FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 212131. July 4, 2018.]
SPOUSES ERASMO BELO AND FELICITAS ZAMORA-BELO, SPOUSES LARRY Z. BELO AND DIANA PHOA BELO, SPOUSES YOLANDA BELO-SANTIAGO AND DELFIN SANTIAGO AND SPOUSES AURORA BELO-REYES AND ROGELIO REYES, petitioners,vs. THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF SAN RAFAEL, BULACAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 4, 2018which reads as follows: HDICSa
"G.R. No. 212131 (Spouses Erasmo Belo and Felicitas Zamora-Belo, Spouses Larry Z. Belo and Diana Phoa Belo, Spouses Yolanda Belo-Santiago and Delfin Santiago and Spouses Aurora Belo-Reyes and Rogelio Reyes v. The Municipal Government of San Rafael, Bulacan).
The Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated September 4, 2013, in CA-G.R. CV No. 94555 is the subject of this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. 2
The Antecedent Facts
On December 13, 2004, the municipal council of the San Rafael, Bulacan municipal government (municipal government) issued Kapasiyahan Bilang 2004-189, authorizing Mayor Ricardo C. Silverio (Mayor Silverio) to negotiate for the purchase of parcels of land owned by Spouses Erasmo Belo and Felicitas Zamora and Spouses Jose Chico and Leonila Chico (collectively as petitioners) located at Barangay Sampaloc, San Rafael, Bulacan, intended to be the site of the municipality's new government center. 3 The authority reads:
IPINASIYA, tulad ng dito'y PAGPASIYA na bigyan ng kapangyarihan ang Punong Bayan ng San Rafael, Bulacan KGG. RICARDO C. SILVERIO na gumawa ng kaukulang hakbang ng pagkuha ng mga pribadong ari-arian [eminent domain] at pakikipagnegosasyon sa mga may-ari ng lupa sa Brgy. Sampaloc na pagtatayuan ng mga gusali sa lilikhaing Government Center;
IPINASIYA PA RIN, na kung sakaling ang negosasyon ng lilikhain [voluntary purchase] ng lote ay hindi magkaroon ng katuparan matapos na maisagawa and lahat ng hakbang at pangangailangan batay sa itinadhana ng Seksiyon 19 ng Batas ng Pamahalaang Lokal ng 1991 gayundin ang itinadhana ng Kautusan VI Artikulo 32 hanggang 37 ng mga Kautusan at Alituntuning Nagpapatupad sa Batas ng Pamahalaang Lokal ng 1991 binibigyan din ng pahintulot ang Punong Bayan KGG. RICARDO C. SILVERIO upang gamitin ang kapangyarihan na kumuha ng pribadong lote para gamitan na pagtatayuan ng mga gusali sa lilikhaing government center sa pamamagitan ng isang pinagtibay na Kautusan/Kapasiyahan ng Sangguniang Bayan ng San Rafael, Bulacan.4
In a letter dated January 18, 2005 to petitioners, Mayor Silverio initiated the negotiation for the purchase of the subject land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-137155 under Tax Declaration (TD) No. 2003-27-000000815 with a total area of 28,344 square meters. Mayor Silverio reiterated his offer to petitioners in a letter dated March 18, 2005. For some reason, petitioner Spouses Erasmo Belo and Felicitas Zamora informed Mayor Silverio that they did not want to sell their property to the municipal government. 5 CAIHTE
By virtue of Kapasiyahan Bilang 2005-117 and Kapasiyahan Bilang 2005-03 both dated August 31, 2005; Kapasiyahan Bilang 2005-1996 dated September 5, 2005; Kautusang Bayan Bilang 2005-134 and Kautusang Bayan Bilang 2005-06, both dated October 10, 2005, the municipal government approved Mayor Silverio's authority to represent it in the institution of expropriation proceedings against petitioners. 7 Accordingly, on October 14, 2005, the municipal government filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, seeking the expropriation of the following properties: (1) TCT No. T-207700 under TD No. 2003-000000868 with an area of 3,045 square meters in the names of Spouses Larry Z. Belo and Diana Phoa Belo, Spouses Delfin Santiago and Yolanda Belo, and Spouses Rogelio Reyes and Aurora Belo; (2) TCT No. T-207701 under TD No. 2003-27-000000869 with an area of 24,955 square meters, in the name of Spouses Erasmo Belo and Felicitas Zamora; and, (3) TCT No. T-207702 under TD No. 2003-27-000000870 with an area of 344 square meters in the name of Spouses Jose Chico and Leonila Chico. The properties mentioned used to be part of the entire parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-137155. Thereafter, summonses were served upon petitioners. 8
On October 26, 2005, the RTC ordered the municipal government to submit a certification that it deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines, the amount equivalent to at least 15% of the fair market value of the property sought to be expropriated pursuant to Rule 67, Section 2, 9 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991. Upon its compliance, the RTC authorized the municipal government to take possession of the subject properties. 10
Over petitioners' objection to the expropriation, the RTC ruled as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, an order of expropriation is hereby issued and judgment is hereby rendered declaring that plaintiff Municipal Government of San Rafael, Bulacan has the lawful right to take possession of the properties sought to be expropriated for public use or purpose described in the complaint upon payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking of the properties or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.
