FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237155. August 17, 2022.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.EVARISTO FERIA, REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR FERIA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 17, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237155 (Republic of the Philippines vs. Evaristo Feria, represented by Arthur Feria). — This is an appeal by certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the October 19, 2017 Decision 1 and the January 29, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 103309. The CA affirmed the April 8, 2014 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 8 (RTC) in Civil Case No. II-5197, dismissing the complaint for cancellation of original certificate of title (OCT) and reversion, and confirming the validity of the patent application and certificates of title issued in the name of Evaristo Feria (respondent Feria).
Antecedents
On July 4, 2011, the Republic filed a Complaint for Cancellation of OCT and Reversion 4 against respondent Feria, represented by his son Arthur Feria (Arthur), and the Register of Deeds (RD) of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. The Republic alleged that on March 8, 1965, the RD of the Province of Cagayan issued OCT No. P-24713 in the name of respondent Feria, covering two lots (subject lots) with an area of 6.4734 hectares and 12.4337 hectares, respectively, located in Diora, Gonzaga, Cagayan. The title was issued pursuant to Homestead Patent No. H-142765, purportedly issued by the then Bureau of Lands (now Land Management Bureau) on April 18, 1941. 5 On June 19, 2006, the title of the land was split into two and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-155598 6 and T-155599 7 were issued in respondent Feria's name, covering the subject lots. 8
On March 4, 1999, 9 several persons, including Ysmael Recolizado 10(Recolizado) and Ruperto Ruiz, filed a letter-request before the Regional Executive Director (RED) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Regional Office No. 2 (RO 2), Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, against Homestead Application No. 142765 (homestead application) of respondent Feria. 11 The letter-request was treated as a Protest 12 and it was docketed as Regional Land Office (RLO) Claim No. 1349. 13 The claimants essentially asserted that they are the occupants of Lot Nos. 1603 and 1606, Pls-115, Poblacion, Sta. Ana, Cagayan, covered by the homestead application of respondent Feria, for more than 20 years. 14 They also argued that respondent Feria left the subject lots and moved his residence a long time ago and never returned to the said place until his death, and that after the death of respondent Feria, his heirs had not introduced improvement on any portion of the lands covered by the homestead application. 15 Respondent Feria, as represented by Arthur, was absent in the investigations conducted by the RED. 16 On July 31, 1999, ocular inspection was conducted on the subject lots. 17 CAIHTE
In its Order 18 dated November 17, 1999, 19 the RED denied due course to the homestead application of respondent Feria on the ground that respondent Feria is not in actual possession and cultivation of any portion of the lots covered by said homestead application, per ocular inspection conducted by the DENR. 20
Subsequently, the claimants in RLO Claim No. 1349 requested the DENR-RO 2 to cancel OCT No. P-24713 in the name of respondent Feria. 21 Acting on said request, the DENR-RO 2 conducted another investigation and found that the DENR in Tuguegarao City had no record of the application in the name of respondent Feria and even the Archives Division of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) in Manila did not have in its file a copy of the subject patent. As the record further showed that respondent Feria was not in actual occupation and possession of the subject lots, the RED, thus, inferred that respondent Feria obtained the subject homestead patent, OCT No. P-24713, TCT Nos. T-155598, and T-155599 through fraud, to the prejudice of the State over its patrimony. On July 11, 2007, the RED issued an Order 22 instituting cancellation proceeding and/or reversion proceedings against the subject homestead patent, OCT No. P-24713, 23 as well as TCT Nos. T-155598 and T-155599 in the name of respondent Feria. Hence, the instant complaint for cancellation and reversion was filed before the RTC by the Republic. 24
In his Answer, 25 respondent Feria, through his representative and son Arthur, claimed that in 1940 or prior thereto, respondent Feria entered, cleared and occupied the subject lots. Since then, respondent Feria has possessed the subject lots openly, continuously, exclusively, adversely, and notoriously under a bona fide claim of ownership. Respondent Feria then filed his homestead application in 1940 and caused the survey of the subject lots. Moreover, records of the Bureau of Lands readily reveal that the subject lots are covered by the subject homestead patent issued in his favor. After complying with the requirements for the issuance of a homestead patent, OCT No. P-24713 was issued in his favor. However, after the issuance of the subject patent to him, and during the outbreak of the war, he was temporarily displaced from the subject lots. 26
Respondent Feria, through Arthur, claimed that possession of the actual occupants of the subject lots cannot ripen into ownership as they are mere usurpers. Further, as there are purported claimants over the subject lots, reversion proceedings will not lie and the Republic is not the real party-in-interest. Lastly, he averred that with the length of time that has elapsed, coupled with the fact that the subject patent was issued as far back as 1941, estoppel, laches, and prescription had already set in. Respondent Feria, as represented by Arthur, prayed that the RTC dismiss the complaint and direct the recognition and declaration of the validity of the titles issued in respondent Feria's name. 27
During trial, the Republic presented the testimonies of Eduardo Garcia (Garcia), Adela Soriano (Soriano), Librada Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), Ferdinand Urata (Urata), and Jose Canapi (Canapi).
