FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227320. September 29, 2021.]
HEIRS OF MARGARITA VILLARTE, REPRESENTED BY JERRY VILLARTE, petitioners,vs. ENGRACIA PANISA and HARRY S. YAP, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227320 (Heirs of Margarita Villarte, represented by Jerry Villarte, petitioners v. Engracia Panisa and Harry S. Yap, respondents).
After a thorough review of the available records and relevant law and jurisprudence, this Court resolves to DENY the present petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Resolutions dated December 4, 2015 1 and August 5, 2016 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 08494, for failure to show any reversible error committed by the CA.
Antecedents
The present controversy stemmed from the Protest 3 filed by Margarita Villarte (Margarita) before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Office of the Regional Technical Director-Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO), Bacolod City, on the Foreshore Lease Application (FLA) of respondents, which was docketed as CENRO Claim No. (VI-3) 523-N.
The original FLA (VI-3) 318 was filed on January 21, 1971, by respondent Engracia Panisa (Panisa) over a certain foreshore area situated at Barangay Pahanocoy, Bacolod City. On August 28, 1991, Panisa formally notified the CENRO that she had sold her rights and interest over said land covered by her FLA in favor of respondent Harry S. Yap (Yap). Land Management Hearing Officer Ponciano S. Bautista submitted his investigation report dated July 12, 1993, to the Regional Executive Director (RED), of the DENR, Region VI, Iloilo City. 4
On July 21, 1994, the RED rendered his Decision, 5 the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is ordered that:
1. The protest dated 01 October 1991 of Margarita Villarte is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit;
2. CENRO CLAIM No. (VI-3) 523-N is hereby DROPPED from the records;
3. The Foreshore Lease Application No. (VI-3) 318 of Engracia Panisa is hereby REJECTED forfeiting in favor of the government any amount paid on account thereof;
4. The unnumbered Foreshore Lease Application of Harry S. Yap shall be NUMBERED and be GIVEN DUE COURSE after compliance with existing laws, rules and regulations;
5. The valuation of improvements shall be assessed or determined in their present value jointly by protestant Margarita Villarte, Harry S. Yap, representative of the CENRO and City Assessor of Bacolod City;
6. In case of conflict in the assessment or determination of the improvements (trees and/or root crops) introduced therein[,] the valuation of the representative of the CENRO and City Assessor shall be followed;
7. The respondent Harry S. Yap shall REIMBURSE protestant Margarita Villarte the value of the improvements introduced by her as assessed and determined by the parties above-mentioned.
SO ORDERED. 6
Dissatisfied, Margarita appealed to the Office of the DENR Secretary. On June 1, 1998, then Secretary Victor O. Ramos (Secretary Ramos) rendered his Decision, 7 the dispositive portion of which reads: ATICcS
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the assailed decision is hereby SET ASIDE and MODIFIED. The foreshore lease application of Harry S. Yap should be amended to cover only Portion A of the foreshore area (as indicated in the sketch plan) and, as thus amended, shall continue to be given due course. Margarita Villarte is directed to file appropriate public land application over Portion B of the subject foreshore area within sixty (60) days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED. 8
Yap filed a motion for reconsideration which was granted by Secretary Angelo T. Reyes (Secretary Reyes) in his Order 9 dated October 16, 2006, as follows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant motion is hereby GRANTED.
The Decision of this Office dated June 1, 1998 is hereby SET ASIDE, and the Decision of the Regional Executive Director, DENR Region VI, Iloilo City, dated July 21, 1994 is hereby REINSTATED and AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED. 10
Margarita filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied under the Order 11 dated October 6, 2008 issued by Secretary Jose B. Atienza, Jr. Feeling aggrieved, Margarita appealed the Orders dated October 16, 2006 and October 6, 2008 before the Office of the President (OP).
On December 27, 2013, then Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. rendered a Decision 12 denying Margarita's appeal. Her motion for reconsideration was likewise denied under Resolution dated May 12, 2014. 13
In view of Margarita's demise on February 5, 2014, she was substituted by her heirs, herein petitioners, who filed a petition for review 14 under Rule 43 before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In the first assailed Resolution dated December 4, 2015, the CA granted the Motion to Dismiss Petition 15 filed by Yap who pointed out that the case had already been pending for twenty-two (22) years. Yap maintained that out of the nine (9) documents required of petitioners, they were able to submit only four (4) under the August 29, 2014 and January 30, 2015 Resolutions, per their Partial Compliance filed on October 9, 2014, with a subsequent Manifestation dated October 24, 2014, to submit the additional pleadings and documents when the records of the case had already been transferred to the DENR. However, four months had lapsed and despite considerable time petitioners failed to file such documents and pleadings.