Further, prior to the implementation of Sec. 5 of Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, set the same for hearing to determine the ground rules relative to the process of determining just compensation. DETACa
Furnish immediately copies of the decision to the parties and counsels.
SO ORDERED. 11
Petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal. Meanwhile, the proceedings continued for the determination of just compensation. Three appraisal commissioners were appointed in compliance with Rule 67 to aid the RTC in arriving at the proper valuation of the subject properties. 12 Then, in its Order dated February 2, 2009, the RTC fixed the amount of just compensation of the subject land at P367.10 per square meter, 13 decreeing as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court declares and so hold[s] that the just compensation of the properties sought to be expropriated is THREE HUNDRED SIXTY-SEVEN PESOS & TEN CENTAVOS (Php367.10) per square meter or a total amount of TEN MILLION FOUR HUNDRED FIVE THOUSAND EIGHTY[-]TWO PESOS & FORTY CENTAVOS (Php10,405,082.40) relative to the 28,344 square meter properties sought to be expropriated as of the date of its taking and/or filing of the complaint on October 17, 2005.
Upon payment by the Municipality of San Rafael, Bulacan to the defendants, namely: Sps. Felicitas Zamora and Erasmo Belo, Sps. Larry Z. Belo and Diana Phoa, Sps. Yolanda Belo and Delfin Santiago and Sps. Aurora Belo and Rogelio Reyes and tenants Sps. Jose Chico and Leonila Garcia of the respective amounts corresponding to the area covered by their respective title/s, with legal interest thereon from the taking of the possession of the properties or after tender to the defendants of the amount so fixed, the Municipality of San Rafael, Bulacan shall have the right to enter upon the properties so expropriated and to appropriate it (sic) to the public use or purpose for which it was intended pursuant to the court's Decision dated November 28, 2006 or to retain it should the municipality have taken immediate possession thereof.
Thereafter, the plaintiff, Municipality of San Rafael, Bulacan shall inform the court of its acceptance or denial by the defendants of the payment of just compensation fixed by the court within three (3) days therefrom.
In the event that the amount fixed by this court has been refused by the defendants relative to the amount so tendered, this court shall order that the same be deposited with the Office of the Clerk of the Regional Trial Court for the province of Bulacan and shall have the same effect as actual payment thereof to the defendants. aDSIHc
All costs including fees to the members of the Commission shall be taxed as a part of the costs of the proceedings and chargeable to the plaintiff. However, in the event of an appeal taken by the owner/defendants of the property and the judgment is affirmed, costs of the appeal shall be chargeable to the owner/defendants.
SO ORDERED. 14
The above Order was appealed by the petitioners to the CA through ordinary appeal under Rule 41, Section 2 (a), which the CA decided on September 4, 2013, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the decision dated November 28, 2006 and order dated February 2, 2009 of Branch 83, Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 689-M-2005 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 15
The Issues
I.
THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY INITIATED EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS FOR THE TAKING OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTIES WITHOUT FIRST CONDUCTING ANY PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TRANSFER OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT OF THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 11, PARAGRAPHS (B) AND (C) OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS THUS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE RTC DATED 28 NOVEMBER 2006 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDING IS ILLEGAL FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE PETITIONERS WERE ARBITRARILY SELECTED WITHOUT PRIOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN IN SECTION 11, PARAGRAPHS (B) AND (C) OF THE 1991 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
II.
