Unirock Corp. v. Hardrock Aggregates, Inc.

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 193283. November 17, 2021.]

UNIROCK CORPORATION, petitioner,vs. HARDROCK AGGREGATES, INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 17, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 193283 (Unirock Corporation v. Hardrock Aggregates, Inc.). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the Decision 2 dated April 29, 2010 and the Resolution 3 dated August 5, 2010, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 111003. The CA reversed and set aside the rulings of the Office of the President and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) then Secretary Jose L. Atienza, Jr. (Secretary Atienza), who revoked the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) granted to Hardrock Aggregates, Inc. (Hardrock Aggregates).

Facts of the Case

On September 11, 1993, Hardrock Aggregates filed an application for MPSA before the DENR-Mines and Geo-Sciences Bureau (DENR-MGB) over a huge tract of land located in Barangay Cupang, Antipolo City. Part of Hardrock Aggregates' application for MPSA covered two parcels of land: one owned by Leonor Sto. Domingo and the other one owned by Scrafin Salvador. 4

Sometime in 1994, Unirock Corporation purchased the properties of Leonor Sto. Domingo and Serafin Salvador and caused the transfer of the titles over the lands in its favor. By virtue of Unirock Corporation's acquisition of the said lots, it sent a letter to Hardrock Aggregates informing the latter that its quarry operations encroached upon a portion of the former's properties. Unirock Corporation sent a final demand to Hardrock Aggregates for it to cease its quarry operations and vacate the portion of Unirock Corporation's property that it had encroached. However, Hardrock Aggregates failed and refused to vacate the encroached property of Unirock Corporation and instead filed a case for quieting of title against Unirock Corporation. 5

On February 1, 1996, while the application for the issuance of MPSA of Hardrock Aggregates and its complaint for quieting of title were pending, Unirock Corporation filed its own application for MPSA covering the alleged encroached property. 6

On December 6, 1996, the trial court where the quieting of title complaint filed by Hardrock Aggregates was pending, issued its Decision in favor of Unirock Corporation. Because of this, Unirock Corporation filed an adverse claim before the Panel of Arbitrators of the DENR-MGB opposing Hardrock Aggregates' application for MPSA in so far as it included Unirock Corporations' properties. 7

On October 2, 1998, the DENR-MGB Panel of Arbitrators excluded Unirock Corporation's properties from the coverage of Hardrock Aggregates' pending application for MPSA. The DENR-MGB Panel of Arbitrators held that Unirock Corporation, as the landowner, has the preferential right to extract quarry resources from its private property. Hardrock Aggregates appealed to the Mines Adjudication Board (MAB). While the case was pending before the MAB, Unirock Corporation and Hardrock Aggregates entered into a compromise agreement where Unirock Corporation, among others, agreed to withdraw its MPSA application in favor of Hardrock Aggregates. Unirock Corporation allowed Hardrock Aggregates to the exclusive and absolute right to explore, develop, operate, and exploit quarry resources that may be found within Unirock Corporation's properties, subject to Hardrock Aggregates' payment of royalties to Unirock Corporation. 8

On September 11, 2003, upon joint motion of the parties, MAB approved the memorandum of agreement and rendered judgment in accordance with its terms and conditions. Likewise, on February 20, 2004, the trial court handling the quieting of title case rendered a compromise judgment based on the parties' agreement. 9

Finally, on June 17, 2004, the DENR issued to Hardrock Aggregates MPSA No. 202-2004-IV, constituting and appointing Hardrock Aggregates as the exclusive entity to conduct mining operations in the contract area for a period of 25 years from the issuance thereof. The MPSA included the properties of Unirock Corporation. 10

However, Unirock Corporation alleged that on June 28, 2004, barely 11 days after the signing of the MPSA, Hardrock Aggregates, without prior knowledge and consent of Unirock Corporation, and in clear violation of their memorandum of agreement, entered into an Operating Agreement with Rockworks Resources Corporation (Rockworks Resources). In the said Operating Agreement, Hardrock Aggregates allegedly granted to Rockworks Resources the sole and exclusive right to operate the area covered by the MPSA for as long as the MPSA is in force and existing. According to Unirock Corporation, the Operating Agreement is violative of the non-transferability clause contained in the memorandum of agreement signed by it and Hardrock Aggregates. 11

