ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > March 2016 Decisions > G.R. No. 202223, March 02,
2016 - JOEY R. PEÑA, Petitioner, v. JESUS DELOS SANTOS AND THE HEIRS OF ROSITA DELOS SANTOS FLORES.,
Respondents.:

Custom Search Search

G.R. No. 202223, March 02, 2016 - JOEY R. PEÑA, Petitioner, v. JESUS DELOS SANTOS AND THE HEIRS
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review OF ROSITA DELOS SANTOS FLORES., Respondents.

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 202223, March 02, 2016

JOEY R. PEÑA, Petitioner, v. JESUS DELOS SANTOS AND THE HEIRS OF ROSITA DELOS SANTOS
FLORES., Respondents.

RESOLUTION

REYES, J.:

This resolves the Motion for Reconsideration1 of petitioner Joey R. Perm (Peña) of the Court's Resolution2
dated September 9, 2013 which denied his Petition for Review3 on the ground of lack of reversible error
in the assailed Decision4 dated February 20, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB SP No.
03886.

The Facts

Jesus Delos Santos (Jesus) and Rosita Delos Santos Flores (Rosita) were the judgment awardees of the
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
two-thirds portion or 9,915 square meters of four adjoining lots designated as Lots 393-A, 393-B, 394-D
and 394-E, measuring 14,771 sq m, located in Boracay Island, Malay, Aldan.5 The award was embodied
in the Decision dated April 29, 1996 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan in the herein Civil
Case No. 3683, the fallo of which reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered as

follows:

(1.) Dismissing the complaint filed by the plaintiffs [Vicente Delos Santos, et al.] as well
[as] the complaint in intervention filed by the second set of intervenors Casimeros, et al.
for lack of merit;

(2.) Declaring the two deeds of sale (Exhibits 29 and 30) as null and void insofar as they
affect the two-thirds (2/3) share of intervenors Jesus and [Rosita];

(3.) Declaring intervenors Jesus and [Rosita] as the lawful owners of the two-
thirds portion of the land in question or 9,915 square meters on the northwest
ChanRobles Intellectual Property portion, representing as their shares in the intestate estate of Leonardo delos
Division Santos;

(4.) Declaring defendant Fred Elizalde as the rightful owner of one-third of the land in
question or 4,957 square meters on the southeast portion, segregated by a boundary line
running from the seashore to the inland or from the southwest to northeast;

(5.) Ordering the cancellation or revision of Tax Declaration No. 4422 in the name of Fred
Elizalde (Exhibit 26) and all tax declarations issued subsequent thereto to conform to
paragraphs 3 and 4 hereof as well as the issuance of a new tax declaration to intervenors
Jesus and [Rosita] covering their two-thirds (2/3) share;

(6.) Ordering the plaintiffs or any persons claiming interest therein to deliver complete
possession of the land to [Fred and Joan Elizalde] and Jesus and [Rosita].

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.6 (Citation omitted and emphasis ours)

The losing parties in the case, Vicente Delos Santos, et al. (plaintiffs) and Spouses Fred and Joan Elizalde
(appellants), appealed the foregoing judgment to the CA thru petitions separately docketed as CA-G.R.
CV No. 54136 and CA-G.R. SP No. 48475, respectively. Both appeals were dismissed and considered
withdrawn in the CA Resolution dated May 11, 1999 upon the appellants' motion to withdraw appeal. In
the subsequent CA Resolution dated January 31, 2000, the motion for reconsideration and motion to
reinstate appeal filed by the plaintiffs were denied for being time-barred as it was filed nine days late.7

The plaintiffs sought recourse with the Court via a petition for review on certiorari docketed as G.R. Nos.
141810 and 141812.8 In a Decision dated February 2, 2007, the Court denied the petition on the ground
that the plaintiffs already lost their right of appeal to the CA when they failed to file an appellant's brief
during the more than 180-day extension.9 The Court reiterated its ruling in a Resolution dated April 23,
2007, which denied reconsideration. An Entry of Judgment in the case was forthwith issued.10