In their Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, 16 petitioners said the delay in the submission of the required pleadings was not intended to cause delay in the disposition of the appeal or take advantage of the other party to the prejudice of the processes of the appellate court. Petitioners also moved for the reconsideration of the December 4, 2015 Resolution dismissing the petition. They prayed that technicality be set aside as it would result in the loss of their "abode and defeating their efforts of a lifetime," and that they be allowed to submit a Memorandum to elucidate further the issues in the petition. 17
In denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration, the CA said that more than a year had lapsed since it required petitioners to submit the lacking documents. Petitioner failed to advance any justifiable reason why they could not obtain the lacking documents and why they could not submit them within the prescribed period. The CA stressed that the documents it required are crucial for a full comprehension of the facts of the case, and are therefore necessary for the resolution of the issues raised in the petition. Further, the CA declared that petitioners had not shown any persuasive and weighty reasons to warrant a liberal application of the rules. 18 Specifically, the CA said: TIADCc
Aware of the reason for the dismissal of their petition, petitioners, in their motion for reconsideration, still did not submit the lacking documents required by the Court, nor did they offer any plausible explanation for not presenting them before this Court. At the very least, We expect petitioners to disclose, with definite particularity, the actions that they have undertaken to procure said documents, immediately after learning of the dismissal of their petition. Yet, they did not. Instead, petitioners merely implored the Court to give them an opportunity to file a memorandum, to elucidate further the issues in the petition, without undertaking to submit the lacking documents. 19
Issue
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN DISMISSING PETITIONERS' APPEAL UNDER RULE 43 FOR FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE REQUIRED PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTS.
Petitioners' Arguments
Petitioners argue that the CA erred in dismissing their petition for review based on Section 7, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court, and for "alleged lack of interest and failure to prosecute." Petitioners' counsel asserts that contrary to said pronouncement, records would show that he had been very candid with the CA as to the situation he faced upon taking over the case after it was decided by the DENR. The documents pertaining to the case were with the previous counsels, one of whom was already dead while the other was then in comatose state. Retrieval of the records at the DENR "was like chasing one's tail where everything goes round and round and achieving nothing." By the time the petition was filed before the CA, the records were presumably on their way back to the office of origin — Office of the DENR Secretary. However, a letter sent to said office did not get a response, and follow-ups with the Regional Office "all but produced scant documents from their remaining files." The documents retrieved so far were then submitted to the CA. The following manifestations were filed before the appellate court to inform said court of the progress of their quest to submit the required documents, thus: 1) Compliance with Motion for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum dated October 2014; 2) Manifestation dated October 24, 2014, stating that they received an Order from the OP that the records of the case were to be transmitted to the office of origin; 3) A letter dated February 27, 2015, to the DENR Secretary and RED requesting for copies of the documents required by the CA; 4) Partial Compliance with Motion for Reconsideration to Extend Time Frame dated March 16, 2015; and 5) Manifestation filed on August 20, 2015, submitting other documents. 20
Petitioners contend that the foregoing pleadings would show that they had communicated to the CA the actions taken, as well as the results of such actions and their justification as to why they were not able to submit the documents and pleadings within the prescribed period. Despite the herculean efforts made by petitioners, the CA seemingly turned a blind eye and hence dismissed their petition with no legal leg to stand on and based on a misconception of facts. The denial by the CA of their prayer for a subpoena duces tecum made it difficult for petitioners to obtain the necessary documents from the DENR, whereas, the CA had the power to order the DENR to elevate the original records of the case for its full adjudication. However, the CA chose to dismiss the petition based on technicalities despite petitioners' substantial compliance, in effect barring the petitioners from presenting their case. 21
Respondent Yap's Arguments
Respondent Yap filed his Comment, contending that the CA dismissed the petition for review filed by petitioners due to the latter's unreasonable failure to submit various documents which should accompany their petition despite several opportunities afforded them with repeated reminders from the appellate court. Petitioners clearly disregarded the rule requiring the relevant documents to accompany the petition under Rule 43, the purpose of which is to immediately enable the CA to determine whether to give due course to the appeal or not, by having all the materials necessary to make such determination before it. 22
The Court's Ruling
The petition has no merit.
An appeal is a proceeding undertaken to have a decision reconsidered by bringing it to a higher court authority. 23 The right to appeal is neither a right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. 24
In this case, petitioners filed a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, challenging the OP's decision which dismissed Margarita's appeal from the DENR Secretary's Order dated October 16, 2006. Section 6 of Rule 43 provides:
Section 6. Contents of the petition. — The petition for review shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without impleading the court or agencies either as petitioners or respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of the facts and issues involved and the grounds relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the award, judgment, final order or resolution appealed from, together with certified true copies of such material portions of the record referred to therein and other supporting papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42. The petition shall state the specific material dates showing that it was filed within the period fixed herein.