In a Letter 12 dated May 3, 2006, Unirock Corporation formally reported to the then DENR Secretary Angelo Reyes (Secretary Reyes) the violations allegedly committed by Hardrock Aggregates and prayed that the MPSA granted to the latter should be revoked. Unirock Corporation raised the following violations of Hardrock Aggregates:

1. that Hardrock Aggregates misrepresented its financial capacity when it applied for an MPSA, in violation of DENR Memorandum Order No. 99-10 which mandates that all applicants should have a minimum capital stock of P10,000,000.00 and minimum paid-up capital of P2,500,000.00;

2. that Hardrock Aggregates failed to submit reports showing the volume of the quarry materials disposed and sold commercially; that Hardrock Aggregates likewise failed to pay royalties and taxes due to the government;

3. that Hardrock Aggregates entered into an Operating Agreement with Rockworks Resources and allowed the latter to operate without approval from the DENR Secretary; and

4. that Hardrock Resources failed to secure an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) prior to its quarry operations. 13

Hardrock Aggregates countered that the real reason why Unirock Corporation filed the letter-complaint to the DENR Secretary is because in the early part of 2006, a certain Teresa Gonzales (Gonzales) suddenly surfaced and claimed ownership over the land owned by Unirock Corporation which formed part of the MPSA granted to Hardrock Aggregates. Gonzales demanded that Hardrock Aggregates pay the royalties to her instead of paying to Unirock Corporation. Hardrock Aggregates and Unirock Corporation refused to heed the demand of Gonzales. Hence, she filed a complaint with the trial court seeking to invalidate the title of Unirock Corporation over the subject properties. Gonzales also asked for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Finding merit on her prayer for injunctive relief, the trial court issued a TRO and subsequently, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering Hardrock Aggregates to pay royalties to her (Gonzales) and not to Unirock Corporation. 14 According to Hardrock Aggregates, since Unirock Corporation could not collect the royalties, the latter thought of an indirect way to compel Hardrock Aggregates to pay by filing the letter-complaint to DENR Secretary Reyes. 15

Ruling of the DENR Secretary

On July 20, 2007, Secretary Reyes issued an Order 16 dismissing Unirock Corporation's complaint for lack of merit.

Upon receipt of the letter-complaint sent by Unirock Corporation, Secretary Reyes and the Director of the DENR-MGB immediately ordered a thorough investigation that looked into the issues raised by Unirock Corporation. The investigating team submitted its Investigation Report and found the following:

(1) that Hardrock Aggregates is financially capable of undertaking the quarry operations as evidenced by its credit line in Bank of the Philippine Islands amounting to P12,000,000.00; a certificate of increase of capital from P1,000,000.00 to P20,000,000.00 with paid-up capital in the amount of P2,500,000.00; and a certification from East West Bank that it has an available fund amounting to P5,000,000.00;

(2) that Hardrock Aggregates submitted Quarterly Production and Sales of Minerals Report for the periods of July to September 2004, October to December 2004, January to March 2005, April to June 2005, July to September 2005, October to December 2005, and January to March 2006; that Hardrock Aggregates hauled 8,361 truckloads of quarry materials from February to December 2005;

(3) that the investigating team recommended that Hardrock Aggregate's operation be suspended until approval of the Operation Agreement between it and Rockworks Resources; however, Hardrock Aggregates withdrew the Operating Agreement, hence, the investigating team recommended that Hardrock Aggregates be fined for undertaking quarry activities under an unapproved Operating Agreement; and

(4) that the investigating team advised Hardrock Aggregates to establish rehabilitation cash fund, monitoring trust fund, and environmental trust fund. 17

Based on these findings, the investigating team issued a show cause order against Hardrock Aggregates why it should not be penalized for its late submission of reportorial requirements, why it failed to report the extracted materials from the quarry area in 2005, and why no penalty shall be imposed for failure to procure an interim annual environmental protection and enhancement program. 18

