Arellano v. Robinson Land Corp.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 218188. July 14, 2021.]

HONORATO ARELLANO, ROBERTO ARELLANO, EMERITA ARELLANO HERNANDEZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. ROBINSON LAND CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY PATRICK HENRY C. CO, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 14, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 218188 (Honorato Arellano, Roberto Arellano, Emerita Arellano Hernandez, et al., Petitioners, v. Robinson Land Corporation, represented byPatrick Henry C. Co, Respondent.) In this petition for review 1 on certiorari (petition), petitioners seek to reverse and set aside the Decision dated 08 July 2014 2 and Resolution dated 12 May 2015 3 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 126509.

Antecedents

The case involves two huge parcels of land located at Brgy. Simlong, Batangas City. The first lot consists of 46,128 sq.m.; while the other consists of 114,353 sq.m. Both parcels of land are now registered under the name of respondent Robinson Land Corporation (respondent) as TCT Nos. 58569 and 58570, respectively, which now seeks to remove petitioners from the properties. But petitioners' stern insistence of tenancy prevents respondent from taking possession, resulting to the filing of duplicative suits involving the same properties, including the Complaints for ejectment from which this Petition proceeds.

The previous complaint for

It appears that the properties used to be co-owned by Conrado C. Berberabe (Berberabe) and Conrado C. Leviste (Leviste). Both Berberabe and Leviste filed a Complaint 4 for Recovery of Possession of Real Property and Damages before Branch 84, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, docketed as Civil Case No. 5140, against numerous individuals and families occupying their properties. Pursuant to the Decision 5 dated 15 December 2004 rendered by the RTC, the co-owners obtained favorable judgment, except against the following individuals where the court determined that their claims may very well be ventilated before the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board (DARAB): Arthur Plata, Jimmy Plata, Pedro Arellano, Victoriano Fajardo, Casimiro De Castro, Leoncio Tolentino, and Paterno Fajardo (Excluded Defendants). Thus, the trial court referred the case to the DARAB for investigation, verification, actual survey on the ground and full blown hearing so that the rights of the parties could be adjudicated thereat. 6 Nothing was heard from this case afterwards.

The Ejectment Cases

Sometime in 2005, respondent acquired the properties from Berberabe and Leviste. Respondent noticed the presence of petitioners Honorato Arellano, Roberto Arellano, Emerita Arellano Hernandez, Reynante Arellano, Delia Plata, and Dimmy Plata (petitioners) in this case, but initially took no action since it had no immediate and urgent need to utilize the property at the time. Later on, respondent filed six (6) separate complaints for unlawful detainer against petitioners before the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Batangas City, docked as Civil Case Nos. 4486, 4487, 4489, 4490, 4491, 4492 (collectively, the "Ejectment Cases"). 7 These complaints, which were later on consolidated, are similarly premised on the following facts:

1) Petitioners are illegal settlers on the land respondent owns;

2) Petitioners' possession and enjoyment of the property was by mere tolerance of the respondent;

3) On 04 December 2010, respondent sent a written demand for the petitioners to vacate the property within 15 days from its receipt; and

4) Petitioners refused to vacate the property despite such demand.

Petitioners all raised the defense of agricultural tenancy which they allegedly inherited from their predecessors: the excluded defendants in Civil Case No. 5140. In addition, petitioners presented a Barangay Certification indicating that they are relatives and rightful heirs of the excluded defendants. 8

On 18 July 2011, the MTCC ruled in favor of the respondent, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant:

(1) HONORATO ARELLANO in CIVIL CASE NO. 4487, and all other persons claiming rights under him to: (a) vacate then subject property, remove the improvements made thereon and to remove the improvements made thereon and to return possession thereof to plaintiff; (b) to reimburse and/or pay the plaintiff the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as and by way of Attorney's Fees; and (c) to reimburse the plaintiff the amount of Four Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Pesos (P4,740.00) representing filing fees and other Court's incidental expenses;