March-2016 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. 198967, March 07, 2016 - JOSE EMMANUEL
P. GUILLERMO, Petitioner, v. CRISANTO P. USON,
Respondent.
The case was then remanded to the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan for the execution proceedings during which a
Motion for Substitution with a Motion for a Writ of Execution and Demolition11 dated March 14, 2008 was
filed by Peña.
Peña averred that he is the transferee of Jesus and Rosita's adjudged allotments over the subject lots. He
claimed that he bought the same from Atty. Romeo Robiso (Atty. Robiso) who in turn, acquired the
properties from Jesus and Rosita through assignment and sale as evidenced by the following documents,
viz:

G.R. No. 208071, March 09, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO PEREZ a. Deed of Transfer or Conveyance dated May 4, 2005 transferring 2,000 sq m of Lots No.
Y ALAVADO, Accused-Appellant.
394-PT and 393-A to Atty. Robiso;12
G.R. No. 222731, March 08, 2016 - BAGUMBAYAN-
VNP MOVEMENT, INC., AND RICHARD J. GORDON, AS b. Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 4, 2005 over the 2,000 sq m of Lots No. 394-PT and
CHAIRMAN OF BAGUMBAYAN-VNP MOVEMENT, INC., 393-A in favor of Atty. Robiso;13
Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent. c. Confirmation of Sale and Transfer dated December 5, 2006 affirming the two foregoing
instruments executed by Jesus and Rosita in favor of Atty. Robiso.14 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

G.R. No. 203005, March 14, 2016 - TABUK MULTI-

PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC. (TAMPCO), JOSEPHINE Atty. Robiso later on sold Lots No. 393-A and 394-D to Peña on December 15, 2006 thru a Deed of
DOCTOR, AND WILLIAM BAO-ANGAN, Petitioners, v. Absolute Sale.15 The tax declarations over the said portions were subsequently registered in Peña's
MAGDALENA DUCLAN, Respondent.
name.16
G.R. No. 182737, March 02, 2016 - SILICON
PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES The plaintiffs opposed Peña's motion claiming that the conveyance made by Jesus and Rosita in favor of
MANUFACTURING, INC.), Petitioner, v. Atty. Robiso was null and void for being a prohibited transaction because the latter was their counsel in
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, the case.
Respondent.
Apparently, Atty. Robiso was engaged by Jesus and Rosita to be their counsel in Civil Case No. 3683 by
G.R. No. 216021, March 02, 2016 - SOLOMON virtue of an Attorney's Agreement and Undertaking dated July 11, 1998.17 Under the agreement, Atty.
VERDADERO Y GALERA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE Robiso bound himself to render his legal services in connection with Jesus and Rosita's involvement as
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. party-litigants in Civil Case No. 3683 and to any proceedings that may arise in connection therewith
before the CA and this Court. Atty. Robiso undertook to advance his own funds for all expenses and costs
G.R. No. 205206, March 16, 2016 - BANK OF THE
he may incur in relation to the case. In consideration thereof, Jesus and Rosita obliged themselves to
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND FGU INSURANCE
give or pay to him as contingent professional fees, 2,000 sq m of any and all lands that the courts will
CORPORATION (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS BPI/MS
INSURANCE CORPORATION), Petitioners, v. award to them in the case.
YOLANDA LAINGO, Respondent.
Ruling of the RTC
G.R. No. 184251, March 09, 2016 - ESTATE OF DR.
JUVENCIO P. ORTAÑEZ, REPRESENTED BY DIVINA In an Order18 dated June 11, 2008, the RTC partially granted Peña's motion and ruled that Jesus and
ORTAÑEZ-ENDERES, LIGAYA NOVICIO, AND CESAR Rosita lost their standing in the case upon the conveyance of their adjudged 2,000 sq m portion in favor
ORTAÑEZ, Petitioners, v. JOSE C. LEE, BENJAMIN C. of Atty. Robiso whose ownership rights were afterwards acquired by Peña.
LEE, CARMENCITA TAN, ANGEL ONG, MA. PAZ CASAL-
LEE, JOHN OLIVER PASCUAL, CONRADO CRUZ, JR., The RTC upheld that the conveyance made by Jesus and Rosita in favor of Atty. Robiso is valid since it
BRENDA ORTAÑEZ, AND JULIE ANN PARADO AND
was not made during the pendency of litigation but after judgment has been rendered. The RTC disposed
JOHN DOES, Respondents.
as follows:
G.R. No. 197056, March 02, 2016 - FE P. ZALDIVAR,
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