Hardrock Aggregates submitted its explanation claiming that with respect to the delayed submission of reportorial requirements, it will improve its future reporting. As to the non-reporting of the 8,295 truckloads of quarry materials, Hardrock Aggregates claimed that the truckload were unprocessed materials or just filling materials. Since their understanding is that only processed materials are reported, they did not report the hauled unprocessed materials. Besides, Hardrock Aggregates said that they donated the filling materials to the local governments of Marikina and Antipolo. With respect to the interim annual environmental protection and enhancement program, Hardrock Aggregates averred that it was already given approval. Lastly, the rehabilitation, monitoring, and environmental trust funds were already deposited at Land Bank, Quezon City. 19

After a careful review, evaluation, and study of the allegations of Unirock Corporation, the explanations of Hardrock Aggregates, and the evidence on record, Secretary Reyes found that contrary to the allegation of Unirock Corporation, Hardrock Aggregates substantially complied with DENR Memorandum Order No. 99-10 which requires that an applicant for MPSA must have the financial capacity to undertake quarry operations. Secretary Reyes likewise found that Hardrock Aggregates already invested about P20,000,000.00 worth of machineries, equipment, and buildings at that time. Hence, the MPSA cannot be cancelled on this ground. 20 Secondly, Secretary Reyes held that Hardrock Aggregates' late submission of its reports showing the volume of the quarry materials disposed and sold commercially while unacceptable, is not a ground for cancellation of MPSA but only a ground for the imposition of fine. According to Secretary Reyes, it was only Hardrock Aggregates' first time to belatedly file its reports. 21 Secretary Reyes also found unsubstantiated Unirock Corporation's claim that the supposed operator of Hardrock Aggregates, Rockworks Resources, quarried, removed, and sold 8,295 truckload or non-processed quarry materials amounting to P4,437,825.00. According to the DENR, it is impractical and illogical for Hardrock Aggregates not to process the 8,295 truckload of quarry materials when it has a crushing plant and the price difference between processed and non-processed materials is too substantial. 22

Further, as to the supposed Operating Agreement between Hardrock Aggregates and Rockworks Resources, Secretary Reyes held that the DENR-MGB already ordered Hardrock Aggregates to pay fine because it did not secure the approval of the DENR Secretary before executing said agreement with Rockworks Resources. Besides, the Operating Agreement was withdrawn by both parties. Hence, the subsequent withdrawal of said Operating Agreement cannot be a ground for the cancellation of the MPSA. 23 Lastly, Secretary Reyes found that Hardrock Aggregates complied with the requirements for ECC and other environmental protection concerns prior to the conduct of its quarry operations. 24

Secretary Reyes observed that Unirock Corporation filed the complaint primarily to seek the intervention of the DENR for Unirock Corporation to collect its royalties from Hardrock Aggregates after the trial court enjoined the latter to pay to Unirock Corporation and instead remit the royalties to Gonzales. 25 Secretary Reyes acknowledged Hardrock Aggregates' huge financial investment in the quarry area, consistent with the government's trust to revitalize the Philippine mining industry. Secretary Reyes knew that the revocation of Hardrock Aggregates' MPSA based on the grounds raised by Unirock Corporation despite the latter's investments would discourage any future private investors to pour in their investments in the Philippine mining industry. 26

Aggrieved, Unirock Corporation moved for reconsideration. Subsequently, Secretary Reyes assumed another Cabinet post and Secretary Atienza took over as DENR Secretary. Acting on Unirock Corporation's motion for reconsideration, Secretary Atienza overturned the earlier decision of Secretary Reyes and ordered the cancellation of Hardrock Aggregates' MPSA 27 despite the factual findings of the investigating team after a thorough investigation and the independent review by Secretary Reyes.

According to Secretary Atienza, as reflected in Hardrock Aggregates' Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2004, its paid-in subscriptions was only P2,250,000.00 instead of P2,500,000.00 as disclosed in its application for MPSA. Hence, Hardrock Aggregates failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of DENR Memorandum Order No. 99-10. 28 Secretary Atienza further held that Hardrock Aggregates failed to declare the correct quantity of extracted quarry materials and pay the corresponding dues and taxes owing to the government. This, according to Secretary Atienza is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of the MPSA. 29 Lastly, Secretary Atienza found that Hardrock Aggregates failed to secure an ECC prior to its application for MPSA. According to Secretary Atienza, Hardrock Aggregates continuously used the ECC of the former holder of the quarry permit, one Armando Carpio, before the MPSA was issued in favor of Hardrock Aggregates. The heirs of Armando Carpio claimed that they never allowed the assignment or transfer of Armando Carpio's ECC to Hardrock Aggregates. 30

Aggrieved, Hardrock Aggregates moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied in an Order dated March 4, 2009. Thus, Hardrock Aggregates appealed to the Office of the President.

Ruling of the Office of the President

On June 22, 2009, the Office of the President issued its Decision 31 affirming in toto the ruling or Secretary Atienza. The Office of the President echoed entirely the discussion of Secretary Atienza.

Unsatisfied, Hardrock Aggregates filed its petition for review to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On April 29, 2010, the CA issued its Decision 32 granting Hardrock Aggregates' petition. The CA reversed and set aside the decisions of Secretary Atienza and the Office of the President and reinstated the earlier ruling of Secretary Reyes. 33

According to the CA, Hardrock Aggregates had the financial capacity to undertake the quarry operations. The CA took note that prior to its application for MPSA, Hardrock Aggregates had a paid-up capital of P2,500,000.00 which was duly approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). 34 The CA echoed the ruling of Secretary Reyes that Hardrock Aggregates' failure to comply with the reportorial requirements of its MPSA is only a ground for the imposition of fine and not a ground for the revocation of the MPSA. 35 The CA likewise found unsubstantiated Secretary Atienza's conclusion that Hardrock Aggregates removed truckloads of non-processed quarry materials which the latter sold without declaring the same for tax purposes. 36 Lastly, the CA held that Hardrock Aggregates did not violate the environmental compliance requirements of its MPSA. The CA noted that Hardrock Aggregates was able to procure an amended ECC in its favor. The CA pointed out that had Hardrock Aggregates operated without an ECC or with a defective ECC, it would have been illogical for the Environmental Management Bureau to subsequently issue an amended ECC in Hardrock Aggregates' favor. 37

This time aggrieved, Unirock Corporation filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution 38 dated August 5, 2010.

Because of the denial of its motion, Unirock Corporation filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In its petition, Unirock Corporation reiterates its arguments for the revocation of Hardrock Aggregates' MPSA on the grounds that: (1) Hardrock Aggregates misrepresented its financial capacity in its application for MPSA; (2) Hardrock Aggregates failed to submit production reports to the DENR-MGB showing the volume of quarry materials it has extracted, thus, it failed to pay the correct taxes and fees to the government; and (3) Hardrock Aggregates failed to comply with the strict environmental protection requirements under its MPSA. 39

In its Comment, 40 Hardrock Aggregates argues that the Court cannot review the factual findings of the CA through a petition for review on certiorari. 41 Hardrock likewise insists that it has the financial capacity to undertake quarry operations. Hardrock Aggregates disagrees with Secretary Atienza when he concluded that Hardrock Aggregates is not financially capable because the Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2004 reflected a paid up capital of P2,250,000.00 and not P2,500,000.00 as required. Hardrock Aggregates claims that assuming this is true, a mere shortfall of P250,000.00 cannot be considered substantial breach that warrants revocation of the MPSA. 42 Besides, Hardrock Aggregates indicated in its amended articles of incorporation, which the SEC duly approved, that it has a paid-up capital of P2,500,000.00 when it increased its authorized capital stock to P20,000,000.00. 43 As to the supposed removal of truckloads of unprocessed quarry materials, Hardrock Aggregates emphasized that every truckload of quarry materials coming from the quarry site must be accompanied by a delivery receipt duly validated by the Office of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board. Hence, the best evidence of the alleged removal of truckload of quarry materials from the site should have been the delivery receipts. Unfortunately, Unirock Corporation was not able to present any delivery receipt evidencing the removal of said quarry materials. 44 Hardrock Aggregates likewise stresses that it is illogical for it to remove non-processed quarry materials from its site when there is a substantial difference in the price of processed and non-processed materials. 45 Lastly, Hardrock Aggregates states that it has not violated the environmental protection requirements of its MPSA. 46