WITHOUT ANY VALID LEGAL JUSTIFICATION, THE TRIAL COURT COMPLETELY DISREGARDED THE COMMISSIONERS' REPORT DATED 12 JANUARY 2009 AND RULED THAT THE PROPER AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE HEREIN PETITIONERS SHOULD ONLY BE PHP367.10 PER SQUARE METER. THE SAID AMOUNT, HOWEVER, WAS ARRIVED AT IN UTTER DISREGARD OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RULES AND PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION WELL-ESTABLISHED IN CASES DECIDED BY THE HONORABLE COURT, THE COURT OF APPEALS THUS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 02 FEBRUARY 2009 WHICH FIXED THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION AT ONLY PHP367.10 PER SQUARE METER. 16
Stripped of non-essentials, the petition raises only one basic issue, that is, whether or not the municipal government of San Rafael, Bulacan validly expropriated the parcels of land subject of this case. ETHIDa
The Court's Ruling
The petition lacks merit.
Eminent Domain
Eminent domain is the inherent power of the State to take, or to authorize the taking of private property for a public use without the owner's consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation. In most cases, eminent domain "is acknowledged as an inherent political right, founded upon the common necessity of appropriating the private property of individual members of the community for the great necessities of the whole community." 17
The Constitution provides for two limitations upon the exercise of the power of eminent domain in the following provisions: (1) Article III, Section 9, that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, and (2) Art III, Section 1, that no person shall be deprived of his/her life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
In the instant case, the authority to expropriate was granted by the municipal council to its local chief executive, Mayor Silverio. The authority, as embodied in the Kapasiyahan Bilang 2004-189, is recognized by Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, prescribing the delegation by Congress of the power of eminent domain to local government units and lays down the parameters for its exercise, thus:
Section 19. Eminent Domain. — A local government unit may, through its chief executive and acting pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain for public use, or purpose or welfare for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws: Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner, and such offer was not accepted: Provided, further, That the local government unit may immediately take possession of the property upon the filing of the expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit with the proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the fair market value of the property based on the current tax declaration of the property to be expropriated: Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking of the property. (Emphasis ours)
Perforce, the expropriation of the subject properties was directed by a valid legislation. cSEDTC
Contrary to petitioners' position, a genuine public necessity is visible in the municipal government's proposed area development plan. The requisite of public purpose becomes clearer as We examine the purpose for which the expropriation was undertaken, thus:
The development of San Rafael based on the analysis of the present situation requires the establishment of additional government centers that could cater to various sectors of our society. A center to promote the town as a business and tourist destination that will boost our development potential is necessary. These centers that will be put up in [a] strategic location is expected to encourage investments from outside the municipality and attract tourists and travelers. A strategic location means the area is accessible to most San Rafaelenos, visible to travelers and it should be along the major thoroughfare. The area in Barangay Sampaloc, located near the channel intersection going to the Municipality of Baliuag is considered a strategic location. This area is the point of convergence of the major road networks [i.e., Cagayan Valley Road, Dona Remedios Trinidad Highway and Francisco V. Viola Diversion Road] of the municipality and may be considered as a perfect take off point in the delivery of services to the people and a center for culture, arts and commerce. Added to this is the presence of telecommunications facilities like land[-]based telephone systems [Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. and Digital Telecommunications Corp. and cellular based telephone systems Smart Communications and Globe Telecommunications] and a level three water supply system [San Rafael Water District]. The proposed area is currently being used for agricultural purposes thus its conversion into institutional use would not entail tedious processes. Furthermore, the lot where the present seat of the municipal government stands is not sufficient for the proposed structures required to enhance the services of the municipality and its location has been proven more of a hindrance than an advantage to San Rafael's thrust for progress. (Emphasis ours) 18
It needs to be stressed that the public use requisite for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain is a flexible and evolving concept influenced by changing conditions. 19
The general public can surely benefit from the establishment of a new municipal government center considering that "the old municipal building suffers from dilapidated ceilings, cracked walls and, most importantly, an abject lack of space to store records of all of the transactions of the municipality, as well as insufficient area to cater to all the needs of the growing population and other constituents of the municipality. Moreover, the poor and narrow state of the roads leading to the old municipal building renders it inconspicuous and difficult to access."20
In order to address petitioners' argument that the expropriation is invalid from its inception because of the failure of the municipal government to hold a public hearing, We hold as follows:
The requirement of a public hearing as enshrined under R.A. No. 7160 states: SDAaTC
Section 11. Selection and Transfer of Local Government Site, Offices and Facilities. —
xxx xxx xxx
(b) When conditions and developments in the local government unit concerned have significantly changed subsequent to the establishment of the seat of government, its sanggunian may, after public hearing and by a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of all its members, transfer the same to a site better suited to its needs. Provided, however, That no such transfer shall be made outside the territorial boundaries of the local government unit concerned.