(2) ROBERTO ARELLANO in CIVIL CASE NO. 4489, and all other persons claiming rights under him to: (a) vacate then subject property, remove the improvements made thereon and to remove the improvements made thereon and to return possession thereof to plaintiff; (b) to reimburse and/or pay the plaintiff the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as and by way of Attorney's Fees; and (c) to reimburse the plaintiff the amount of Four Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Pesos (P4,740.00) representing filing fees and other Court's incidental expenses;

(3) EMERITA ARELLANO HERNANDEZ in CIVIL CASE NO. 4490, and all other persons claiming rights under him to: (a) vacate then subject property, remove the improvements made thereon and to remove the improvements made thereon and to return possession thereof to plaintiff; (b) to reimburse and/or pay the plaintiff the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as and by way of Attorney's Fees; and (c) to reimburse the plaintiff the amount of Four Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Pesos (P4,740.00) representing filing fees and other Court's incidental expenses;

(4) DELIA PLATA in CIVIL CASE NO. 4491, and all other persons claiming rights under him to: (a) vacate then subject property, remove the improvements made thereon and to remove the improvements made thereon and to return possession thereof to plaintiff; (b) to reimburse and/or pay the plaintiff the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as and by way of Attorney's Fees; and (c) to reimburse the plaintiff the amount of Four Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Pesos (P4,740.00) representing filing fees and other Court's incidental expenses; and

(5) DIMMY PLATA in CIVIL CASE NO. 4492 and all other persons claiming rights under him to: (a) vacate then subject property, remove the improvements made thereon and to remove the improvements made thereon and to return possession thereof to plaintiff; (b) to reimburse and/or pay the plaintiff the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) as and by way of Attorney's Fees; and (c) to reimburse the plaintiff the amount of Four Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Pesos (P4,740.00) representing filing fees and other Court's incidental expenses.

No pronouncement as to the payment of rentals, since the beginning their respective in the property is for gratis.

Since there was no valid substituted service of summons to defendant Reynante Arellano as evidenced by Sheriff's Return dated March 8, 2011, Civil Case No. 4486 is excluded in the herein Consolidated Decision.

xxx xxx xxx

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Batangas City, July 18, 2011. 9

The MTCC reasoned that bare allegations of tenancy does not suffice to prove the agricultural tenurial relationship. Neither does the Barangay Certification be given any weight for it lacks the necessary elements that would prove an agricultural tenancy. Finally, the MTCC did not take the Decision in Civil Case No. 5140 as a precedent in concluding the existence of a tenancy agreement.

Petitioners appealed the Consolidated Decision with the RTC which dismissed petitioners' appeal and affirmed the Consolidated Decision of the MTCC in toto. The dispositive portion of such Decision reads:

Wherefore, the appealed consolidated decision in Civil Case No. 4487, Civil Case No. 4489, Civil Case No. 4490, Civil Case No. 4491 and Civil Case No. 4492 as well as the decision rendered in Civil Case No. 4486 are hereby affirmed in toto. Cost of suit chargeable to the Defendant/Appellants.

SO ORDERED:

Batangas City, August 6, 2012. 10

This is the Decision that was elevated with the Court of Appeals via a petition for review 11 under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. On 08 July 2014, the CA issued a Decision dismissing the petition and affirming the ruling of both the MTCC and the RTC. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED. 12

Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA in its Resolution dated 12 May 2015.

The PARAD and the DARAB rulings

While the case is pending with the CA, petitioners filed a Petition for Recognition and Declaration of Tenancy (DARAB case) before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, Region IV-A, Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), Lipa City, Batangas, 13 giving rise to two conflicting Decisions between the court and the quasi-judicial agency. It appears that the PARAD treated the decision in Civil Case No. 5140 conclusive on the existence of tenancy; and from such assumption, declared the petitioners agricultural tenants of the property, thinking that they inherited the tenancy rights of their predecessors, the excluded defendants. 14

The dispositive portion of the PARAD's 14 November 2013, the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered judgment is hereby rendered to read as follows:

1) DECLARING the petitioners tenants of the landholding in question;

2) ORDERING the respondent or any person acting in their behalf to maintain the petitioners in peaceful possession and cultivation of the subject landholding;

3) DIRECTING the MARO concerned to determine the exact cultivation of each of the petitioners and fix the lease rentals in accordance with their actual tillage, and assists the parties in the execution of leasehold contract in accordance with the existing DAR rules, regulations and guidelines. Failure of the respondents to cooperate in the execution of leasehold contract, the MARO concerned is irdered n to generate leashold n contract pursuant to the said guidelines.

