Rule 133 Evid Cases

8/11/2019 Rule 133 Evid Cases

1/55

G.R. No. 113079 April 20, 2001

ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD,petitioner,vs.

COURT OF APPEALS a! PETROLEU" D#STR#BUTORS AND SER$#CESCORPORAT#ON,respondents.

----------------------------------------

G.R. No. 11%923 April 20, 2001

P#L#P#NAS S&ELL PETROLEU" CORPORAT#ON,petitioner,vs.

COURT OF APPEALS a! PETROLEU" D#STR#BUTORS AND SER$#CESCORPORAT#ON,respondents.

YNARES'SANT#AGO,J.:

The propriety of building a state-of-the-art gasoline service station along Benigno

Aquino, Jr. Avenue in Paraaque, Metro Manila is the bone of contention in these

consolidated petitions for certiorari under ule !" of the ules of #ourt. Petitioners

assert that the construction of such a $odern edifice is a necessity dictated by the

%e$erging econo$ic landscapes.% espondents say other&ise.

The factual antecedents of the case are $atters of record or are other&ise

uncontroverted.

Petitioner Pilipinas 'hell Petroleu$ #orporation ('hell) is engaged in the business

of i$porting crude oil, refining the sa$e and selling various petroleu$ products

through a net&or* of service stations throughout the country.

Private respondent Petroleu$ +istributors and 'ervice #orporation (P+'#) o&ns

and operates a #alte service station at the corner of the MA and +o$estic oads

in Pasay #ity.

n June /0,123/, 'hell filed &ith the quonda$ Bureau of 4nergy 5tili6ation (B45)

an application for authority to relocate its 'hell 'ervice 'tation at Ta$bo,

Paraaque, Metro Manila, to $elda Marcos Avenue of the sa$e $unicipality. The

application, &hich &as doc*eted as B45 #ase 7o. 3/-02-1/12, &as initially

re8ected by the B45 because 'hell9s old site had been closed for five (") years such

that the relocation of the sa$e to a ne& site &ould a$ount to a ne& construction of a

gasoline outlet, &hich construction &as then the sub8ect of a $oratoriu$.

'ubsequently, ho&ever, B45 relaed its position and gave due course to the

application.

P+'# filed an opposition to the application on the grounds that: 1.; there are

adequate service stations attending to the $otorists9 require$ents in the trading area

covered by the application< =.; ruinous co$petition &ill result fro$ the

establish$ent of the proposed ne& service station< and /.; there is a decline not an

increase in the volu$e of sales in the area. T&o other co$panies, na$ely Petrophil

and #alte, also opposed the application on the ground that 'hell failed to co$ply

&ith the 8urisdictional require$ents.

n a esolution dated March >, 123!, the B45 dis$issed the application on

8urisdictional grounds and for lac* of %full title% of the lessor over the proposed site.

?o&ever, on May @, 123!, the B45 reinstated the sa$e application and thereafter

conducted a hearing thereon.

n June /, 123>, the B45 rendered a decision denying 'hell9s application on a

finding that there &as %no necessity for an additional petroleu$ products retail outletin $elda Marcos Avenue, Paraaque.% +issatisfied, 'hell appealed to the ffice of

4nergy Affairs (4A).

Mean&hile, on May 3, 123@, 4ecutive rder 7o. 1@= &as issued creating the

4nergy egulatory Board (4B) and transferring to it the regulatory and

ad8udicatory functions of the B45.

n May 2, 1233, the 4A rendered a decision denying the appeal of 'hell and

affir$ing the B45 decision. 'hell $oved for reconsideration and prayed for a ne&

hearing or the re$and of the case for further proceedings. n a supple$ent to said

$otion, 'hell sub$itted a ne& feasibility study to 8ustify its application.

The 4A issued an order on July 11, 1233, re$anding the case to the 4B for

further evaluation and consideration, noting therein that the %updated survey

conducted by 'hell% cited ne& develop$ents such as the accessibility of $elda

Marcos Avenue, no& Benigno Aquino, Jr. Avenue, to Paraaque residents along

'ucat oad and the population gro&th in the trading area.

After the records of B45 #ase 7o. 3/-02-1/12 &as re$anded to the 4B, 'hell

filed on March /, 1232 an a$ended application, intended for the sa$e purpose as its

original application, &hich &as doc*eted as 4B #ase 7o. 32-"@. This a$ended

application &as li*e&ise opposed by P+'#.

1


2/55

n 'epte$ber 1@, 1221, the 4B rendered a +ecision allo&ing 'hell to establish the

service station in Benigno Aquino, Jr. Avenue. The dispositive portion of the

+ecision reads:

?444, pre$ises considered, the application for authority to

relocate a 'hell service station fro$ Ta$bo to Benigno Aquino Avenue,

Paraaque, Metro Manila is hereby approved.

Applicant is hereby directed to:

1. 'tart the construction and operation of the retail outlet at the

actual approved site appearing in the vicinity $ap previously

sub$itted to the Board &ithin one (1) year, fro$ the finality of

this +ecision and thereafter sub$it a s&orn docu$ent of

co$pliance there&ith) $onths of the

operation of the station. The report shall be sub$itted in the

for$ of an affidavit &ithin ten (10) days after the end of the si-

$onth period0,1"1 liters per $onth &ith a pro8ected increase of =.>K

per annu$ and presu$ably epects to $a*e a corresponding profit

thereof. ppositor P+'#, on the other hand, &ith its lone #alte 'ervice

'tation, epects to suffer inco$e loss even &ith a pro8ected volu$e of

>00,000 to 300,000 liters per $onth (4hibit ").

#onsidering this pre$ise, it should be noted that the Board is tas*ed to

protect eisting petroleu$ stations fro$ ruinous co$petition and not to

protect eisting establish$ents fro$ its o&n ghost. The Board does noteist for the benefit of any individual station but for the interest of the

public and the industry as a &hole.

n its first application, the applicant9s pro8ection &as to reali6e only

="",000 liters per $onth or so$e =0 percent of the total potential de$and.

ith its a$ended application, the !>0,1"1 liters it hopes to reali6e is

al$ost t&ice the for$er volu$e representing a s$aller percentage of the

present overall potential de$and.

ith further gro&th and develop$ent of the businesses in the area, the

fuel potential &ill tre$endously increase and the presence of strategically

located service stations &ill greatly benefit the local co$$unity as &ell as

the transient $otoring public.

The Board believes that the construction and operation of the 'hell 'tation

&ill not lead to ruinous co$petition since Lthe; additional retail outlet is

necessary.

Ti$e and again this #ourt has ruled that in revie&ing ad$inistrative decisions, the

findings of fact $ade therein $ust be respected as long as they are supported by

substantial evidence, even if not over&hel$ing or preponderant< that it is not for the

revie&ing court to &eigh the conflicting evidence, deter$ine the credibility of the

&itnesses or other&ise substitute its o&n 8udg$ent for that of the ad$inistrative

agency on the sufficiency of evidence< that the ad$inistrative decision in $atters

&ithin the eecutive 8urisdiction can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of

discretion, fraud or error of la&.=> Petitioner 4B is in a better position to resolve

petitioner 'hell9s application, being pri$arily the agency possessing the necessary

epertise on the $atter. The po&er to deter$ine &hether the building of a gasoline

retail outlet in a trading area &ould benefit public interest and the oil industry lies

&ith the 4B not the appellate courts.

n the hierarchy of evidentiary values, proof beyond reasonable doubt is at the

highest level, follo&ed by clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of

evidence and substantial evidence, in that order.=@A litany of cases has consistently

held that substantial evidence is all that is needed to support an ad$inistrative

finding of fact.=3t $eans such relevant evidence as a reasonable $ind $ight accept

to support a conclusion.=2

'uffice it to state in this regard that the factual landscape, $easured &ithin the

contet of such an evidentiary $atri, is stre&n &ith &ell-nigh over&hel$ing proof

of the necessity to build such a gasoline retail outlet in the vicinity sub8ect of theapplication.

n denying 'hell9s application, the #ourt of Appeals net pointed to the alleged

9staleness9 of 'hell9s feasibility study because it &as sub$itted in evidence about t&o

(=) years after it &as prepared in early 1233./0

Again, this #ourt is not persuaded.

