAN AS MEMBER, FORMER TWENTY-THIRD
DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO 23Peoplev. Temporada, 594 Phil. 680, 735 (2008), citing People v. Ladjaalam, 395 Phil. 1,
STATION, HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN ESTRADA, IN HIS 35 (2000).
CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 9, RTC,
MALAYBALAY, BUKIDNON, MARIA CARMEN J. 24 Art. 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents. � The
TUAZON, REP. BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, LOPE
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more
DUROTAN, Respondents.; VERGELIO ROSALES, LUIS
TEQUILIO, GREGORIO PANANGIN, JOSEPH than 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

RODRIQUEZ, EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, v. HON.

RODRIGO F. LIM, JR., AS CHAIRMAN, HON. LEONCIA 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next
R. DIMAGIBA AS PONENTE AND AS MEMBER preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind
DESIGNATED AS ACTING CHAIRPERSON, PER
SPECIAL ORDER NO. 1955 DATED MARCH 23, 2015.
DESIGNATED AS ACTING MEMBER VICE ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE ANTONIO T. CARPIO, PER SPECIAL ORDER
NO. 1956 DATED MARCH 23, 2015. AND HON.
ANGELITA A. GACUTAN AS MEMBER, FORMER
TWENTY-THIRD DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS,
MINDANAO STATION, HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN
ESTRADA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE
OF BRANCH 9, RTC, MALAYBALAY, BUKIDNON,
MANUEL V. NIETO, REP. BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT,
LOPE DUROTAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 207422, March 18, 2015 - ANGEL ABAD,
Petitioner, v. HERMINIO DELA CRUZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 208685, March 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
of commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such
damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated
in the next preceding article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to the
damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the
false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing
subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
25 ART. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. �
The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon
any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall
falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO

CASACOP Y DE CASTRO, Accused-Appellant. 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; chanrobleslaw

G.R. No. 211159, March 18, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCELINO did not in fact so participate; chanrobleslaw

OLOVERIO, Accused-Appellant.
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other
G.R. No. 175842, March 18, 2015 - NILO MACAYAN, than those in fact made by them; chanrobleslaw

JR. Y MALANA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Respondent. 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; chanrobleslaw

G.R. No. 189949, March 25, 2015 - CASTILLEJOS 5. Altering true dates;
CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA),
chanrobleslaw

Petitioner, v. JOSE S. DOMINGUEZ, ISIAS Q. VIDUA,

VICENTE M. BARRETO, JOSE M. SANTIAGO, JOSE 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
NASERIV C. DOLOJAN, JUAN FERNANDEZ, meaning; chanrobleslaw

HONORARIO DILAG, JR., FIDEL CORREA, ALICIA

MERCADO, LECIRA JUAREZ, ATTY. FULGENCIO 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original
VIGARE, JR., ANGELITO U. SACRO, MILDRED document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to,
ESGUERRA, ANTONIO APALISOK, SALAMAN D. or different from, that of the genuine original; or
MANGCA, DANILO S. SEGOBRE, EDMUNDO D. ENGAO,
P/SUPT. ROLAND FELIX, P/SUPT. JERRY SUMBAD, 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol,
P/INSP. GERRY HADUCA, P/INSP. ROBIN FUGIRAN, registry, or official book.
COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA),
BARTOLOME GALARITA, JR., WILFRE0O JIMENEZ, The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any
HITLER UNTAL, JOEL JOHN PACTORES, ROLLY
of the offenses enumerated in the preceding paragraphs of this article, with respect to any
CADORNA, RUDY ELIPSE, IBRAHIM LAHI, RODOLFO
BONIFACIO, JR., ANECITO VIEJO, JR., JONARD IRAN, record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of
ANGELITO BALDONAZA, NIKKO DAJAY, ROLANDO persons.
ASPA, JESON CABATINGAN, JOBERT UGANG
(SECURITY GUARDS), JOHN DOES (MEMBERS OF THE 26Panuncio v. People, 610 Phil. 595, 603-604 (2009).
ZAMBALES PROVINCIAL MOBILE GROUP OF THE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE), Respondent. 27Jimenez v. Sorongon, G.R. No. 178607, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 151, 161, citing
Alawiya, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 603 Phil. 264, 276 (2009); and Miranda v.
G.R. No. 178407, March 18, 2015 - METROPOLITAN
Tuliao, 520 Phil. 907, 919 (2006).
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. S.F.
NAGUIAT ENTERPRISES, INC., Respondent.
28 Id. at 919 & 921.
G.R. No. 155405, March 18, 2015 - THE HEIRS OF
EUGENIO LOPEZ, SR. NAMELY, OSCAR M. LOPEZ, 29 Id. at 918-922.
MANUEL M. LOPEZ AND PRESENTACION L. PSINAKIS,
Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE FRANCISCO
QUERUBIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE
OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ANTIPOLO,
BRANCH 74, THE HEIRS OF ALFONSO SANDOVAL AND
HIS WIFE ROSA RUIZ, REPRESENTED BY THEIR
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MRS. IMELDA RIVERA,
Respondents.; G.R. No. 164092 - HEIRS OF EUGENIO
LOPEZ, Petitioners, v. ALFONSO SANDOVAL AND Back to Home | Back to Main
ROMAN OZAETA, JR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 212635, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLIE SORIN Y QUICK SEARCH
TAGAYLO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015 - NOEL