4) ORDERING the petitioners to immediately pay the respondents of the leasehold rentals as determined by the MARO;

The Sheriff of DARAB-Batangas is directed to furnish the DAR Provincial Office through the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) a copy of the decision for the PARO to determine if the landholding can be a proper subject of coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

SO ORDERED. 14 November 2013. 15

Respondent moved for reconsideration of the above decision but the same was denied by the PARAD in its Resolution 16 dated 02 June 2014.

On appeal by respondents with the DARAB, the said tribunal subscribed to the same line of thought that the decision in Civil Case No. 5140 is conclusive on the existence of tenancy, and that petitioners, as the heirs of the excluded defendants therein, inherited their right of tenancy. Thus, in its 31 January 2020 Decision, 17 which was promulgated after the institution of the present Petition, denied respondent's appeal, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed 14 November 2013 Decision and 2 June 2004 (sic) Resolution of the PARAD are AFFRIMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.18

Neither party, however, alleged nor manifested as to whether the DARAB case was elevated with the CA or if the aforesaid ruling had already attained finality.

Issues

Petitioners ascribes as an error the Court of Appeals' misappreciation of the law on agrarian reform, thus:

"The only issue for resolution in the instant petition is whether or not the Resolution and the Decision issued by the public respondent Court of Appeals are in accord with the facts of the case, the evidence on records, the pertinent provisions of law, particularly R.A. No. 6657 otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Code, etc., and pertinent jurisprudence on the matter and/or whether or not the public respondent Court of Appeals acted properly and correctly in the appreciation of facts and the evidence on record and in the application of pertinent provisions of law, particularly R.A. No. 6657 otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Code, etc., and pertinent jurisprudence on the matter in the issuance of the Resolution and the Decision now resulting of two (2) conflicting decisions for and against petitioners?" 19

But for Us, the question goes beyond this imputation. The legal issues of this case begs for the resolution of the following questions:

1) May the regular courts continue to exercise jurisdiction over an ejectment case despite the defense of tenancy by the petitioners?

2) Should the findings of the DARAB take preference over the determination made by the court?

3) Is the Decision in Civil Case No. 5140 conclusive on the tenancy rights of the petitioners?

After a careful review of the case, the answers to these questions tilt in favor of the respondent and against the petitioners.

Ruling of the Court

Mere allegation of tenancy

The first question has already been passed upon by a long line of cases, and they have consistently ruled that a simple allegation of tenancy does not automatically divest the court of its jurisdiction over an ejectment case. The case of Cano v. Spouses Jumawa20 is instructive to the point of doctrinaire, thus:

In any event, and more importantly, the basic rule is that the material averments in the complaint determine the jurisdiction of a court. And jurisprudence dictates that a court does not lose its jurisdiction over an ejectment suit by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. The court continues to have the authority to hear and evaluate the evidence, precisely to determine whether or it has jurisdiction, and if, after hearing, tenancy is shown to exist, it shall dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.

To reiterate, the material averments in the complaint determine the jurisdiction of the court which really is a hornbook principle that applies not just exclusively to ejectment cases, but to almost all situations. Thus, regardless of how many times the defendant alleges tenancy, this will not strip the court of its jurisdiction.

In the present case, the respondent made the following allegations common to the individual and separate complaints it filed against petitioners:

3) Plaintiff (respondent) is the owner of an industrial parcel of land located at Brgy. Simlong, Batangas City covered by and embraced in TCT No. 58569 with an area of 46,128 sqm;

4) After plaintiff bought the property, the corporation has no immediate and urgent need to utilized the said land, thus, it allowed the defendants to stay and temporarily reside on the portion of the said parcel of land consisting of 20 sqm;

5) On the basis of said humanitarian gesture and tolerance by the plaintiff, the defendants (petitioners) together with their respective family were able to reside on a portion of the subject property without paying rents for the use, enjoyment and possession of the same;