The Court has explained in Air Philippines Corporation v. Zamora25 that "not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to be attached to the petition" but only those which are relevant and pertinent to one's cause. "The test of relevancy is whether the document in question will support the material allegations in the petition, whether said document will make out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to convince the court to give due course to the petition." 26
Petitioners questioned before the CA the findings of fact made by DENR Secretary Reyes which were in conflict with those of the RED and former Secretary Ramos. They asserted that their predecessor-in-interest, Margarita, had superior rights over the area covered by her FLA that she had occupied since 1961. They faulted the OP and Secretary Reyes for their allegedly erroneous appreciation of facts in disregarding their actual, open, adverse and notorious occupation of the subject area since 1961. Because of the factual and legal issues involving rights of a riparian owner over foreshore land, the CA required the submission of several pleadings and documents which the CA deemed necessary for the proper resolution of the issues raised in the petition. However, despite sufficient time and opportunities given to petitioners, they managed to submit only some of the required documents, without undertaking to complete their partial compliance in the earliest time possible. AIDSTE
Pertinently, Sec. 7 of Rule 43 provides:
Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. — The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof. (emphasis supplied)
In granting respondent's Motion to Dismiss Petition, the CA reasoned as follows:
Despite being afforded several opportunities to submit the required documents and pleadings, petitioners, to date, have not yet submitted to this Court the following documents: (1) petitioners' position paper, including its annexes, filed with the DENR Region VI; 2) the attached plan to the Commissioner's Report on the lot survey conducted on November 6-7, 1992; 3) the parties' respective complete sets of documentary evidence/exhibits filed with the DENR Region VI; 4) petitioners' Appeal Memorandum filed with the DENR Secretary; 5) respondents' Answer to the Appeal Memorandum filed with the DENR Secretary; and 6) Respondent Engracia Panisa's Answer to the Appeal Memorandum filed with the Office of the President. Neither have petitioners communicated to this Court the action that they have undertaken to procure said essential documents and pleadings, after they purportedly sent to the DENR Region VI, the letter dated February 25, 2015.
Considering that more than a year has already lapsed since this Court require petitioners to submit the aforementioned documents and pleadings which are necessary for the complete understanding of the case, and moreover, as petitioners failed to advance any justifiable reason why they could not obtain said documents and pleadings and why they could not submit them within the prescribed period, We resolve to dismiss the instant petition for review, in accordance with Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, and for lack of interest and failure to prosecute. 27
Contrary to the claim of petitioners' counsel, his previous explanation regarding the former counsels of petitioners (death of one and comatose condition of the other) was already considered by the CA in its January 30, 2015 Resolution. Said resolution was issued three (3) months after petitioners filed their Manifestation on October 27, 2014, stating that they were informed by the OP of its October 1, 2014 Order directing the remand of the case records to the DENR, and undertaking to coordinate with said office to secure copies of the pleadings and documents required by the CA. What petitioners failed to do thereafter was to apprise the CA of the date when the DENR actually received back the case records (petitioners in fact were able to retrieve some documents that were submitted as Manifestation and Compliance dated August 20, 2015), and to give justifiable reason as to why the rest of the documents could not be obtained from the DENR when the case records were already available. Petitioners failed to secure a certification from the DENR of the documents released so far, as well as failed to present any explanation from the DENR as to why the rest of the required documents could not be released. Obviously, petitioners' counsel had not been candid enough as to disclose such matters to convince the CA of his alleged efforts to expedite the submission of the requested documents and pleadings, and to dispel any suspicion that they were being selective as to the documents they needed to submit to the CA. Worse, petitioners still failed to state in their motion for reconsideration whether the remaining documents and pleadings could still be obtained from the DENR — without even giving any concrete reason or explanation therefor — and apparently would just prefer the CA to simply concede the matter as it stated therein:
xxx xxx xxx
8. Considering the surrounding circumstances, and the search appears to be futile, it is most respectfully prayed before the Honorable Court, that on the basis of the documents available and as ADMITTED by the Honorable Court of Appeals, petitioner be allowed to submit a Memorandum to elucidate further the issues in the Petition. 28
Petitioners' laxity and utter lack of candor cannot be countenanced. Perusal of the requested documents and pleadings reveals that they were necessary in resolving the issues raised in the petition before the CA:
I. WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE DENR SECRETARY WHO REVERSED ITS PREVIOUS RULING WHICH IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE [FINDINGS OF FACT] OF THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THAT PETITIONER HAS BEEN IN AN OPEN, CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE, NOTORIOUS AND ADVERSE POSSESSION OF THE DISPUTED PARCEL OF LAND SINCE 1961; [and]
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A GRAVE REVERSIBLE ERROR IN GIVING RESPONDENT A SUPERIOR RIGHT AS AGAINST PETITIONER WHO HAD BEEN IN AN OPEN, CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE, NOTORIOUS AND ADVERSE POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SINCE 1961. 29
Now, the governing law regarding the rights of contending parties in applications for foreshore lease is paragraph 2 of the Lands Administrative Order No. 7-1, dated 30 April 1936, which reads: AaCTcI
32. Preference of Riparian Owner. — The owner of the property adjoining foreshore lands, marshy lands or lands covered with water bordering upon shores or banks of navigable lakes or rivers, shall be given preference to apply for such lands adjoining his property as may not be needed for the public service, subject to the laws and regulations governing lands of this nature, provided that he applies therefor within sixty (60) days from the date he receives a communication from the Director of Lands advising him of his preferential right.