Garcia, a resident of Lot No. 1606, one of the subject lots, in Centro, Sta. Ana, Cagayan, testified that he entered one of the subject lots sometime in 1982, but did not secure any authority from anyone to take possession of the property. Although the lot was forested and had fruit-bearing trees when he arrived, there were already occupants. When he went to apply for the titling of the land, he discovered that it was already covered by a homestead application filed by respondent Feria. This prompted him and the other occupants to file a protest in 1999. 28
Soriano, as Records Officer of the Land Management Bureau (LMB) of the DENR-RO 2 since September 17, 1988, alleged that she is the custodian of all office records in their region. She claimed that, upon verification, their office found no record of respondent Feria's homestead application in their file of transmittals to the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office in Aparri, Cagayan (CENRO-Aparri). Similarly, Dela Cruz, an employee of the DENR since 1984 and the Records Officer of CENRO-Aparri, testified that there is no record of respondent Feria's homestead application in their office. Nonetheless, since she has no personal knowledge of what transpired before 1984, Dela Cruz admitted that she cannot make a conclusion on whether respondent Feria ever made a homestead application. 29
Urata, a Legal Officer of DENR-RO 2 since 1992, alleged that he evaluated RLO Claim No. 1349, which arose from a Protest dated March 4, 1999 filed by Recolizado. He found that respondent Feria was not in possession of the subject lots and concluded that fraud and misrepresentation attended respondent Feria's homestead application, which was reflected in the November 17, 1999 Order of the RED. He admitted, however, that possession and cultivation over the lands prior to 1989 were not considered in his investigation. 30
Lastly, Canapi, the Land Management Officer of CENRO-Aparri since June 2012, stated that the subject lots are identical to Lot Nos. 1603 and 1606 of the cadastral map of Pls-115, although there are deviations in the areas of the lots and the geographical coordinates. The cadastral map also bears the notation of the homestead application of respondent Feria. Canapi also testified that in the same cadastral map, which was approved on September 10, 1953, respondent Feria was already reflected as the registered owner of the subject lots. 31
On the other hand, Arthur testified that respondent Feria died sometime in April 1945. His father acquired the subject lots through a homestead application. Respondent Feria possessed and cultivated the subject lots and a homestead patent was thereafter validly issued to him. When he reached the age of reason, Arthur ascertained that his father was, in fact, in possession of the subject lots as evidenced by the fruit-bearing trees and other trees planted thereon. Moreover, the subject lots were declared for taxation purposes and taxes due thereon were duly paid. 32 He claimed that the subject lots were covered by a survey plan H-142765, which was approved on October 12, 1940. Considering OCT No. P-24713 consisted of two lots, said OCT was cancelled and TCT Nos. T-155598 and T-155599 were issued in the name of respondent Feria. At the moment, there are informal settlers on the subject lots even though they know that the subject lots were already titled in the name of respondent Feria. 33 Arthur asserted that the alleged fraud imputed by the Republic had no basis because respondent Feria complied with all the requirements for the issuance of a homestead patent in his favor. 34
Arthur formally offered the following documents as evidence of the continued and uninterrupted ownership of respondent Feria of the subject lots: (1) OCT No. P-24713; (2) Plan of Homestead H-142765 approved on October 12, 1940; (3) Cadastral Map; (4) TCT No. T-155598; (5) TCT No. T-155599; (6) Tax Declaration in the name of respondent Feria; (7) Second Tax Declaration; (8) Realty Tax Receipts; and (9) Certification of the Municipal Treasurer of Sta. Ana, Cagayan. 35
The RTC Ruling