6) Sometime in October 2010 plaintiff's representative made a verbal demand for the defendants to vacate the subject premises as plaintiff intended to use the property; that despite repeated verbal demands, defendants refused to vacate the property;

7) On December 4, 2010, plaintiff through its counsel, sent a demand letter to defendants, ordering the latter to vacate the subject property and remove the improvements made thereon within 15 days from receipt thereof; however, despite receipt of the same, defendant still refused and continuously refused to vacate the property;

8) Defendants' continued occupation of the above-described property caused and continues to cause irreparable injury to plaintiff who is deprived of the use, possession, utilization and enjoyment of its proprietary rights over said property, hence, defendants should pay Robinsons the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the property which is conservatively estimated at P10,000 per month commencing from the filing of the Complaint. 21

Based on these allegations, it is clear that the action in the MTCC was for unlawful detainer.

Jurisdiction over the nature of the action cannot be made to depend upon the defenses set up in the court or upon a motion to dismiss for, otherwise, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely on the defendant. 22 The court should hear the case as usual to give it an opportunity to evaluate whether it has jurisdiction. Only after such hearing should the court dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction if it finds that a tenancy exist. Clearly, petitioners expectations to have the case dismissed just because it set up the defense of tenancy are unfounded. Being the party alleging the existence of the tenancy relationship, the petitioners carried the burden of proving the allegation of tenancy. 23

The requirements of agricultural tenancy are specific. In Mateo v. Court of Appeals24 the Court ruled that the following make up the indispensable requirements of a tenancy agreement: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 2) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) there is consent between the parties to the relationship; 4) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and 6) the harvest is shared between landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee.

All of the abovementioned requisites must concur. 25 The absence of one or more requisites does not make the alleged tenant a de facto tenant as contradistinguished from a de jure tenant.

The lone piece of evidence which the petitioners offered to prove their tenancy rights is the barangay certification (Pagpapatunay), 26 the exact wordings of which are:

"Sa kinauukulan,

Pinatutunayan po naming Sangguniang Barangay, Barangay Simlong, Lungsod ng Batangas, na ang mga nakalistang pangalan sa ibabang bahagi ng kasulatang ito ay mga taong namomosesesyon, binubukid, sinasaka ang mga nakatanim sa napakahabang panahon sa lupain na pagmamay-ari ng magkakapatid na JOSE, JOSEFA, ASUNCION AT NATIVIDAD AGUILA, na ipinagbili kay G. PASCUAL BOOL. At ang nasabing lupain ay ipinagbiling muli kay ANTONIO LEVISTE at CONRADO BERBERABE. Na sa kasalukuyan ay ang nagmamay-ari ng lupain ay ang ROBINSON HOLDINGS, INC.

Simula pa ng sila ay isilang, na ang nasabing pamomosesyon ay sinasaka ng ang lupain at ito ipinamana sa kanilang mga anak ng kanilang mga magulang ng mga namayapa na.

xxx xxx xxx"

Although the text mentions that the subject properties are occupied and presently being farmed by petitioners, it never indicated that the present landowner or its predecessors-in-interest consented to the tenancy relationship. It also failed to mention which portion of the property is presently being tenanted by the petitioners and to what extent. Neither does it mention how the harvest is being shared between the landowner and the petitioners. This is the exact reason why We declared certification of administrative agencies and officers declaring the existence of a tenancy relation as merely provisional. They are persuasive but not binding on the courts, which must make their own findings. 27 In fact, the barangay certification is less than persuasive since the barangay is not the proper authority vested with the power to determine the existence of tenancy; in the same way that We gave scant consideration to a certification issued by the municipal mayor, who also is not vested with the authority to determine the existence of tenancy. 28

Having ruled out the existence of a tenancy dispute, then this is just a plain case of unlawful detainer, the jurisdiction of which falls squarely within the regular courts. 29

Petitioners cannot fault the Court of Appeals for arriving at a conclusion inconsistent with the DARAB's for this is their undoing. It is petitioners who deviated from the normal procedural outline by separately filing a Petition for Recognition and Declaration of Tenancy after they filed an appeal in the Ejectment Cases with the RTC. Besides, even if they obtained a favorable ruling from the DARAB, a decision or ruling of a tribunal without jurisdiction creates no rights and produces no effect. 30