CASUMPANG, RUBY SANGA-MIRANDA AND SAN JUAN 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
DE DIOS HOSPITAL, Petitioners, v. NELSON CORTEJO,
Respondent.; G.R. No. 171217 - DRA. RUBY SANGA- 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
MIRANDA, Petitioner, v. NELSON CORTEJO, 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
Respondent; G.R. No. 171228 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS
HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. NELSON CORTEJO, 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
Respondent. 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

G.R. No. 197115, March 23, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
OF AGRICULTURE, Petitioner, v. FEDERICO DACLAN,
JOSEFINA COLLADO AND HER HUSBAND FEDERICO 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
DACLAN, TEODORO DACLAN AND MINVILUZ DACLAN 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
AS SURVIVING HEIRS OF DECEASED JOSE DACLAN,
Respondents.; [G.R. NO. 197267] - FEDERICO 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
DACLAN, JOSEFINA COLLADO, TEODORO DACLAN 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
AND MINVILUZ DACLAN AS SURVIVING HEIRS OF
DECEASED JOSE DACLAN, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND PROVINCE OF LA
UNION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROVINCIAL 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
GOVERNOR, Respondent. 2013 2014 2015 2016

G.R. No. 160728, March 11, 2015 - CLT REALTY

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PHIL-
VILLE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (THROUGH THE
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL), AND THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF METRO MANILA DISTRICT Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
III, CALOOCAN CITY, Respondent.

G.R. No. 193038, March 11, 2015 - JOSEFINA V.

NOBLEZA, Petitioner, v. SHIRLEY B. NUEGA,
Respondent.
 G.R. Nos. 211789-90, March 17, 2015 - DR. REY B.
AQUINO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 8261, March 11, 2015 - JESSIE T.

CAMPUGAN AND ROBERT C. TORRES, Complainants,
v. ATTY. FEDERICO S. TOLENTINO, JR., ATTY.
RENATO G. CUNANAN, ATTY. DANIEL F. VICTORIO,
JR., AND ATTY. ELBERT T. QUILALA, Respondents.;
A.C. No. 8725 - JESSIE T. CAMPUGAN AND ROBERT C.
TORRES, Complainants, v. ATTY. CONSTANTE P.
CALUYA, JR., AND ATTY. ELBERT T. QUILALA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 206267, March 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RONNIE BUAT
ALIAS DATU SINSUAT, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 182886, March 09, 2015 - SPOUSES

SALVADOR P. NORBERTE, JR. AND ELIZABETH S.
NORBERTE, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FELICISIMO G.
MEJIA AND ELVIRA C. MEJIA AND/OR THEIR HEIRS,
REPRESENTED BY ALEXIS MEJIA-QUERUBIN,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 169407, March 25, 2015 - BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. AMADOR
DOMINGO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 201248, March 11, 2015 - LETICIA NAGUIT

AQUINO, MELVIN NAGUIT, ROMMEL NAGUIT, ELMA
NAGUIT TAYAG, YSSEL L. NAGUIT, ROSALINA
NAGUIT AUMENTADO, RIZEL NAGUIT CUNANAN,
CARIDAD NAGUIT PARAJAS, MILLIE NAGUIT
FLORENDO, MARNEL NAGUIT, EDUARDO NAGUIT,
JOSE NAGUIT, ZOILO NAGUIT, AND AMELIA NAGUIT
DIZON, REPRESENTED BY YSSEL L. NAGUIT,
Petitioners, v. CESAR B. QUIAZON, AMANDA
QUIAZON, JOSE B. QUIAZON AND REYNALDO B.
QUIAZON, REPRESENTED BY JAIME B. QUIAZON,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 193890, March 11, 2015 - ESTANISLAO

AND AFRICA SINAMBAN, Petitioners, v. CHINA
BANKING CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 191945, March 11, 2015 - NATIONAL

POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SOCORRO T.
POSADA, RENATO BUENO, ALICE BALIN, ADRIAN
TABLIZO, TEOFILO TABLIZO, AND LYDIA T. OLIVO,
SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, ALFREDO M. OLIVO,
ALICIA O. SALAZAR, ANITA O. ORDONO, ANGELITA O.
LIM, AND ADELFA O. ESPINAS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 175493, March 25, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF

THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF GABRIEL
Q. FERNANDEZ, Respondents.

G.R. No. 197546, March 23, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYANI DE LEON,
ANTONIO DE LEON, DANILO DE LEON AND YOYONG
DE LEON, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015 - ABS-CBN

CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FELIPE GOZON,
GILBERTO R. DUAVIT, JR., MARISSA L. FLORES,
JESSICA A. SOHO, GRACE DELA PE�A-REYES, JOHN
OLIVER T. MANALASTAS, JOHN DOES AND JANE
DOES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 184355, March 23, 2015 - ARNULFO A.K.A.

ARNOLD JACABAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 179047, March 11, 2015 - SECURITIES

AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. SUBIC
BAY GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC. AND UNIVERSAL
INTERNATIONAL GROUP DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondents.

Copyright © 1998 - 20181998 - 2018 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED