PFR Cases Page 11

7/24/2019 PFR Cases Page 11

1/134

1

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

March 23, !"

#$R$ No$ !!%&PETRONA 'A()ER, plainti*+appellee,s$-A.ARO OSME/A, as a01inistrator of the estate of the0ecease0 To1as Os1ea, 0efen0ant+appellant$

ausser1ann, Cohn an0 4isher for appellant$

South5orth, ar6is, A0a1s an0 'or0ain for appellee$

ARE--ANO, C$'$7

4lorentino Collantes, husban0 of Petrona 'aier, beca1ein0ebte0 to the estate of To1as Os1ea in the su1 ofP2",&"8$!&$ On 'une 9, !3, :u061ent for this a1ount5as ren0ere0 in behalf of the estate an0 the sheri*e;ecute0 it b< sellin6 at public auction all the ri6ht, title,interest or share 5hich the :u061ent 0ebtor, Collantes,ha0 or 1i6ht hae in t5o parcels of i1proe0 real estate

situate0 in this cit< of Manila, an0 especiall< theusufructuar< interest therein of Pascuala Santos, thesuriin6 5i0o5 of 4eli; 'aier < Sanche=, 5hich interest5as ac>uire0 b< Petrona 'aier, Collantes? 5ife, on March2@, !$

Petrona 'aier, Collantes? 5ife, 5as the onl< 0au6hter of4eli; 'aier an0 Matea Corunan, the latter of 5ho1 0ie0 in!@, an0 the for1er ion !@%$ 4eli; 'aier, after the 0eath

of his 5ife Matea Corunan, 1arrie0 Pascuala Santos$ )t 5asin the uire0 fro1 her father?s secon0 5ife, Pascuala Santos,the latter?s usufructuar< ri6ht in her 0ecease0 husban0?sestate for the su1 of P3,@@@, 5hich a1ount, it appears,'aier 5as obli6e0 to borro5, 6iin6 as securit< for the loana 1ort6a6e on the propert< she ha0 inherite0$

These properties that 5ere inherite0 b< Petrona 'aier fro1

her parents 5ere those leie0 upon b< the sheri* in thee;ecution of the :u061ent a6ainst 4lorentino Collantes,an0 not5ithstan0in6 her protests the sale 5as carrie0 out$The successful bi00er therein 5as the Os1ea estate itself5hich pai0 P9@@ for each parcel of propertuire0 b< his 5ife fro1 PascualaSantos$

)nas1uch as Petrona 'aier clai1e0 that her husban0Collantes ha0 no ri6hts 5hateer in sai0 t5o pieces of

propert< or in the usufructuar< interest ac>uire0 b< her,she le0 clai1 of interention in or0er to recoer hero5nership of the properties an0 her ri6ht to usufruct afterthe sheri*?s sale shoul0 be annulle0$

The 0efen0ant Os1ea estate, in ans5er to the co1plaint,a01itte0 plainti*?s e;clusie ri6ht of o5nership in the sai0t5o afore1entione0 parcels of real estate, sub:ect to theusufructuar< ri6ht of the secon0 5ife of plainti*?s father,


2/134

2

an0 also a01itte0 the purchase of this ri6ht b< plainti*$efen0ant clai1e0, ho5eer, that the 1one< 5ith 5hichsai0 usufructuar< interest 5as purchase0 belon6e0 to thecon:u6al partnership an0 therefore that the ri6ht ofusufruct so ac>uire0 belon6e0 to the sai0 con:u6alpartnership$ efen0ant conclu0e0 b< pra


3/134

3

in0ebte0ness $ $ $ $ )t 1ust be obsere0 that there is thenatural presu1ption of fact that 5hateer he CollantesF1a< hae contribute0 to5ar0 0efra


4/134

4

pa


5/134

5

reenue of the 5ife?s o5n propert


6/134

6

reenue fro1 the t5o properties belon6in6 to the 5ife,0escribe0 in the :u061ent appeale0 fro1, are liable for thepa