In its April 8, 2014 Decision, the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action. It held that the Republic failed to prove that respondent Feria committed fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the homestead patent. It found the testimonies of the Republic's witnesses lacking as to the events that occurred prior to the issuance of the homestead patent in favor of respondent Feria. There was also no evidence to show the circumstances of the claimants' occupation of the subject lots. What remained undisputed was the existence of OCT No. P-24713 in the name of respondent Feria. Absent clear proof that the homestead application and title were irregularly issued, the RTC upheld the presumption of regularity in favor of the certificates of title in the name of respondent Feria. Moreover, the vested rights over the subject lots remained with respondent Feria and not with the present occupants of the subject lots, who were mere usurpers. 36 The dispositive portion of the decision reads: DETACa
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing ratiocination, judgment is hereby rendered, to wit:
1. Dismissing the instant complaint for lack of cause of action;
2. [Confirming] the validity of the patent application and certificates of title issued in the name of private defendant [Arthur];
3. Private defendant's counterclaim for damages should be as it is hereby dismissed as the plaintiff [Republic] should not be penalized for initiating and pursuing a claim which it believes to be actionable and tenable.
SO DECIDED.37
Aggrieved, the Republic appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its October 19, 2017 Decision, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC that the Republic failed to prove that fraud and misrepresentation attended the homestead application of respondent Feria. The CA held that Republic's assertion of the presence of fraud and misrepresentation was based primarily on the unsubstantiated claim that there was no record of respondent Feria's homestead application in some government offices. The CA explained that fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, but the Republic failed to do so. It also found that the accusation of fraud was so tardily brought because more than 70 years had already lapsed from the grant of the subject patent on April 18, 1941. 38
The CA likewise held that respondent Feria, as the registered owner of the subject lots, is protected under the Torrens system. It even recognized that respondent Feria already acquired a perfect or complete title to the subject lots at the time he complied with all the conditions prerequisite to obtaining a homestead patent thereto. The issuance of homestead patent on April 18, 1941 and the registration of OCT No. P-24713 on March 8, 1965 in favor of respondent Feria merely served as confirmation of his ownership of the subject lots. 39 The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated April 8, 2014, and the Resolution dated June 24, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 08, Aparri, Cagayan, in Civil Case No. II-5197 for Cancellation of Original Certificate of Title and Reversion, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.40
The Republic's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its January 29, 2018 Resolution. Hence, this petition.
Issue
The Republic raises this sole ground in its petition:
THE [CA] GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT [RESPONDENT FERIA] DID NOT COMMIT FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION IN OBTAINING HOMESTEAD PATENT NO. H-142765. 41
The Republic argues that the CA erred in ruling that respondent Feria did not commit fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the homestead patent. It claims that the absence of a homestead application in some government offices is sufficient to prove that respondent Feria committed fraud in obtaining said homestead patent.
In his Comment 42 dated July 10, 2018, respondent Feria contended that the Republic failed to prove that he committed fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the homestead patent. He claimed that he lawfully and regularly acquired his title over the subject lots. Lastly, he claims that estoppel and laches had already set in because the homestead patent was issued to him in 1941. aDSIHc
In its Reply 43 dated December 13, 2018, the Republic reiterated its argument that respondent Feria committed fraud and misrepresentation in securing the homestead patent. The Republic maintained that based on the records of the DENR-RO 2, respondent Feria's homestead application does not exist. Thus, it follows that no homestead patent may have been issued.