As a demonstration, in Mendoza v. Germino, 31 petitioner in the said case filed a forcible entry case against respondents therein. Said respondents, in their answer, alleged that they are agricultural lessees of the disputed property. On this score, the MTC remanded the case to the DARAB. Both the PARAD and the DARAB confirmed that the case involves an agricultural dispute. But upon elevation with the CA, the said court remanded the case back to the MTC. On the question on whether the MTCC or DARAB has jurisdiction, this Court ruled that:

It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the Complaint. It is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law. It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Well to emphasize, it is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character. [emphasis Ours]

Determination by DARAB is

Assuming, in arguendo, that the DARAB has jurisdiction, still the findings and conclusions by the PARAD and DARAB are less than persuasive.

Generally, the decision of the DARAB is accorded respect, as the Department of Agrarian Reform is the administrative agency vested with primary jurisdiction and has acquired expertise on matters relating to tenancy relationship. 32 The findings of fact of the DARAB, if supported by substantial evidence, is conclusive and binding on the courts. 33

In this case, the PARAD and the DARAB did not even mention the pieces of evidence which were considered in determining a tenancy. In fact, the only driving force that led them to the conclusion of tenancy was their mistaken assumption that the court in Civil Case No. 5140 determined the existence of tenancy and that such determination has attained res judicata. Clearly, this is not the substantial evidence the law and jurisprudence has contemplated. A determination of tenancy cannot be made based on a wrongful assumption. As to why the principle of res judicata does not apply, shall be explained in the ensuing paragraphs.

The ejectment cases were not

Petitioners harp to the point of desperation that the decision in Civil Case No. 5140 declaring their predecessors-in-interest as agricultural tenants of the property in dispute has attained res judicata. But We have reviewed the said Decision and found nothing of that sort.

Res judicata means "a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment." It lays the rule that an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the points and matters in issue in the first suit. 34

The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. x x x Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect as a "bar by prior judgment" would apply. If as between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not identical causes of action, then res judicata as "conclusiveness of judgment" applies. 35

To be sure that We are not missing out on anything important, quoted below are the pertinent portion of the RTC's Decision that petitioners insist make up for res judicata:

DEFENDANTS SO-CALLED TENANTS ARTHUR PLATA, JIMMIE PLATA, ROBERTO ARELLANO, CASIMIRO DE CASTRO, PLACIDO MERCADO, represented by DAR lawyers have submitted receipts of sharing of the crops as tenants allegedly with the prior landowners. DEFENDANT LEONCIO TOLENTIO appears to be similarly situated as will be shown later on. While DEFENDANT PATERNO FAJARDO, who is also claiming to be a tenant and as shown by the initial ocular inspection appears to be in possession of five (5) to six (6) hectares with three hundred (300) old coconut trees, some bananas, papayas, and atis. This initial findings in the opinion of the Court necessitate that their claims should be ventilated before the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board (DARAB) at its Regional Office in Lipa City for further investigation, verification, actual survey on the ground and full blown hearing so that the rights of the parties could be adjudicated thereat. However, the findings of the DARAB may be appealed by any aggrieved party to this Court. Eviction of bona-fide tenants is strictly prohibited by the Comprehensive Land Reform Code with appropriate penalties to the erring landowners." 36

"WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered:

A. Ordering that copies of the complaint and pertinent pleadings, including motion to dismiss, transcript of stenographic records and orders including ocular inspection reports with respect to the so-called tenants, namely ARTHUR PLATA, JIMMIE PLATA, PEDRO ARELLANO, VICTORIANO FAJARDO, CASIMIRO DE CASTRO, LEONCIO TOLENTINO and PATERNO FAJARDO, be transmitted to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), through its Regional Office NO. IV, Department of Land Reform, Lipa City for verification on the ground, investigation, hearing and adjudication thereat pursuant to RA 6657, Comprehensive Reform Code. Any aggrieved party, however, may appeal its decision to this Court, as appellate Court." 37

Based on the above excerpts, the trial court never declared the Excluded Defendants (petitioners' predecessors-in-interest) as agricultural tenants of the subject properties. The trial court simply said that based in its initial findings, it is best if the matter was ventilated before the DARAB, which never meant that they are agricultural tenants of the property. As to whether the DARAB after transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 5140 arrived at the conclusion of tenancy, We are clueless as there is nothing in the records that would indicate it did. The court cannot be expected to take judicial notice of decisions of quasi-judicial agencies. In addition, the trial court in its Decision did not even bother to discuss the elements of tenancy which should be indispensable before anyone can be declared as a tenant de jure.