7/134

7

of lan0 Dno5n as -ot No$ 29%+# 5hich Ra1on Sta$Ro1ana purchase0 fro1 the late C$ N$ o06es un0er aContract to Sell$ On 1otion of priate respon0ent PC)B, a5rit of preli1inar< attach1ent 5as issue0 in sai0 case buestion that priate respon0ent -uis R$Narciso is en6a6e in business as a pro0ucer an0 e;porterof Philippine 1aho6an< lo6s$ e operates a lo66in6concession at 0el #alle6o, Ca1arines Sur an0 hol0s oKce

ri6ht in the con:u6al 05ellin6 at 2@% Retiro Street, Tala


17/134

17

le6iti1ate pursuit of his career or profession or su*erslosses in a le6iti1ate business, the con:u6al partnership1ust e>uall< bear the in0ebte0ness an0 the losses, unlesshe 0eliberatel< acte0 to the pre:u0ice of his fa1iluentluirin6 that in a suit a6ainst the husban0 to

enforce an obli6ation, either pertainin6 to hi1 alone or onechar6eable a6ainst the con:u6al partnership, the0efen0ant husban0 1ust be :oine0 b< his 5ife$ Thecontrar< rule is prescribe0 in Sec$ &, Rule 3, of the Rules ofCourt an0 Article 3 of the Ciil Co0e, but not the other5a< aroun0, obiousl< in reco6nition of the le6al status ofthe husban0 as the a01inistrator of the con:u6alpartnership$ Art$ 2, Ciil Co0eF There 5as therefore, nonee0 of inclu0in6 the petitioner as a part< in Ciil Case No$8"8% for the purpose of bin0in6 the con:u6al partnershipproperties for the satisfaction of the :u061ent that coul0be ren0ere0 thereon$ E1phasis supplie0F

GERE4ORE, the ecision of the then Court of Appealssou6ht to be reie5e0 is hereb< RE(ERSE an0 SETAS)E$ No pronounce1ent as to costs$

SO ORERE$

MaDasiar, A>uino, Concepcion 'r$, Aba0 Santos an0 Escolin


18/134

18

''$, concur$


Manila

4)RST )()S)ON

#$R$ No$ -+&%%%! Ma< , !%!

E(E-OPMENT BAN O4 TE P)-)PP)NES BPF,petitioner,s$TE ONORAB-E M)PA)NTAO -$ A)-, 'u06e of the Secon0Branch of the Court of 4irst )nstance of )loilo an0 SPOUSESPATR)C)O CON4ESOR an0 'O()TA ()--A4UERTE,respon0ents$

#ANCACO, '$7

The issue pose0 in this petition for reie5 on certiorari isthe ali0it< of a pro1issor< note 5hich 5as e;ecute0 inconsi0eration of a preious pro1issor< note theenforce1ent of 5hich ha0 been barre0 b< prescription$


19/134

19

On 4ebruar< @, !&@ spouses Patricio Confesor an0 'oita(illafuerte obtaine0 an a6ricultural loan fro1 theA6ricultural an0 )n0ustrial BanD A)BF, no5 the

eelop1ent of the Philippines BPF, in the su1 ofP2,@@@$@@, Philippine Currencual


20/134

20

aban0on1ent of the ri6ht ac>uire0$

There is no 0oubt that prescription has set in as to the rstpro1issor< note of 4ebruar< @, !&@$ o5eer, 5hen

respon0ent Confesor e;ecute0 the secon0 pro1issor< noteon April , !" 5hereb< he pro1ise0 to pa< the a1ountcoere0 b< the preious pro1issor< note on or before 'une9, !", an0 upon failure to 0o so, a6ree0 to theforeclosure of the 1ort6a6e, sai0 respon0ent therebuestion in this petition for the reie5 of a0ecision of the Court of Appeals, to be passe0 upon for therst ti1e, is 5hether or not a con:u6al partnership, in theabsence of an< sho5in6 of benets receie0, coul0 be hel0liable on an in0e1nit< a6ree1ent e;ecute0 b< thehusban0 to acco11o0ate a thir0 part< in faor of a suretuestion as to one -a0islao Chae=, as principal, an0petitioner -u=on Suret< Co$, )nc$, e;ecutin6 a suret< bon0in faor of the Philippine National BanD, (ictorias Branch,

to 6uarant< a crop loan 6rante0 b< the latter to -a0islaoChae= in the su1 of P!,@@@$@@$ On or about the sa1e0ate, (icente #arcia, to6ether 5ith the sai0 -a0islaoChae= an0 one Ra1on B$ -acson, as 6uarantors, si6ne0an in0e1nit< a6ree1ent 5herein the< boun0 the1seles,:ointl< an0 seeralluence of hain6beco1e 6uarantor upon sai0 bon0, to pa< interest at therate of 2 per annu1, co1pute0 an0 co1poun0e0>uarterl< until full< pai0 an0 to pa< 9 of the a1ountinole0 in an< liti6ation or other 1atters 6ro5in6 out of orconnecte0 there5ith for attorne


29/134

29

As e;plaine0 in the 0ecision no5 un0er reie57 H)t is truethat the husban0 is the a01inistrator of the con:u6alpropert< pursuant to the proisions of Art$ "3 of the Ne5Ciil Co0e$ o5eer, as such a01inistrator the onluestion ri6htfull


31/134


Manila

T)R )()S)ON

#$R$ No$ -+"&"& Ma< 2%, !%%

BA 4)NANCE CORPORAT)ON, petitioner,s$

TE ONORAB-E COURT O4 APPEA-S, AU#USTO U-O,-)- U-O 0oin6 business un0er the na1e an0 st


32/134

0ecision of the Court of Appeals 5hich aKr1e0 the0ecision of the then Court of 4irst )nstance of Manila,0is1issin6 the co1plaint institute0 b< the petitioner an0or0erin6 it to pa< 0a1a6es on the basis of the priate

respon0ent?s counterclai1$On 'ul< , !89, priate respon0ent Au6usto ulo secure0a loan fro1 the petitioner in the a1ount of P9!,@@3$9! asei0ence0 b< a pro1issor< note he si6ne0 in his o5nbehalf an0 as representatie of the A V - )n0ustries$Respon0ent ulo presente0 an alle6e0 special po5er ofattorne< e;ecute0 b< his 5ife, respon0ent -il< ulo, 5ho1ana6es A V - )n0ustries an0 un0er 5hose na1e the sai0business is re6istere0, purporte0l< authori=in6 Au6ustoulo to procure the loan an0 si6n the pro1issor< note$About t5o 1onths prior to the loan, ho5eer, Au6usto uloha0 alrea0< left -il< ulo an0 their chil0ren an0 ha0aban0one0 their con:u6al ho1e$ Ghen the obli6ationbeca1e 0ue an0 0e1an0able, Au6usto ulo faile0 to paualif< hi1 as a han05ritin6 e;pert, he0eclare0 that he un0er5ent e;tensie an0 actual stu0iesan0 e;a1ination of 0ispute0 or >uestione0 0ocu1ent,both at the National Bureau of )nesti6ation Aca0e1< an0National Bureau of )nesti6ation Juestione0 ocu1ent-aboratoruestion E;h$ B+F, 5ere allfor6eries, an0 not her 6enuine si6nature, the e;pert5itness cate6oricall< recite0 an0 specie0 in open court5hat he obsere0 to be about t5ele 2F 6larin6 an01aterial si6nicant 0i*erences, in his co1parison of thesi6natures appearin6 in the 6enuine speci1en si6naturesof the sai0 appellee an0 5ith those appearin6 in the>uestione0 0ocu1ent E;hibit B+F$ )n0ee0, 5e haeliDe5ise seen the suppose0 notable 0i*erences, foun0 inthe stan0ar0 or 6enuine si6natures of the appellee 5hich

5ere lifte0 an0 obtaine0 in the oKcial les of the6oern1ent, such as the Bureau of )nternal Reenue onher inco1e ta; returns, as co1pare0 to the preten0e0si6nature of the appellee appearin6 in E;hibits B, B+$ )t isalso note5orth< to 1ention that the appellant 0i0 not eenbother to con0uct a cross+e;a1ination of the han05ritin6e;pert 5itness, Capt$ #iron, neither 0i0 the appellantpresent another han05ritin6 e;pert, at least to counter+actor balance the appellee?s han05ritin6 e;pert$

Prescin0in6 fro1 the fore6oin6 facts, 5e subscribe full< to

the lo5er court?s obserations that the si6natures of theappellee -il< ulo in the >uestione0 0ocu1ent E;h$ B+F5ere for6e0$ ence, 5e n0 no factual basis to 0isa6ree$pp$ 2%+3@, RolloF

As to the petitioner?s contention that een if the si6natureof -il< ulo 5as for6e0 or een if the attache0 properties5ere her e;clusie propert


35/134

ans5erable to the obli6ation because the sai0 propertiesfor1 part of the con:u6al partnership of the spouses ulo,the appellate court hel0 that these contentions are 5ithout1erit because there is stron6 prepon0erant ei0ence to

sho5 that A V - )n0ustries belon6s e;clusiel< torespon0ent -il< ulo, na1el


36/134

of plainti* 5hich 1a< 5arrant the a5ar0 of 0a1a6es infaor of 0efen0ant -il< ulo$ )bi0$, pp$ @2+@3F$XYreZZan[\]5^

)n0ee0, the e;istence of ei0ent ba0 faith on theappellant?s part in procee0in6 a6ainst the appellee -iluestion, since fro1 theer< content an0 recitals of the 0ispute0 0ocu1ent, noauthorituiet an0 chose not to 0isturb the testi1on< an0the ei0ence presente0 b< the priate respon0ent to proeher clai1$

)n this petition for certiorari, the petitioner raises threeissues$ The rst issue 0eals 5ith the appellate court?s

aKr1ance of the trial court?s n0in6s that the si6nature ofthe priate respon0ent on the Special Po5er of Attorneui0ation can taDe place onl< after the 0issolution of thepartnership thru the occurrence of an< of the causes1entione0 in article 89 of the sa1e Co0e, one of 5hich is0eath of one of the spouses$ Since both are still liin6there cannot be an< 0issolution, i1prison1ent for life ofthe husban0 not5ithstan0in6, in the absence of a :u0icialseparation of properl< 0ecree0 in accor0ance 5ith theproisions of article ! thereof$ Moreoer, the nes an0

in0e1nities sou6ht to be char6e0 a6ainst the 6anancialproperties of the accuse0 an0 his 5ife are not such 0ebtsan0 obli6ations contracte0 b< sai0 accuse0 for the benetof the con:u6al partnership$H2

The conclusion arrie0 at b< 'u06e Man6osin6 follo5s7 HGesuite plain, therefore, that the perio0 0urin6 5hichsuch a liabilit< 1a< be enforce0 presupposes that thecon:u6al partnership is still e;istin6$ The la5 speaDs ofHpartnership assets$H )t conte1plates that theresponsibilities to 5hich enu1erate0 in Article ",char6eable a6ainst such assets, 1ust be co1plie0 5ithrst$ )t is thus obious that the ter1ination of the con:u6alpartnership is not conte1plate0 as a prere>uisite$Ghateer 0oubt 1a< still re1ain shoul0 be erase0 b< the

conclu0in6 portion of this article 5hich proi0es that Hatthe ti1e of the li>ui0ation of the partnership such spouseshall be char6e0 for 5hat has been pai0 for the purposesaboe+1entione0$H

Ghat other conclusion can there be than that theinterpretation place0 upon this proision in the challen6e0or0er is at 5ar 5ith the plain ter1s thereof )t cannot elicitour acceptance$ Nor is the reason for such a co0alproision 0iKcult to 0iscern$ )t is a fun0a1ental postulateof our la5 that eer< person cri1inall< liable for felon< is

also ciill< liable$9 The accuse0, 4roilan -a6ri1as, 5as,as note0, foun0 6uilt< of the cri1e of 1ur0er an0sentence0 to reclusion perpetua as 5ell as to pa< thein0e1nication to satisf< the ciil liabilit< incu1bent uponhi1$ )f the appeale0 or0er 5ere to be uphel0, he 5oul0 bein e*ect e;e1pt therefro1, the heirs of the o*en0e0 partuent 0elier< to

the1$ The trial court sustaine0 the clai1 of the 0efen0antsan0 ren0ere0 the follo5in6 :u061ent7

a$ 0eclarin6 the 0efen0ants to be the la5ful o5ners ofthe propert< sub:ect of the present liti6ation

b$ 0eclarin6 the co1plaint in the present action to be5ithout 1erit an0 is therefore hereb< or0ere0 0is1isse0

48


48/134

c$ or0erin6 the plainti*s to pa< to the 0efen0ants thea1ount of P2,@@@$@@ as reasonable attorne


49/134

un0er Rule &9 of the Rules of Court sub:ect to 5ell+0ene0e;ceptions not present in the instant case$

The le6al 6roun0 5hich 0eseres attention is the le6ale*ect of a sale of lan0s belon6in6 to the con:u6al

partnership 1a0e b< the 5ife 5ithout the consent of thehusban0$

)t is useful at this point to re+state so1e ele1entar< rules7The husban0 is the a01inistrator of the con:u6alpartnership$ Art$ "9, Ciil Co0e$F Sub:ect to certaine;ceptions, the husban0 cannot alienate or encu1ber an$F, unenforceable Arts$ &@3, et se>$F, an0 oi0 orine;istent Arts$ &@! et se>$F

The sale 1a0e b< #i1ena is certainl< a 0efectie contractbut of 5hat cate6oruire0, are annullable at herinstance 0urin6 the 1arria6e an0 5ithin ten uestione0$ Art$ 83, Ciil Co0e$F

#i1ena?s contract is not rescissible for in such contract allthe essential ele1ents are untainte0 but #i1ena?s consent5as tainte0$ Neither can the contract be classie0 asunenforceable because it 0oes not t an< of those0escribe0 in Art$ &@3 of the Ciil Co0e$ An0 nall


50/134

The case of Soa an0 Sala0or Al0on is 0i*erent$ After the0eath of Ma;i1o the< ac>uire0 the ri6ht to >uestion the0efectie contract insofar as it 0eprie0 the1 of theirhere0itar< ri6hts in their father?s share in the lan0s$ Thefather?s share is one+half L2F of the lan0s an0 their share

is t5o+thir0s 2L3F thereof, one+thir0 L3F pertainin6 to the5i0o5$

The petitioners hae been in possession of the lan0s since!9$ )t 5as onl< in !8" 5hen the respon0ents le0action to recoer the lan0s$ )n the 1eanti1e, Ma;i1oAl0on 0ie0$

T5o >uestions co1e to 1in0, na1eluire0 the lan0s b< ac>uisitie prescription2F )s the ri6ht of action of Soa an0 Sala0or Al0on barre0

b< the statute of li1itations

Anent the rst >uestion, Ge >uote 5ith approal thefollo5in6 state1ent of the Court of Appeals7

Ge 5oul0 liDe to state further that appellees petitionersherein coul0 not hae ac>uire0 o5nership of the lots buestione0 si6nature of appellee #uiller1a Opea sicF inthe ee0 of Absolute Sale 5ere her oter?s )$$ Car0,Pro1issor< Note to the -etter of the -an0 BanD, iscountan0 Co1putation Slip issue0 b< the Rural BanD ofMan6al0an, Resi0ence Certicate, an0 a lon6 bon0 paper

containin6 her si6natures to 29$ These si6natures area01itte0 b< the appellee as hers an0 5ere use0 b< her inher business transactions an0 her transactions 5ith the6oern1ent$ This case thus falls s>uarel< 5ithin the thir01etho0 referre0 to b< the i6h Tribunal$

Appellant, 1oreoer, 0i0 not rebut the testi1on< of the

e;pert 5itness 'oito #utierre= an0 liDe5ise 0i0 noti1peach hi1$ )n fact, appellant an0 his 5itnesses he5e0their testi1onies to his n0in6s b< a01ittin6 that the< 0i0not see appellee #uiller1a Opea sicF si6n the >uestione00ocu1ent$ ence, the trial court correctl< 6ae cre0ence

to the e;pert 5itness an0 his n0in6s that the si6nature of#uiller1a Opea sicF is a for6er