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the determination of the existence or nonexistence of fraud is a factual matter that is beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari. In insisting that there is fraud in the issuance of the homestead patent, the Republic is, in effect, asking the Court to make its own factual determination. 44 The Rules of Court requires that only questions of law should be raised in a petition filed under Rule 45. 45 Factual questions are not reviewable and cannot be passed upon by the Court in the exercise of its power to review. As the Court held in Westmont Investment Corp. v. Francia, Jr., 46 questions of law are distinguished from questions of fact, thus:
A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact, on the other hand, exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. This being so, the findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and this Court will not review them on appeal. 47
However, this rule admits of exceptions, to wit:
[W]hen (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the [CA] are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the [CA] manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the [CA] are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties. 48
The Court finds that the Republic failed to substantiate its claim that the present case falls under any of the exceptions. Notably, the findings of facts of the RTC and the CA are consistent with each other, particularly, that the Republic failed to prove that there was fraud in the homestead application on respondent Feria in 1940. Hence, for raising questions of fact, the petition for review on certiorari may be denied outright.
Nevertheless, even on the substantive aspect, the petition must fail.
A complaint for reversion indicates a serious controversy, because it involves a question of fraud and misrepresentation committed against the State and it pursues the return of a disputed portion of the public domain. The State seeks to cancel the original certificate of registration, and rescind the original certificate of title, including the transfer certificate of title of the successors-in-interest, because these were allegedly obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. 49
In Saad Agro-Industries, Inc. v. Republic, 50 the Court explained that the State has the burden of proof to establish fraud and misrepresentation in reversion cases, to wit:
x x x Thus, the State, as the party alleging the fraud and misrepresentation that attended the application of the free patent, bears that burden of proof. Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should never be presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not even being adequate. It is but judicious to require the Government, in an action for reversion, to show the details attending the issuance of title over the alleged inalienable land and explain why such issuance has deprived the State of the claimed property.
In the instant case, the Solicitor General claimed that "Free Patent No. 473408 and Original Certificate of Title No. 0-6667 were erroneously and irregularly obtained as the Bureau of Lands (now [Land] Management Bureau) did not acquire jurisdiction over the land subject thereof, nor has it the power and authority to dispose of the same through [a] free patent grant, hence, said patent and title are null and void ab initio." It was incumbent upon respondent to prove that the free patent and original title were truly erroneously and irregularly obtained. Unfortunately, respondent failed to do so. 51
In Republic v. Bellate, 52 the Court denied the Republic's appeal by certiorari for its failure to prove that therein respondent Bellate committed fraud in his application for free patent. It was emphasized that in reversion cases, "the burden of proof rests on the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts the affirmative of an issue." 53 In essence, the Republic has the burden to prove that respondent Feria committed fraud in his application for homestead patent.
In this case, the Court agrees with the RTC and the CA that the Republic failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that respondent Feria committed fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining the homestead patent in 1941. The CA correctly held that the testimonies of Garcia, Soriano, Dela Cruz, Urata, and Canapi miserably failed to prove that respondent Feria committed fraud in securing his homestead patent in 1941, to wit:
In this case, the Republic has failed to prove that fraud and misrepresentation attended the homestead application of Feria. There is very little evidence in this case to convince Us that Feria was able to secure the subject patent by fraud or misrepresentation. The assertion of the Republic that the issuance of the subject patent was attended by fraud and misrepresentation is based primarily on the claim that there is no record of Feria's homestead application in various government offices. Such assertion, however, has not been substantiated by the evidence of the Republic.