ACCOMPANIED BY HER HUSBAND ELIEZER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motion for Substitution and the Motion
ZALDIVAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
for a Writ of Execution and Demolition is partially granted. Accordingly, it is hereby
PHILIPPINES AND MAMERTO B. DUMASIS.,
directed that:
Respondents.

G.R. No. 206941, March 09, 2016 - MILAGROSA 1. Movant Joey Peña is joined with the original party in the First Set of Intervenors (Jesus
JOCSON, Petitioner, v. NELSON SAN MIGUEL, and Rosita) in accordance with Section 19, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court; and
Respondent.
2. A Writ of Execution be issued to implement the Decision dated April 29, 1996.
G.R. No. 205703, March 07, 2016 - INDUSTRIAL
PERSONNEL & MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. SO ORDERED.19 (Emphasis in the original)
(IPAMS), SNC LAVALIN ENGINEERS &
CONTRACTORS, INC. AND ANGELITO C. HERNANDEZ, The writ of execution was issued on July 10, 2008.20 The RTC denied reconsideration in an Order dated
Petitioners, v. JOSE G. DE VERA AND ALBERTO B.
September 8, 2008.21
ARRIOLA, Respondents.

Ruling of the CA
G.R. No. 202223, March 02, 2016 - JOEY R. PEÑA,
Petitioner, v. JESUS DELOS SANTOS AND THE HEIRS
OF ROSITA DELOS SANTOS FLORES., Respondents. Jesus, together with the heirs of Rosita, elevated the matter to the CA thru a special civil action for
certiorari docketed as CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 03886.
G.R. No. 203075, March 16, 2016 - MILAGROS
DIAZ, EDUARDO Q. CATACUTAN, DANTE Q. In its Decision22 dated February 20, 2012, the CA reversed the RTC and ruled that the conveyance made
CATACUTAN, REPRESENTED BY THEIR COMMON by Jesus and Rosita in favor of Atty. Robiso was null and void because it is a prohibited transaction under
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, FERNANDO Q. CATACUTAN, Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code. When the two Deeds of Sale in favor of Atty. Robiso were executed on
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES GAUDENCIO PUNZALAN AND May 4, 2005 and December 5, 2005 and the Confirmation of Sale on December 15, 2006, the case was
TERESITA PUNZALAN, Respondents. still pending with the Supreme Court, before which Jesus and Rosita were still represented by Atty.
Robiso. Accordingly, the CA decision disposed as follows:
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452, March 09, 2016 - IN THE
MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY WHEREFORE, the Order dated June 11, 2008, Order dated September 8, 2008, and the
COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS
Alias Writ of Execution dated July 10, 2008 in Civil Case No. 3683 are hereby ANNULLED
CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4th PROVINCIAL
and SET ASIDE. The trial court is directed to cause the execution of the final judgment in
PROSECUTOR OF LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR)
favor of [Jesus and the heirs of Rosita] in this case with dispatch.
A.C. No. 8840 [Formerly CBD Case No. 11-3121],
March 08, 2016 - SPOUSES EDUARDO G. GACUYA AND SO ORDERED.23 ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

CARIDAD ROSARIO GACUYA, Complainants, v. ATTY.