Subsequently, Unirock Corporation filed its Reply reiterating the arguments set forth in its petition. Thereafter, the parties filed their respective memorandum.

Ruling of the Court

After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to deny the petition for review on certiorari for failure of Unirock Corporation to show that the CA committed a reversible error in setting aside the decisions of Secretary Atienza and the Office of the President.

It is an oft-repeated rule that factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. The Court will not review facts, as it is not the Court's function to analyze or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts; a question of fact, on the other hand, exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. 47

In this case, the arguments raised by Unirock Corporation are no doubt questions of facts, hence, not reviewable by the Court in a certiorari petition under Rule 45. For this reason alone, the petition should be denied.

It must first be noted that the two Secretaries of the DENR had differing decisions on whether the MPSA issued in favor of Hardrock Aggregates should be revoked. Secretary Reyes initially dismissed the letter-complaint filed by Unirock Corporation for lack of merit. It is important to mention that the decision of Secretary Reyes was formed after an investigating team was tasked to thoroughly investigate and evaluate the veracity of the complaints advanced by Unirock Corporation. However, upon the appointment of Secretary Reyes in another department and the assumption of Secretary Atienza as the Secretary of the DENR, the latter overturned the ruling of Secretary Reyes despite it being based upon the recommendations of the investigating team and Secretary Reyes' independent assessment of the factual antecedents of the case and the evidence adduced by both parties.

The Court agrees with the CA that there is no good ground for the revocation of Hardrock Aggregates' MPSA. Section 230, Chapter XXIV of DENR Administrative Order No. 96-40 provides for the grounds by which the DENR Secretary may cancel, revoke, or terminate the MPSA, thus:

Section 230. Grounds. —

The following are grounds for cancellation, revocation, and termination of a Mining Permit/Mineral Agreement/FTAA:

a. Violation of any of the terms and conditions of the Permits or Agreements;

b. Nonpayment of taxes and fees due the government for two (2) consecutive years; and

c. Falsehood or omission of facts in the application for exploration [or Mining] Permit/Mineral Agreement/FTAA or other permits which may later change or affect substantially the facts set forth in said statements. 48

Here, Unirock Corporation alleged that Hardrock Aggregates had no financial capacity to undertake the quarry operations because its paid-up capital, according to its Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2004, is only P2,250,000.00 and not P2,500,000.00 as required by DENR Memorandum Order No. 99-10. As pointed out by Hardrock Aggregates, the SEC duly approved its amended articles of incorporation increasing its authorized capital stock to P20,000,000.00 and paid-up capital to P2,500,000.00. However, Secretary Atienza noted that in Hardrock Aggregates' Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2004, its paid-up subscriptions are only P2,250,000.00 and not P2,500,000.00. This seeming deviation is not substantial enough to be a ground for the revocation of Hardrock Aggregates MPSA. As found by Secretary Reyes and the CA, Hardrock Aggregates already invested about P20,000,000.00 in equipment and other machineries at that time. Hence, it cannot be said that Hardrock Aggregates is incapable financially to undertake the quarry operations.