60/134

clai1$

-iDe5ise, the Court of Appeals concurre0 5ith the trialcourt?s assess1ent of the situation, to 5it7

The trial court 5as :ustie0 in hol0in6 the appellant ashain6 suppresse0 ei0ence 5hen it 0ispense0 5ith thetesti1on< of the notar< public 5ho notari=e0 the>uestione0 ee0 of Sale E;h$ H2H, HBHF$ )t appears thatAtt


61/134

e is nall< here because this is in a coinci0ence he has acase$

Att


62/134

authorit< to taDe the o5ner?s cop< of the title to the lan0 in>uestion fro1 the banD T$S$N$, April , !%3, pp$ 8+%F$ 2

4inalluare 1eters an0 ",!@1ultiplie0 b< P3$@@ a1ounts to P%,98@$@@$ The conIictin6a1ounts of 1one< testie0 to b< the herein accuse0 6iestruth to the sa


63/134


Manila

T)R )()S)ON

#$R$ No$ -+&%%& March 2, !!@

PAU-A #ARC)A, 4RANC)SCO #ARC)A, 'USTO #ARC)A,C-AU)A #ARC)A, CR)SP)NA #ARC)A, CATA-)NA #ARC)A,BAS)-)SA #ARC)A, .ACAR)AS #ARC)A, A#UST)N #ARC)A,CAN)A #ARC)A, PAB-EO PACU-AN, ANEC)TA PACU-AN,A#AP)TO PACU-AN, MARCOSA PACU-AN, an0 )-UM)NAOSO-)TE, petitioners,

s$ANRES #ON.A-ES, RAMON EAM)#UE- N)CAS)O PAR)--Aan0 COURT O4 APPEA-S, respon0ents$

Antonio R$ Raba6o for petitioners$

4e0erico ($ Noel for An0res #on=ales$

4rancisco E$ 4$ Re1ori6ue for Ea1i6uel an0 Parilla$

4ERNAN, C$'$7

)n this petition on for reie5 on certiorari, petitioners seeDthe reersal of the Ma< 9, !88 0ecision of the Court ofAppeals in CA+#R No$ &%@32+R entitle0 HPaula #arcia, et al$$ An0res #on=ales, et al$H 1o0if


64/134

Cara


65/134

plainti*s, nothin6 has been 0one thereabout an0 thatsai0 0ocu1ent, bein6 1ore than &8


66/134

)t 5as the trial court 5hich shoul0 hae inclu0e0 in the0ispositie portion of its 0ecision a 0eclaration as to theo5nership of parcel consistent 5ith the state1ent in its0ecision that Hit appears fro1 the ei0ence presente0 that

nobo0< is clai1in6 parcel so that the sa1e has re1aine0the propert< of the plainti*sH herein petitionersF$ !

Be that as it 1a


67/134

6 precoer< of parcel No$ 2$ 2 Althou6h the recor0s 0o notsho5 that #on=ales ha0 been issue0 a Torrens title toparcel No$ 2 an0 hence, the @ uire0 to oerthro5 it1ust be clear, conincin6 an0 be


68/134

69

on October %, !!8$ The 0ispositie portion thereof rea0s ON TE SECON CAUSE O4 ACT)ON


69/134

as follo5s7

GERE4ORE, the plainti* hain6 proe0 b< theprepon0erance of ei0ence the alle6ations of the

Co1plaint, the Court n0s for the plainti* an0 hereb


70/134

therefor because it is responsible for the conse>uences ofthe acts or o1issions of the person it hire0 to acco1plishthe assi6ne0 tasD$! All tol0, the appellate court aKr1e0the trial court_s ecision, but 0elete0 the a5ar0 for

0a1a6es an0 attorne


71/134

Respon0ent an0 the late Marcelino ailo, 'r$ 5ere 1arrie0on Au6ust %, !"8$ )n the absence of a 1arria6esettle1ent, the suire0 un0er the Ciil Co0e or otherla5s$"

The rules on co+o5nership 0o not een appl< to thepropert< relations of respon0ent an0 the late Marcelinoailo, 'r$ een in a suppletor< 1anner$ The re6i1e ofcon:u6al partnership of 6ains is a special tuire0 buarel< un0er Article 39of the 4a1il< Co0e, proi0in6 as follo5s7