REYMAN A. SOLBITA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 218072, March 08, 2016 - METROPOLITAN
NAGA WATER DISTRICT, VIRGINIA I. NERO,
JEREMIAS P. ABAN JR., AND EMMA A. CUYO,
Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, Respondent.
G.R. No. 191705, March 07, 2016 - BASIANA
MINING EXPLORATION CORPORATION, BASIANA
MINERALS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND
RODNEY O. BASIANA, IN HIS OWN PERSONAL
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND DULY AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF BASIANA MINING
EXPLORATION CORPORATION AND BASIANA MINING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioners, v.
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND SR
METALS INC. (SRMI), Respondents.
A.C. No. 9684, March 16, 2016 - MARY ROSE A.
BOTO, Complainant, v. SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY
The CA reiterated the foregoing ruling when it denied Peña's motion for reconsideration in a Resolution24
dated May 24, 2012. Aggrieved, Peña filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Court. In a
Minute Resolution25 dated September 9, 2013, the Court denied the petition for lack of reversible error in
the assailed CA judgment.
On December 23, 2013, Peña filed a Motion for Reconsideration26 insisting that the deeds of conveyance
between Atty. Robiso and Jesus and Rosita were executed long after the decision in Civil Case No. 3683
became final and executory. Even assuming arguendo that the deeds were void, a separate action for
declaration of their inexistence is necessary because their terms have already been fulfilled.
Ruling of the Court
The Court denies reconsideration.
The basis of Peña's motion for substitution is infirm because the lots were transferred to his predecessor-
in-interest, Atty. Robiso, through a prohibited sale transaction. Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code expressly
prohibits lawyers from acquiring property or rights that may be the object of any litigation in which they
may take part by virtue of their profession, thus:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

PROSECUTOR VINCENT L. VILLENA, CITY Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial
PROSECUTOR ARCHIMEDES V. MANABAT AND auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR PATRICK NOEL P. DE
DIOS., Respondents.
xxxx
G.R. No. 193134, March 02, 2016 - RAFAEL
NADYAHAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts, and other
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the property and
rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or
G.R. No. 191079, March 02, 2016 - JOEL territory they exercise their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of
CARDENAS, HEIR OF THE LATE ELINAIDA L. acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights
ALCANTARA, REPRESENTED BY ANTONIO IGNACIO, which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
JR., Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES profession.
SIMPLICIA P. AGUILAR AND MAXIMO V. AGUILAR
AND ATTY. NORMAN R. BUENO, Respondents. xxxx

G.R. No. 185365, March 02, 2016 - RAMON PACON, A complementary prohibition is also provided in Rule 10 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which
THROUGH HIS WIFE FELINA PACON, ANTONIO states:
PACON, THROUGH HIS WIFE NENITA PACON, chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

EULOGIO PACON, THROUGH HIS SON JORGE PACON,

LEONARDO PACON, MANUEL IGOS, JOSE COLORES,
LOLITA COLORES, AND ESTANISLAO BUENDIA,
Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN TAN, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2275, March 08, 2016 - SPOUSES
CESAR AND THELMA SUSTENTO, Complainants, v.
JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN, Respondent.
G.R. No. 217012, March 01, 2016 - WIGBERTO
"TOBY" R. TAÑADA, JR., Petitioner, v. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL,
ANGELINA "HELEN" D. TAN, AND ALVIN JOHN S.
TAÑADA, Respondents.
A.C. No. 9831, March 09, 2016 - CHAN SHUN KUEN,
Complainant, v. COMMISSIONERS LOURDES B.
COLOMA-JAVIER, GREGORIO O. BILOG III, RAUL
TAGLE AQUINO AND ATTY. JOYRICH M. GOLANGCO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 217121, March 16, 2016 - SYSTEMS AND
PLAN INTEGRATOR AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
ENGR. JULIETA CUNANAN, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT OF MURCIA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 211642, March 09, 2016 - NELSON TEÑIDO
Y SILVESTRE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 211411, March 16, 2016 - SILVERTEX
WEAVING CORPORATION/ARMANDO
ARCENAL/ROBERT ONG, Petitioners, v. TEODORA F.
CAMPO, Respondent.
10. Acquiring interest in litigation.
The lawyer should not purchase any interest in the subject matter of the litigation which he
is conducting.
A property is in litigation if there is a contest or litigation over it in court or when it is subject of a judicial
action.27 Records show that the judicial action over the subject lots was still in the appellate proceedings
stage when they were conveyed to Jesus and Rosita's counsel, Atty. Robiso. The Deed of Transfer or
Conveyance and the Deed of Absolute Sale both dated May 4, 2005 as well as the Confirmation of Sale
and Transfer dated December 5, 2006 were all executed long before the termination of the appellate
proceedings before this Court in G.R. Nos. 141810 and 141812 on February 2, 2007.
Clearly then, since the property conveyed to Atty. Robiso by Jesus and Rosita was still the object of
litigation, the deeds of conveyance executed by the latter are deemed inexistent. Under Article 1409 of
the Code, contracts which are expressly prohibited or declared void by law are considered inexistent and
void from the beginning.28 This being so, Atty. Robiso could not have transferred a valid title in favor of
Peña over the lots awarded to Jesus and Rosita in Civil Case No. 3683. Consequently, Peña has no legal
standing to be substituted in the stead of or joined with Jesus and Rosita as the first set of intervenors
and to move for issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. 3683.
There is no need to bring a separate action for the declaration of the subject deeds of conveyance as
void. A void or inexistent contract is one which has no force and effect from the very beginning. Hence, it
is as if it has never been entered into and cannot be validated either by the passage of time or by
ratification.29
The need to bring a separate action for declaration of nullity applies only if the void contract is no longer
fully executory. Contrary to Peña's stance, the deeds of conveyance made in favor of Atty. Robiso in 2005
cannot be considered as executory because at that time the judgment award ceding the subject lots to
Jesus and Rosita was not yet implemented. A writ of execution30 was issued only on July 10, 2008. "If
the void contract is still fully executory, no party need bring an action to declare its nullity; but if any
party should bring an action to enforce it, the other party can simply set up the nullity as a defense."31