The OP sustained the ruling of Secretary Reyes based on the factual findings and conclusion of the RED, thus:
Ocular inspection of the foreshore land in question conducted on 10 July 1993 the investigation report dated 12 July 1993 discloses that protestant Margarita Villarte and members of her family are the actual occupants of the foreshore land indicated as portion "B" in the sketch plan prepared by Engineer Margarito O. Magbanua. The improvements found thereon are bachao, bongalon, ipil-ipil and other improvements, like fruit trees and root crops and houses.
The report further discloses that the improvements of Harry S. Yap are in portion "A" of the sketch plan consisting of bamboo fences, bachao, bongalon and other trees planted to prevent erosion. Moreover, the house of Harry S. Yap and his workers are situated in his private property Lot 504-A adjoining the foreshore land in question.
Adduced from the position papers and evidence submitted by both parties and from the available records on file this Office is satisfactorily convinced that Harry S. Yap has acquired a preferential right over the foreshore area in question abutting Lot 504-A, Psd-27169 as a littoral owner provided in paragraph 32 of Lands Administrative Order No. 7-1 dated 30 April 1936. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
The aforecited provision is a settled law in this jurisdiction that the littoral owner of the registered land abutting upon the foreshore land has the preferential right to lease the foreshore land (Santolan vs. Executive Secretary, 80 SCRA 548 (1977)).
To further stress the point that the littoral owner or riparian owner has the preferential rights, Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 which is quoted hereunder provides that:
Article 4. Lands added to the shores by accretion and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea, form part of the public domain when they are no longer washed by the water of the sea and are not necessary for purposes of public utility or for the establishment of special industries, or for coast-guard services the government shall declare them to be property of the owners of the estates adjacent and as an increment thereof.
From the foregoing, the inexorable conclusion of this Office is that Harry S. Yap has the preferential right to the foreshore land in question.
On the other hand, protestant's physical possession and occupation over the portion of the foreshore land in question give her no right thereto whatsoever to entitle her for a foreshore lease application considering that her occupation and possession of the area in question is illegal being without previous permission or authorization granted in due form by the government. Thus, in the case of Insular Government versus Aldecoa & Co., 19 Phil. 505, the Honorable Supreme Court held that:
The occupation or material possession of any land formed upon the shore by accretions and alluvium deposits occasioned by the sea, where the occupant or possessor is a private person and holds without previous permission or authorization from the government granted in due form although he may have had the intention to hold it for the purpose of making it his own, is illegal possession on his part and amounts to nothing more than a mere detainer of the land which is out of the sphere of commerce of men as belonging to the public domain and being allotted to public uses and for the use of all persons who live at the place where it is situated. x x x 30 (emphases supplied)
While petitioners submitted copies of certain documents and pleadings in compliance with the CA's August 29, 2014 Resolution, they still failed to submit copies of the vital parts of the record already specified in said resolution, particularly the sketch plan attached to the Commissioner's Report, as noted in the December 4, 2015 Resolution. This prompted the CA to issue another Resolution dated January 30, 2015, directing them to submit the following within ten (10) days from notice:
a. The parties' respective Position Papers, including annexes, filed with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region VI;
b. Commissioner's Report on the lot survey conducted on November 6-7, 1992;
c. The parties' respective complete set of documentary evidence/exhibits presented with the DENR, Region VI;
d. Petitioners' Appeal Memorandum filed with the DENR Secretary;
e. Respondents' Answer to the Appeal Memorandum filed with the DENR Secretary;
f. Respondent Engracia Panisa's Answer to the Appeal Memorandum filed with the Office of the President; and
g. Respondents' Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration of the December 27, 2013 Decision filed with the Office of the President. 31
In its December 4, 2015 Resolution dismissing the petition, the CA acknowledged and admitted the following documents and pleadings belatedly submitted by petitioners in partial compliance only with the resolutions dated August 29, 2014 and January 30, 2015: 1) Position Paper of the respondents; 2) Reply to Position Paper of Respondents Panisa and Yap; and 3) the Geodetic Engineer's Report. With no further document or pleading submitted even after the dismissal of the petition and filing of their motion for reconsideration the CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration on August 5, 2016, considering that more than a year had lapsed since petitioners were directed to submit the subject lacking documents and pleadings. EcTCAD