The old site, together with the improvements thereon, may be disposed of by the sale or lease or converted to such other use as the sangguniang concerned may deem beneficial to the local government unit concerned and its inhabitants.
(c) Local government offices and facilities shall not be transferred, relocated, or converted to other uses unless public hearings are first conducted for the purpose and the concurrence of the majority of all the members of the sanggunian concerned is obtained.
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis ours)
Be that as it may, the absence of a public hearing does not, as petitioners assume, invalidate the express authority of the local chief executive, upon whom, the authority to negotiate for the purchase of parcels of land to be used as the new site of government center has been clearly granted. The authority was fortified by valid legislations approving the local chief executive's power to represent the municipal government in the institution of expropriation proceedings. By valid legislations We mean the Kapasiyahan Bilang 2005-117 and Kapasiyahan Bilang 2005-03 both dated August 31, 2005, Kapasiyahan Bilang 2005-199 dated September 5, 2005, Kautusang Bayan Bilang 2005-134 and Kautusang Bayan Bilang 2005-06, both dated October 10, 2005, which were all in place and presumably in effect.
The petitioners' posture of questioning the municipal government's failure to conduct any public hearing on the transfer of seat of government as required by Section 11, paragraphs (B) and (C) is, no less, a challenge to the propriety of the municipal council's legislations. Such a collateral attack on a presumably valid law is not permitted in view of Dasmariñas Water District v. Monterey Foods Corp., 21 to wit: acEHCD
[T]he constitutionality or validity of laws, orders, or such other rules with the force of law cannot be attacked collaterally. There is a legal presumption of validity of these laws and rules. Unless a law or rule is annulled in a direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its validity stands. Besides, [a] law is deemed valid unless declared null and void by a competent court; more so when the issue has not been duly pleaded in the trial court. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity. x x x The settled rule is that courts will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it. 22
Unless declared null and void by a competent court, the Kapasiyahan Bilang 2005-117 and Kapasiyahan Bilang 2005-03; Kapasiyahan Bilang 2005-199; Kautusang Bayan Bilang 2005-134 and Kautusang Bayan Bilang 2005-06 are valid legislations of the municipal council of the municipal government, thereby granting full authority to Mayor Silverio to institute the expropriation proceedings against the petitioners.
Moving to petitioners' next argument that the amount paid as just compensation was not proper, We hold otherwise.
Just compensation
The Court aptly defined just compensation in Republic of the Phils. v. Rural Bank of Kabacan, Inc., et al., as thus:
[J]ust compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word 'just' is used to intensify the meaning of the word compensation and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. 23
We stress, however, that the Court does not solely consider the property owner in the determination of just compensation. Compensation must be just not only to the property owner, but also to the public which ultimately bears the cost of expropriation. The property owner is entitled to compensation only for what he actually loses, and what he loses is only the actual value of the property at the time of the taking. 24
Further, the determination of just compensation in expropriation cases is a judicial prerogative. 25 SDHTEC
In this case, the trial court's exercise of discretion in ascertaining the just compensation for the property being expropriated is beyond cavil. The municipal government and the petitioners were given their day in court to present their evidence before the panel of commissioners in support of their respective positions on the amount of just compensation due to be paid for the subject properties. This even complies with the requirement of due process.
Hence, petitioners' contention that the trial court disregarded the Commissioner's Report dated January 12, 2009 when it fixed the amount of just compensation to P367.10, has no persuasive effect. Clearly, the trial court arrived at its own valuation of the property sought to be expropriated upon careful review, evaluation and analysis of both documentary and testimonial evidence of the parties. It also took into consideration the recommendations and observations of the appointed Commissioners. More importantly, the trial court afforded the parties due process of law.