G.R. No. 193313, March 16, 2016 - ERNIE IDANAN, This is notwithstanding the fact that the sale to Atty. Robiso was made pursuant to a contingency fee
NANLY DEL BARRIO AND MARLON PLOPENIO, contract. It is true that contingent fee agreements are recognized in this jurisdiction as a valid exception
Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, to the prohibitions under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code.32 The Court cannot extend a similar
Respondent. recognition to the present case, however, since the payment to Atty. Robiso of his contingency fees was
made during the pendency of litigation. "A contingent fee contract is an agreement in writing where the
G.R. Nos. 170746-47, March 07, 2016 - CALTEX fee, often a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the action, is made to depend upon the
(PHILIPPINES), INC., CALTEX PHILIPPINES success of the litigation. The payment of the contingent fee is not made during the pendency of the
PETROLEUM, CO., INC., CALTEX SERVICES
litigation involving the client's property but only after the judgment has been rendered in the case
(PHILIPPINES), INC., CALTEX OCEANIC LIMITED,
CALTEX INVESTMENT AND TRADING LIMITED, handled by the lawyer."33
CALTEX PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CALTRAPORT
(FAR EAST) COMPANY, CALTEX TRADING AND Peña cannot rely on Article 143734 by claiming that Jesus and Rosita are already estopped from
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CALTEX SERVICES questioning the validity of their deeds of conveyance with Atty. Robiso. Estoppel is a principle in equity
CORPORATION, AMERICAN OVERSEAS PETROLEUM and pursuant to Article 1432 it is adopted insofar as it is not in conflict with the provisions of the Civil
LIMITED, P.T. CALTEX PACIFIC INDONESIA, CALTEX Code and other laws. Otherwise speaking, estoppel cannot supplant and contravene the provision of law
PETROLEUM INC., CALTEX ASIA, LIMITED, clearly applicable to a case.35 Conversely, it cannot give validity to an act that is prohibited by law or one
CALIFORNIA TEXAS OIL CORPORATION, CALTEX
that is against public policy.36
INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED, CALTEX OIL
CORPORATION, CALTEX OIL CORPORATION
(DELAWARE), CALTEX OIL CORPORATION (NEW The rationale advanced for the prohibition in Article 1491(5) is that public policy disallows the
YORK), CALTEX OIL PRODUCT COMPANY, CALTEX transactions in view of the fiduciary relationship involved, i.e., the relation of trust and confidence and
(OVERSEAS) LIMITED, CALTEX INTERNATIONAL the peculiar control exercised by these persons. It is founded on public policy because, by virtue of his
LIMITED, CALTEX OIL CORP., Petitioners, v. MA. FLOR office, an attorney may easily take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and unduly
A. SINGZON AGUIRRE, ERNEST SINGZON, CESAR enrich himself at the expense of his client.37 The principle of estoppel runs counter to this policy and to
SINGZON AND ALL THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS- apply it in this case will be tantamount to sanctioning a prohibited and void transaction.
INTERVENORS IN CIVIL CASES NOS. 91-59592,91-
59658, AND 92-61026 PENDING BEFORE THE The other issues raised by Peña are merely procedural in nature and are too inconsequential to override
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 39,
the fundamental considerations of public policy underlying the prohibition set forth in Article 1491(5) of
Respondents.
the Civil Code. chanrobleslaw