The requirement of attaching material portions of the record in support of the petition is not a mere technicality but an essential requisite for the determination of prima facie basis for giving due course to the petition. 32 As a rule, a petition which lacks copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may be dismissed. Much discretion is left to the reviewing court, however, to determine the necessity for such copies as the exact nature of the pleadings and portions of the case record which must accompany a petition is not specified. 33
Petitioners may not insist on their theory that it should be the CA which should compel the DENR to release the subject documents and pleadings. Indeed, an appeal under Rule 43 is a discretionary mode of appeal, which the CA may either dismiss if it finds the petition to be patently without merit, or prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration; or may process by requiring the respondent to file a comment on the petition, not a motion to dismiss, within 10 days from notice. 34
Petitioners' perfunctory invocation of substantial justice is, under the circumstances, also not well taken. As this Court declared in Maniebo v. Court of Appeals: 35
Contrary to the petitioner's position, the transmittal of the records was not mandatory but only discretionary upon the CA. Section 11, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 11. Transmittal of record. — Within fifteen (15) days from notice that the petition has been given due course, the Court of Appeals may require the court or agency concerned to transmit the original or a legible certified true copy of the entire record of the proceeding under review. The record to be transmitted may be abridged by agreement of all parties to the proceeding. The Court of Appeals may require or permit subsequent correction of or addition to the record.
Evidently, the petitioner repeatedly disregarded the rules too many times to merit any tolerance by the Court, thereby exhibiting a deplorable tendency to trivialize the rules of procedure. Yet, such rules were not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance might have resulted in prejudicing a party's substantive rights. The bare invocation of substantial justice was not a magic wand that would compel the suspension of the rules of procedure. Of necessity, the reviewing court had also to assess whether the appeal was substantially meritorious on its face, or not, for only after such finding could the review court ease the often stringent rules of procedure. Otherwise, the rules of procedure would be reduced to mere trifles. (emphasis supplied; citations omitted) 36
Petitioners' professed intent not to cause delay in the resolution of the issues they brought before the CA and purported desire to resolve the case on its substantive merits rather than technicalities are simply not matched by decisive action and transparency on their part. The copies of lacking documents and pleadings are crucial to deciding their appeal yet they filed to submit such parts of the record despite ample opportunities given by the appellate court. Consequently, the CA did not err in dismissing their petition pursuant to Sec. 7, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated December 4, 2015 and August 5, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 08494, are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Lopez, J., J., no part; Hernando, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated August 25, 2021.
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. 31-41; penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
2.Id. at 43-47; penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 32-33.
4.Id. at 78-80.
5.Id. at 34-39-A.
6.Id. at 39-39-A.
7.Id. at 40-42.
8.Id. at 42.
9.Id. at 50-52.
10.Id. at 52.
11.Id. at 53-55.
12.Id. at 28-31.
13.Id. at 21-22.
14.Id. at 3-17.
15.Id. at 96-99.
16.Id. at 101-103.
17.Id. at 148-150.
18.Rollo, p. 45.
19.Id. at 45-46.
20.Id. at 19-20.
21. Id. at 20-21.
22.Id. at 143-145.
23.Dungo v. People, 762 Phil. 630, 650 (2015).
24.Id. at 650-651, citing Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc. v. Villareal, 708 Phil. 443, 452 (2013).
25. 529 Phil. 718 (2006).
26.Id. at 728.
27.Rollo, pp. 39-40.
28.Id. at 50.
29. CA rollo, pp. 7-8.
30.Id. at 37-39.
31.Id. at 94-95.
32.Esguerra v. Trinidad, 547 Phil. 99, 106 (2007), citing Far East Bank and Trust Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 522 Phil. 434, 444 (2006).
33.Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora, supra note 25, at 727.
34.Maniebo v. Court of Appeals, 642 Phil. 25, 37 (2010), citing Sec. 8, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
35.Id.
36.Id. at 40-41.