Clearly petitioners' reliance on the doctrine of res judicata was uncalled for as the trial court in Civil Case No. 5140 never arrived at a conclusion that a tenancy exists. A judgment may only be considered as one rendered on the merits when it determines the rights and liabilities of the parties based on the disclosed facts, irrespective of formal, technical or dilatory objections; or when the judgment is rendered after a determination which party is right, as distinguished from a judgment rendered upon some preliminary or formal or merely technical point. 38 Thus, insofar as the issue on tenancy is concerned, it was not an adjudication on the merits as the rights and liabilities of the Excluded Defendants were never determined by the court.

WHEREFORE, premised considered, the Court hereby DISMISSES the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRMS the Decision dated 08 July 2014 and Resolution dated 12 May 2015 of the Court of Appeals.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-40.

2.Id. at 54-64; penned by Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon, and concurred in by Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Pedro B. Corales.

3.Id. at 51-52.

4.Id. at 289-298.

5.Id. at 299-325.

6.Id. at 320.

7.Id. at 225.

8.Id. at 348.

9.Id. at 260-261.

10.Id. at 223.

11.Id. at 170-213.

12.Id. at 63.

13. DARAB Case No. R-0401-010-011-11; Id. at 67.

14.Id. at 72.

15.Id. at 74.

16.Id. at 75-76.

17.Id. at 687-694.

18.Id. at 694.

19.Id. at 19.

20. 517 Phil. 123 (2006), G.R. No. 153860, 06 February 2006 [Per J. Garcia].

21.Rollo, pp. 225-226.

22.Sumawang v. De Guzman, 481 Phil. 239 (2004), G.R. No. 150106, 08 September 2004 [Per J. Callejo, Sr.].

23.Cortes v. Court of Appeals, 443 Phil. 42 (2003), G.R. No. 121772, 13 January 2003 [Per J. Austria-Martinez].

24. 497 Phil. 83 (2005), G.R. No. 128392, 29 April 2005 [Per J. Azcuna].

25.Lagon Realty Corp. v. Heirs of Leocadia Vda. De Terre, G.R. No. 219670, 27 June 2018 [Per J. Martires], citing Nicorp Management and Development Corp. v. De Leon, 585 Phil. 598 (2008), G.R. Nos. 176942 & 177125, 28 August 2008 [Per J. Ynares-Santiago].

26.Rollo, p. 348.

27.J.V. Lagon Realty Corp. v. Heirs of Leocadia Vda. De Terra, G.R. No. 219670, 27 June 2018 [Per J. Martires] citing Oarde v. Court of Appeals, 345 Phil. 457 (1997), G.R. Nos. 104774-75, 08 October 1997 [Per J. Panganiban].

28.Id.

29. Rule 70, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

30.Bilag v. Ay-ay, 809 Phil. 236 (2017), G.R. No. 189950, 24 April 2017 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].

31. 650 Phil. 74 (2010), G.R. No. 165676, 22 November 2010 [Per J. Brion].

32. See Heirs of Jugalbot v. Court of Appeals, 547 Phil. 113 (2007), G.R. No. 170346, 12 March 2007 [Per. J. Ynares-Santiago].

33.Sps. Joson v. Mendoza, 505 Phil. 208 (2005), G.R. No. 144071, 25 August 2005 [Per. J. Chico-Nazario].

34.Monterona v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 209116, 14 January 2019 [Per. J.C. Reyes, Jr.].

35.Id.

36.Rollo, p. 320.

37.Id. at 324.

38.Philippine Postal Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 722 Phil. 860 (2013), G.R. No. 173590, 09 December 2013 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.