G.R. No. 185979, March 16, 2016 - BANGKO

SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. VICENTE JOSE WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
CAMPA, JR., MIRIAM M. CAMPA, MARIA ANTONIA C.
ORTIGAS, MARIA TERESA C. AREVALO, MARIA SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary

NIEVES C. ALVAREZ, MARIAN M. CAMPA AND

BALBINO JOSE CAMPA, Respondents. Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Peralta, Perez, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

G.R. No. 205966, March 02, 2016 - BANGKO

SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. FELICIANO P. Endnotes:
LEGASPI, Respondent.

1Rollo, pp. 808-857.

G.R. No. 185757, March 02, 2016 - SPOUSES
VIRGILIO DE GUZMAN, JR. [SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
WIFE, LYDIA S. DE GUZMAN, AND CHILDREN, 2 Id. at 807.
NAMELY, RUEL S. DE GUZMAN, ET AL. AND LYDIA S.
DE GUZMAN, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, 3 Id. at 3-49.
MINDANAO STATION, LAMBERTO BAJAO, HEIR OF
SPOUSES LEONCIO* BAJAO AND ANASTACIA Z. 4 Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Nina G.
BAJAO, Respondents.
Antonio-Valenzuela and Abraham B. Borreta concurring; id. at 51-65.
G.R. No. 218172, March 16, 2016 - UNIVERSAL
5See Delos Santos v. Elizalde, 543 Phil. 12, 18 (2007).
ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION, Petitioner,
v. ELMER ABLAY, ILDEFONSO CLAVECILLAS, STANLEY
BLAZA, VINCENT VILLAVICENCIO, ROBERTO CACAS, 6 Id. at 19.
AND ELSA CADAYUNA, IN BEHALF OF HER DECEASED
HUSBAND, ELEAZAR CADAYUNA, Respondents. 7 Id. at 19-23.
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-
8 Id. at 12, 17.
4134-RTJ), March 02, 2016 - FLORANTE A. MIANO,
Complainant, v. MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, Respondent.
9 Id. at 31-34.
G.R. No. 195835, March 14, 2016 - SISON OLAÑO,
SERGIO T. ONG, MARILYN O. GO, AND JAP FUK HAI, 10Rollo, p. 53.
Petitioners, v. LIM ENG CO, Respondent.
11 Id. at 107-114.
G.R. Nos. 212593-94, March 15, 2016 - JESSICA
LUCILA G. REYES, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE
12 Id. at 92-94.
OMBUDSMAN, Respondent.; G.R.Nos. 213163-78 -
JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, Petitioner, v. THE
HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION) 13 Id. at 95-98.
AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.;
G.R. Nos. 213540-41 - JANET LIM NAPOLES, 14 Id. at 101-102.
Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES IN HER
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF
15 Id. at 103-104.
THE PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN,
Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213542-43 - JO CHRISTINE
NAPOLES AND JAMES CHRISTOPHER NAPOLES, 16 Id. at 105-106.
Petitioners, v. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER
CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE 17 Id. at 99-100.
PHILIPPINES, AND SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.;
G.R. Nos. 215880-94 - JO CHRISTINE NAPOLES AND 18 Issued by Acting Judge Elmo F. Del Rosario; id at 226-241.
JAMES CHRISTOPHER NAPOLES, Petitioners, v.
SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
19 Id. at 241.
Respondents.; G.R. Nos. 213475-76 - JOHN
RAYMUND DE ASIS, Petitioner, v. CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS 20 Id. at 608-610.
OMBUDSMAN, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), Respondents. 21 Id. at 264.
G.R. No. 184513, March 09, 2016 - DESIGNER
22 Id. at 51-65.
BASKETS, INC., Petitioner, v. AIR SEA TRANSPORT,
INC. AND ASIA CARGO CONTAINER LINES, INC.,
Respondents. 23 Id. at 64.