Garcia, an occupant of one of the subject lots, testified to entering the same only in 1982. Urata, meanwhile, admitted that he did not consider possession and cultivation of the subject lots prior to 1989. Thus, it is inconceivable for them to have any knowledge as to the fraud and misrepresentation supposedly committed by Feria in his homestead application way back in the [1940s]. ETHIDa
The testimonies of Soriano and Dela Cruz likewise did not prove that Feria committed fraud in his homestead application. While both attested that their offices do not have records of Feria's homestead application, such assertion loses significance in light of the fact that prior to the reorganization of the DENR in 1988, patent applications were filed with the DENR Central Office. Furthermore, after such reorganization, only unacted upon or pending applications were forwarded to the CENROs. Since Feria's homestead application and the grant thereof took place in the early 1940s, its inexistence in the records of DENR-RO 2 and CENRO-Aparri is easily understandable. Moreover, since Soriano and Dela Cruz do not work in the DENR Central Office, they are not capable and have no authority to categorically declare that no records of Feria's homestead application, exists.
Lastly, Canapi's testimony, instead of showing the supposed fraud, appears to reinforce the validity of the subject patent and corresponding title issued to Feria. He stated that the Cadastral Map, approved on September 10, 1953, contained an annotation of the homestead application of Feria and more importantly, already reflected Feria as the registered owner of the subject lots.
The Certification from the NCCA that it has no copy on file of the patent of Feria is likewise insufficient to prove fraud. The certification, by itself, is insufficient to prove the alleged fraud. Fraud and misrepresentation, as grounds for cancellation of patent and annulment of title, should never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, mere preponderance of evidence not being adequate. Fraud is a question of fact which must be proved. The signatory of the certification, Teresita R. Ignacio, Chief, Archives Division, was not presented in court to testify on the due issuance of the certification, and to testify on the details of her certification, particularly the reason why the said office had no record of the subject patent or to testify on the fact of fraud, if any. 54
Clearly, the Republic's witnesses were unable to substantiate its claim that fraud or misrepresentation attended respondent Feria's homestead application. The witnesses presented by the Republic, particularly Garcia and Urata, only entered the subject lots in 1982. Thus, they do not have any personal knowledge that respondent Feria indeed committed fraud in his homestead application, which lead to the issuance of the homestead patent in 1941.
Further, the testimonies of the Republic's witnesses, DENR-RO 2 employees Soriano and Dela Cruz, that their office did not have a copy of the homestead application of respondent Feria, do not establish the fraud required in an action for reversion. Notably, prior to the reorganization of the DENR in 1988, patent applications were filed with the DENR Central Office. Thus, it was perfectly understandable that DENR-RO 2 did not have custody of respondent Feria's homestead application in 1940.
Likewise, as observed by the CA, the testimony of the Republic's other witness, Canapi, actually confirmed the validity of respondent Feria's homestead patent. This is because the cadastral map, approved on September 10, 1953, contained an annotation of the homestead application of respondent Feria and, more importantly, it already reflected respondent Feria as the registered owner of the subject lots.
Verily, the witnesses presented by the Republic held positions in the DENR after respondent Feria filed his homestead application in 1940. Thus, the Republic's witnesses had no personal knowledge of what transpired when the homestead patent was issued in favor of respondent Feria in 1941. It is well-settled that fraud is never presumed, but must be established by clear and convincing evidence. 55 In Heirs of Pedro Mendoza v. Valte, 56 the Court held:
[T]he fraud must consist in an intentional omission of facts required by law to be stated in the application or a willful statement of a claim against the truth. It must show some specific acts intended to deceive and deprive another of his [or her] right. The fraud must be actual and extrinsic, not merely constructive or intrinsic; the evidence thereof must be clear, convincing[,] and more than merely preponderant, because the proceedings which are assailed as having been fraudulent are judicial proceedings which by law, are presumed to have been fair and regular. 57
Due to failure of the Republic to dispute the regularity in the issuance of the homestead patent in favor of respondent Feria in 1941, it was perfectly justified that OCT No. P-24713 and, subsequently, TCT Nos. T-155598 and T-155599, were issued in respondent Feria's name pursuant to the said homestead patent.