In this respect, the findings of the CA is noted:
Here, the trial court, in setting aside the valuation of the subject land in the commissioners' report and making its own assessment of P367.10 per square meter, made the following ratiocination:
There appears to be no basis for comparison of a current and latest sales within the area of the properties sought to be expropriated.
xxx xxx xxx
The properties sought to be expropriated [are] agricultural as of the time of the taking; and, [have] been classified as a second class irrigated Riceland and 1 1/2 meters below the level of the adjacent Maharlika Road. As reported by Commissioner Pelayo, although the site lies within a commercial zone as indicated on the proposed Land Use of the municipality, no application for conversion was filed by the Sps. Belo, their children and the tenant Sps. Jose Chico and Leonila Garcia.
Records disclose that per the pictures taken on November 2, 2005, except for a small portion being tilled by Sps. Jose Chico and Leonila Garcia, the properties sought to be expropriated appeared to be idle without any improvements existing thereon. The surroundings appear to have a small cockpit arena and what appears to be a plant producing corrugated boxes. AScHCD
xxx xxx xxx 26
In sum, the municipal government of San Rafael, Bulacan has complied with the legal parameters set forth in Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160 prior to the expropriation of petitioners' properties, and, as a consequence thereto, the just compensation paid to petitioners was proper. The trial court's exercise of its discretion in this case is in order.
Finally, the fact that the CA adopted the findings of fact of the trial court makes the same binding upon this court. The factual findings of the CA which are supported by substantial evidence are binding, final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. A departure from this rule may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or when the same is unsupported by the evidence on record. 27 In this case, the findings and conclusions of the CA are in full accord with those of the trial court and is fully supported by the evidence on record.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."Leonardo-de Castro, J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2562 dated June 20, 2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as acting member per Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENAActing Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by CA Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and concurred in by Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Pedro B. Corales. Rollo, pp. 32-51.
2.Id. at 4-30.
3.Id. at 32-33.
4.Id. at 33.
5.Id.
6.Kapasiyahan Bilang 2005-119 substantially states:
IPINASIYA, gaya ng dito'y PAGPAPASIYA, na pinagtitibay ang kapasiyahan na binibigyan ng kapangyarihan and Punong Bayan ng San Rafael, Bulacan, Kgg. Ricardo C. Silverio upang maghain ng kaukulang prosidimiyento sa pagkuha [Expropriation Proceedings] sa naangkop na hukuman ayon sa itinadhana ng mga kautusan ng Hukuman at iba pang mga naangkop sa Batas kaugnay sa pagkuha ng lupang pag-aari nina Felicitas Zamora m/t Erasmo Belo at Jose Chico m/t Leonila Garcia na may kabuuang sukat na 28,344 Metro kuwadrado na nadadatal sa Barangay Sampaloc, San Rafael, Bulacan batay sa itinatadhana ng Seksiyon Blg. 19 ng (L)ocal Government Code o RA 7160 para magamit sa itatatag o lilikhaing panibagong sentro ng pamamahala o Government Center x x x; Id. at 34.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 34-35.
9.Section 2.Entry of plaintiff upon depositing value with authorized government depositary. — Upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation to be held by such bank subject to the orders of the court. Such deposit shall be in money, unless in lieu thereof the court authorizes the deposit of a certificate of deposit of a government bank of the Republic of the Philippines payable on demand to the authorized government depositary.
If personal property is involved, its value shall be provisionally ascertained and the amount to be deposited shall be promptly fixed by the court.
After such deposit is made the court shall order the sheriff or other proper officer to forthwith place the plaintiff in possession of the property involved and promptly submit a report thereof to the court with service of copies to the parties.
10.Rollo, p. 35.
11.Id. at 94.
12.Id. at 36.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 169-170.
15.Id. at 50.
16.Id. at 9-10.
17.See Brgy. Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, rep. by Brgy. Capt. Guttierez v. Court of Appeals, 547 Phil. 542, 551 (2007).
18.Rollo, pp. 43-44.
19.Manapat v. CA, et al., 562 Phil. 31, 53 (2007).
20.Rollo, p. 43.
21. 587 Phil. 403 (2008).
22.Id. at 416, citing Phil. National Bank v. Palma, 503 Phil. 917, 932 (2005).
23.Rep. of the Phils. v. Rural Bank of Kabucan, Inc., et al., 680 Phil. 247, 256 (2008).
24.Republic of the Phils. v. Court of Appeals, 494 Phil. 494, 510 (2005).
25.Spouses Ortega v. City of Cebu, 617 Phil. 817, 825 (2009).
26.Rollo, pp. 47-48.
27.Sps. Bernales v. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, 624 Phil. 88, 97 (2010).