A.M. No. P-16-3430 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12- 24 Id. at 68-71.
3905-P), March 01, 2016 - AIREEN A. MAHUSAY,
cralawred

Complainant, v. GEORGE E. GAREZA, SHERIFF III, 25 Id. at 807.

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, VICTORIAS
CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.
26 Id. at 808-857. cralawred

G.R. No. 174747, March 09, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF

THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY PRIVATIZATION 27The Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses Vicente Cadavedo and Benita Arcoy-Cadavedo
AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL v. Lacaya, G.R. No. 173188, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 397, 420.
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (THIRD DIVISION)
AND NACUSIP/BISUDECO CHAPTER/GEORGE EMATA, 28Vda. de Guerra v. Suplico, 522 Phil. 295, 310 (2006).
DOMINGO REBANCOS, NELSON BERINA, ROBERTO
TIRAO, AMADO VILLOTE, AND BIENVENIDO FELINA,
29Francisco v. Herrera, 440 Phil. 841, 849 (2002).
Respondents.

G.R. No. 199282, March 14, 2016 - TRAVEL & 30 Rollo, pp. 608-610.
TOURS ADVISERS, INCORPORATED, Petitioner, v.
ALBERTO CRUZ, SR., EDGAR HERNANDEZ AND 31Rubias v. Batiller, 151-A Phil. 584, 602 (1973).
VIRGINIA MUÑOZ, Respondents.

32The Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses Vicente Cadavedo and Denita Arcov-Cadavedo
G.R. No. 214243, March 16, 2016 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. NILDA B. TAMPUS, v. Lacaya, supra note 27, at 421.
Respondent.
33 Id. at 421-422.
G.R. No. 204965, March 02, 2016 - SPOUSES
ROMULO H. ESPIRITU AND EVELYN ESPIRITU, 34 Art. 1437. When in a contract between third persons concerning immovable property,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES NICANOR SAZON AND
one of them is misled by a person with respect to the ownership or real right over the real
ANNALIZA G. SAZON, Respondents.
estate, the latter is precluded from asserting his legal title or interest therein, provided all
these requisites are present:
A.C. No. 10483, March 18, 2016 - THE CHRISTIAN
SPIRITISTS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., PICO LOCAL chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

CENTER, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-

FACT, EDWIN A. PANTE, Complainant, v. ATTY. (1) There must be fraudulent representation or wrongful concealment
DANIEL D. MANGALLAY, Respondent. of facts known to the party estopped;

G.R. Nos. 201856-57, March 16, 2016 - LAND BANK

(2) The party precluded must intend that the other should act upon the
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION
facts as misrepresented;
PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND BONIFACIO-MUNSAYAC,
Respondents.; G.R. NO. 201871 - DEPARTMENT OF
AGRARIAN REFORM REP. BY SEC. NASSER C. (3) The party misled must have been unaware of the true facts; and
PANGANDAMAN (NOW VIRGILIO R. DELOS REYES),
Petitioner, v. CONCEPCION PADILLA-MUNSAYAC AND (4) The party defrauded must have acted in accordance with the
BONIFACIO MUNSAYAC, Respondents. representation.