The Republic's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud cannot prevail over respondent Feria's valid certificates of title over the subject lots. "Under the Torrens system, a certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. Otherwise stated, the certificate of title is the best proof of ownership of a parcel of land." 58
It must be emphasized that "once a title is registered, as a consequence either of judicial or administrative proceedings, the owner may rest secure, without the necessity of waiting in the portals of the court sitting in the mirador de su casa to avoid the possibility of losing his land." 59 The certificate of title cannot be impeded by adverse, open, and notorious possession, neither by prescription. Even if there were other occupants in the subject lands after respondent Feria obtained the certificates of title thereto, such adverse occupation shall not frustrate the right of ownership of respondent Feria thereto, pursuant to the indefeasible and imprescriptible nature of a certificate of title. Thus, the CA correctly held that respondent Feria acquired a perfect or complete title to the subject lots when he complied with all the conditions in obtaining a homestead patent title of the subject lots. cSEDTC
Indeed, absent any showing that certain facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in the judicial determination of the failure to establish the fraudulent acts purportedly committed by respondent Feria, the Court accords the highest respect and finality to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, 60 as in this case.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The October 19, 2017 Decision and the January 29, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 103309 are AFFIRMED in toto.
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. 55-72; penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (retired Member of the Court) and Jane Aurora C. Lantion.
2. Id. at 74-75.
3. Id. at 137-150; penned by Pairing Judge Conrado T. Tabaco.
4. Id. at 87-96.
5. Id. at 97.
6. Id. at 99-101.
7. Id. at 102-104.
8. Id. at 56.
9. Records, pp. 222-223; also stated as "May 4, 1999" in some parts of the rollo (rollo, p. 142).
10. Also referred to as "Ismael Recolizado" in some parts of the rollo (see rollo, p. 105).
11. Rollo, p. 105.
12. Records, pp. 222-223.
13. Rollo, p. 105.
14. Id. at 105-106.
15. Id. at 106.
16. Id. at 105.
17. Id. at 107.
18. Id. at 105-108.
19. The Order only stated the year "1999." However, in the testimony of Ferdinand Urata, it was stated that the said Order was issued on November 17, 1999 (rollo, p. 142; see also records, p. 142).
20. Rollo, pp. 107-108.
21. Records, p. 138.
22. Rollo, pp. 111-117.
23. Inadvertently stated as OCT No. "P-34713" in the dispositive portion of the said Order.
24. Rollo, pp. 56-57.
25. Id. at 118-124.
26. Id. at 118-119.
27. Id. at 119, 121-122.
28. Id. at 59.
29. Id. at 59-60.
30. Id. at 60-61.
31. Id. at 61.
32. Id.
33. Id. at 144-145.
34. Id. at 145.
35. Id.
36. Id. at 149.
37. Id. at 149-150.
38. Id. at 70.
39. Id. at 70-71.
40. Id. at 71-72.
41. Id. at 42.
42. Id. at 227-241.
43. Id. at 249-254.
44. See Coro v. Nasayao, G.R. No. 235361, October 16, 2019, 925 SCRA 132, 139.
45. Spouses Miano v. Manila Electric Company, 800 Phil. 118, 122 (2016).
46. 678 Phil. 180 (2011).
47. Id. at 191.
48. Cabigting v. San Miguel Foods, Inc., 620 Phil. 14, 22 (2009).
49. Spouses Chua v. Republic, G.R. No. 236117, April 16, 2018, citing Spouses Morandarte v. Court of Appeals, 479 Phil. 870, 882 (2004).
50. 534 Phil. 648 (2006).
51. Id. at 656-657.
52. 716 Phil. 60 (2013).
53. Id. at 71.
54. Rollo, pp. 66-68.
55. Maestrado v. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 418, 435 (2000); Loyola v. Court of Appeals, 383 Phil. 171, 183 (2000).
56. 768 Phil. 539 (2015).
57. Id. at 564, citing Republic v. Bellate, supra note 52.
58. Tensuan v. Heirs of Vasquez, G.R. No. 204992, September 8, 2020.
59. Wee v. Mardo, 735 Phil. 420, 430 (2014).
60. Soriano v. Bravo, 653 Phil. 72, 95 (2010).