With respect to the alleged failure of Hardrock Aggregates to comply with the reportorial requirements, the Court concurs with the CA that said failure is not a ground for the revocation of MPSA but only a ground for the payment of fine. It is non-payment of taxes and fees due the government that may be a ground for revocation, however, as held by the CA, there is no substantial evidence presented by Unirock Corporation to support its claim that Hardrock Aggregates failed to pay taxes and fees due the government. The allegation that Hardrock Aggregates removed 8,295 truckload of non-processed quarry materials amounting to P1,437,825.00 as well as 61,577 truckloads between February 2005 to March 2007, which Hardrock Aggregates allegedly sold to its customers without paying taxes and fees due the government, is unfounded. According to Secretary Atienza, which Unirock Corporation itself concedes, every truckload of quarry materials coming from the quarry site must be accompanied by a delivery receipt duly validated by the Office of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board. Prescinding from this, the best evidence of Hardrock Aggregates' alleged removal of truckload of quarry materials from the site should have been the delivery receipts. Unirock Corporation unfortunately failed to present the said delivery receipts. It is a basic principle in evidence that he who alleges must prove his case 49 and that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. 50 Unirock Corporation's claim that its checker/verifier monitored a total of 61,577 truckloads of quarry materials being sent out by Hardrock Aggregates to its buyers for the period of February 2005 to March 2007, which were never declared, is likewise incredible. Again, the alleged monitoring of Unirock Corporation's checker is self-serving absent any other independent evidence to prove the same, which as previously mentioned, is the delivery receipt duly validated by the Office of the Provincial Mining Regulatory Board.

Finally, the allegation that Hardrock Aggregates failed to comply with environmental protection requirements under the MPSA is also unsubstantiated. As narrated by Hardrock Aggregates, prior to the issuance of the MPSA, it even sent a letter to then DENR Secretary Elisea Gozun to inquire whether the ECC formerly issued to Carpio is still valid as Hardrock Aggregates then intended to keep using it after it has entered into an operating agreement with the Carpios, the former permit holders. In a reply letter, the DENR Secretary assured Hardrock Aggregates that the ECC issued to Carpio was still valid at that time. Moreover, in 2007, Hardrock Aggregates applied for an amended ECC in view of its increased production capacity. The DENR granted said application. If Hardrock Aggregates has indeed been operating with an invalid ECC, the DENR would not have granted the application for an amended ECC.

All told, there is no good ground for the revocation of Hardrock Aggregates' MPSA. Besides, as pointed out by Secretary Reyes in his decision, with Hardrock Aggregates' huge investment in the Philippine mining sector, the revocation of its MPSA over unsubstantiated grounds will only erode the trust by the investors in the industry and will greatly affect the revenues that may be generated by the Government from the mining sector.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated April 29, 2010 and the Resolution dated August 5, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 111003 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., viceRosario, J., per Raffle dated November 17, 2021; Dimaampao, J., designated as additional Member per S.O. No. 2839 dated September 16, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-35.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and Michael P. Elbinas; id. at 43-64.

3. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and Michael P. Elbinas; id. at 40-41.

4.Id. at 5.

5.Id. at 5-6.

6.Id. at 6.

7.Id. at 6-7.

8.Id. at 7.

9.Id. at 8.

10.Id. at 9.

11.Id. at 10.

12.Id. at 116-123.

13.Id.

14.Id. at 348-349.

15.Id. at 350.

16.Id. at 124-136.

17.Id. at 125-126.

18.Id. at 126-127.

19.Id. at 127.

20.Id. at 130.

21.Id. at 130-131.

22.Id. at 132.

23.Id.

24.Id. at 133.

25.Id.

26.Id. at 134.

27.Id. at 147.

28.Id. at 142-143.

29.Id.at 145.

30.Id. at 145-146.

31.Id. at 148-156.

32.Supra note 2.

33.Rollo, p. 63.

34.Id. at 60-61.

35.Id. at 61.

36.Id. at 62.

37.Id. at 63.

38.Id. at 40-41.

39.Id. at 18-19.

40.Id. at 346-388.

41.Id. at 364.

42.Id. at 373.

43.Id. at 375.

44.Id. at 376-377.

45.Id. at 377.

46.Id.at 381.

47.Miro v. Vda. de Erederos, 721 Phil. 772, 785 (2013).

48.Rollo, p. 60.

49.Lim v. Equitable PCI Bank, 724 Phil. 453 (2014).

50.ECE Realty and Development, Inc. v Mandap, 742 Phil., 164, 171 (2014).