G.R. No. 210972, March 19, 2016 - ROGER ALLEN 35Valdevieso v. Damalerio, 492 Phil. 51, 59 (2005).
BIGLER, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND LINDA SUSAN PATRICIA E. BARRETO,
36Ouano v. Court of Appeals, 446 Phil. 690, 708 (2003).
Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 202647-50, March 09, 2016 - CORAZON 37Ramos v. Atty. Ngaseo, 487 Phil. 40, 47 (2004).
H. RICAFORT, JOSE MANUEL H. RICAFORT AND
MARIE GRACE H. RICAFORT, Petitioners, v. THE
HONORABLE ISAIAS P. DICDICAN, THE HONORABLE
RAMON M. BATO, JR., AND THE HONORABLE
EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR., IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL
FOURTEENTH DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,
NATIONWIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Back to Home | Back to Main
ROBERTO R. ROMULO, CONRADO T. CALALANG,
ALFREDO I. AYALA, JOHN ENGLE, LEOCADIO
NITORREDA AND LUIS MANUEL GATMAITAN,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 205921-24 - CORAZON H. QUICK SEARCH
RICAFORT, JOSE MANUEL H. RICAFORT AND MARIE
GRACE H. RICAFORT, Petitioners, v. ROBERTO R.
ROMULO, CONRADO T. CALALANG, ALFREDO I.
AYALA, JOHN ENGLE, LEOCADIO NITORREDA, 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
NATIONWIDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
LUIS MANUEL L. GATMAITAN, Respondents.
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. 217799, March 16, 2016 - CITA C. PEREZ, 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
Petitioner, v. FIDEL D. AQUINO, Respondent.
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
G.R. No. 218399, March 02, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GODOFREDO
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
COMBOY Y CRONICO, Accused-Appellant.
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. 214430, March 09, 2016 - FELICITO M. 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
MEJORADO, Petitioner, v. HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
Respondent.
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
A.C. No. 10543, March 16, 2016 - NENITA D. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ROMEO G. AGUILOS,
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Respondent.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
G.R. No. 159350, March 09, 2016 - ALUMAMAY O.
JAMIAS, JENNIFER C. MATUGUINAS AND JENNIFER F.
CRUZ,* Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION (SECOND DIVISION), HON.
COMMISSIONERS: RAUL T. AQUINO, VICTORIANO R.
CALAYCAY AND ANGELITA A. GACUTAN; HON. LABOR Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
ARBITER VICENTE R. LAYAWEN; INNODATA
PHILIPPINES, INC., INNODATA PROCESSING
CORPORATION, (INNODATA CORPORATION), AND
TODD SOLOMON, Respondents.

G.R. No. 170679, March 09, 2016 - TUNG HUI

CHUNG AND TONG HONG CHUNG, Petitioners, v. SHIH
CHIU HUANG A.K.A. JAMES SHIH, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-10-2793 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-

2406-P), March 08, 2016 - SIMPLECIO A. MARSADA,
Complainant, v. ROMEO M. MONTEROSO, SHERIFF IV,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, CABADBARAN,
AGUSAN DEL NORTE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 214752, March 09, 2016 - EQUITABLE

SAVINGS BANK, (NOW KNOWN AS THE MERGED
ENTITY "BDO UNIBANK, INC.") Petitioner, v.
ROSALINDA C. PALCES, Respondent.

DECISION - PEREZ, J. - G.R. No. 221697, March 08,

2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-
LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.

SERENO, C.J.: - CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No.

221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.

CARPIO, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No.

221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.

BRION, J. - DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No.

221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.

CAGUIOA, J.: SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION -

G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C.
ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 -
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND
AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

DEL CASTILLO, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R. No.

221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.

JARDELEZA, J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No.

221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: SEPARATE DISSENTING

OPINION - G.R. No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY
GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner,
v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C.
ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 -
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND
AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: DISSENTING OPINION - G.R.

No. 221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C.
ELAMPARO, Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 -
MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
FRANCISCO S. TATAD, ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND
AMADO D. VALDEZ, Respondents.

VELASCO, JR., J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No.

221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.

LEONEN, J.: CONCURRING OPINION - G.R. No.

221697, March 08, 2016 - MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD
S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS AND ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO,
Respondents.; G.R. NOS. 221698-700 - MARY GRACE
NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FRANCISCO S. TATAD,
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS AND AMADO D. VALDEZ,
Respondents.

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