Art$ 39$ An< of the follo5in6 shall be consi0ere0suKcient cause for :u0icial separation of propert


86/134

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURTManila

4)RST )()S)ON

#$R$ No$ ""&!" Noe1ber !, 2@@"

'OSE4A BAUT)STA 4ERRER, Petitioner,s$SPS$ MANUE- M$ 4ERRER V ()R#)N)A 4ERRER an0 SPS$)SMAE- M$ 4ERRER an0 4-ORA 4ERRER, Respon0ents$

E C ) S ) O N

C)CO+NA.AR)O, '$7

Before this Court is an Appeal b< Certiorari 5hich assailsthe ecision of the Court of Appeals 0ate0 " Au6ust2@@& in CA+#$R$ SP No$ 8%929, reersin6 an0 settin6 asi0ethe Or0er2 0ate0 " ece1ber 2@@2 of the Re6ional TrialCourt RTCF, Man0alu


87/134

Before her 1arria6e to Alfre0o, the latter ac>uire0 a pieceof lot, coere0 b< Transfer Certicate of Title TCTF No$"8!28$& e applie0 for a loan 5ith the Social Securituentluires the inclusion of a priate part< as respon0ent inpetitions for prohibition$ On the other han0, to allo5interention, it 1ust be sho5n that aF the 1oant has ale6al interest in the 1atter in liti6ation or other5ise

100

>ualie0, an0 bF consi0eration 1ust be 6ien as to5hether the a0:u0ication of the ri6hts of the ori6inalparties 1a< be 0elauire1ents 1ust concur as the

errors, if an


100/134

rst is not 1ore i1portant than the secon0$9

)n the case at bar, it cannot be sai0 that petitioner_s ri6htas a :u061ent cre0itor 5as a0ersel< a*ecte0 b< theliftin6 of the le< on the sub:ect real propert


101/134


Manila

SECON )()S)ON

#$R$ No$ 9!"8 4ebruar< ", 2@@9

'OSE4)NA C$ 4RANC)SCO, petitioner,s$MASTER )RON GORS V CONSTRUCT)ON CORPORAT)ONan0 ROBERTO ($ A-E'O, Sheri* )(, Re6ional Trial Court ofMaDati Citue, Metro Manila,Branch 2"@, in Ciil Case No$ !&+22"@ an0 the Resolutionof the CA 0en


102/134

BanD, )nc$ )1us BanDF e;ecute0 a 0ee0 of absolute sale

for P32@,@@@$@@ in faor of 'osena Castillo 4rancisco,1arrie0 to E0uar0o 4rancisco, coerin6 t5o parcels ofresi0ential lan0 5ith a house thereon locate0 at St$ Martin0e Porres Street, San Antonio (alle< ), Sucat, Paraa>ue,Metro Manila$ One of the lots 5as coere0 b< TransferCerticate of Title TCTF No$ 3"9!, 5ith an area of 3&2s>uare 1eters, 5hile the other lot, 5ith an area of 3"@s>uare 1eters, 5as coere0 b< TCT No$ 3"9%$& Thepurchase price of the propert< 5as pai0 to the BanD iaChecD No$ @@233& in the a1ount of P32@,@@@$@@ 0ra5nan0 issue0 b< the Co11ercial BanD of Manila, for 5hichthe )1us BanD issue0 OKcial Receipt No$ 2&@% onAu6ust 3, !%&$9 On the basis of the sai0 0ee0 of sale,TCT Nos$ 3"9% an0 3"9! 5ere cancelle0 an0, onSepte1ber &, !%&, the Re6ister of ee0s issue0 TCT Nos$%8!8" "@99@F an0 %8!88 "@99F in the na1e of H'osenaCastillo 4rancisco 1arrie0 to E0uar0o #$ 4rancisco$H"

On 4ebruar< 9, !%9, the Re6ister of ee0s 1a0e ofrecor0 Entr< No$ %9+%@@3 at the 0orsal portion of the sai0titles$ This referre0 to an AK0ait of Gaier e;ecute0 b

Documents

PFR Cases Page 11