The record sho&s that the feasibility study/1is acco$panied by the follo&ing data,

na$ely: 1.; Annual Pro8ection of 4sti$ated uel +e$and, Base Area< =.; Pro8ected

6
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt31


7/55

Dolu$e of the Proposed 'hell 'tation< /.; Pro8ected uel Dolu$e +erived ro$

Base Area< !.; 4sti$ated uel +e$and Base Pro8ection E 122/< ".; 4sti$ated uel

+e$and Base Pro8ection E 122!< >.; Annual Pro8ection of Population< @.; Annual

Pro8ection Cro&th of Private #ars in the Area< 3.; Annual Pro8ection Cro&th of

Public 5tilities in the Area< and 2; Annual Pro8ected Cro&th of #o$$ercial

Dehicles in the Area/=E pro8ects a $ar*et scenario fro$ 1232 to 122!.

hile the #ourt of Appeals &as initially unconvinced that 'hell9s feasibility study

&as up-to-date and proceeded to render the assailed 8udg$ent, i ts attention &as

subsequently called, in 'hell9s $otion for reconsideration, to the 4B9s +ecision

dated June 12, 122=//approving a si$ilar application by #alte to build a gasoline

retail outlet in the sa$e vicinity. 'aid decision &as appealed by P+'# to the #ourt

of Appeals (#A-C.. 'P 7o. =2022), and &as affir$ed by the latter in a +ecision

dated May 1!, 122/./!The +ecision in #alte9s application, &here P+'# &as the

lone oppositor, &as challenged before the appellate court on the very sa$e grounds

it proffered in opposing 'hell9s application./"n re8ecting P+'#9s contentions in #A-

C.. 'P 7o. =2022, the #ourt of Appeals9 'iteenth +ivision ruled:

A* o /ir* 6ro)!E

The petitioner had assu$ed that the entire 'ucat oad (starting fro$ as far

a&ay as its intersection &ith the 'outh 4press&ay going to&ards Alabang

and further 'outh), uirino Avenue, +o$estic oad (&hich passes in front

of the +o$estic Ter$inal), MA oad, and 7inoy Aquino Avenue,

constitute &hat it refers to as the %trading area.% Thus, the herein petitioner

invites attention to the fact that in 'ucat oad there are five eisting

gasoline stations< t&o along uirino Avenue (fro$ 'ucat oad)< four

along +o$estic oad< and t&o along MA oad, one of &hich is the

#alte-7ayong Pilipino station at the corner of MA oad and Benigno

Aquino Avenue. 4cept for the gas station at one end of Benigno AquinoAvenue (located in front of the 7ayong ilipino), piior a!i*a r a* a* 4 o 6a*oli *aio 8i*i6 alo6 ir*r+ o/ *ai! Bi6o A)io A), alo)6 ERB a!r+l4 appro! Sll:* appli+aio o p) )p o ri.

This court is of the vie& that the afore$entioned assu$ption adopted by

petitioner is fallacious or incorrect considering the conclusion of 4B9s

Manuel Alvare6 in his %cular nspection eport and n-+epth Analysis of

easibility 'tudy% a o o)l pr*l4 8i** alo6 -ol*r+ o/ Nio4 A)io A) (ollo, p. 1=>)a! a o)l*alo6 S)+a Roa! ar ;/ar /ro propo*! *i, a !i*a *ral

5ilor* a-a4 alo6 Dr. A. Sao* A) i S)+a -i+ +aalra!4 +o*i!r! a !i//r ra!i6 ara;(ibid., - underscoringsupplied)

Assu$ing in gratia argumenti that the entirety of the above-specified

roadNavenues $ay be considered as a single trading area, the piiora! /ail! o *o- -4 Cal8:* 9.7< *ar o/ oal ar5poial, a* /o)! i Alar=:* "ar5 S)!4, i* o aaial or ai -o)l! r*)l i r)io)* +opiio.As pointed by the respondents(citing M+ Transit O Tai #o., nc. v. Pepito, > '#A 1!0 and ay$undo

Trans. #o. v. #ervo, 21 Phil. /1/), i/ a - *aio -o)l! ri6ao) a !+li i *al* o/ 8i*i6 o)l*, i ! o+**aril4 r*)l i r)io)* +opiio, a* a!)a proo/ oa //+.

A* o *+o! a! ir! 6ro)!*E

#oncerning the aver$ent that the evidence of #alte is stale, this #ourt

notes that the said evidence refers principally to a revalidation studyconducted by 4B9s Alvare6 &ho undertoo* an ocular inspection of the

proposed site on 7ove$ber =/ to =@, 123@. The hearings of the instant

case continued up to early 122= (4B +ecision, p. !). The +ecision &as

rendered on June 12, 122= ((ollo, p. />). t $ay be conceded that

substantial ti$e had elapsed since the t i$e of the afore$entioned

revalidation study. &o-r, i i* i* +o)r:* i- a )l** piior i* al o pro 4 +op i!+ a *i6i/i+a+a6* a o++)rr! *)//i+i o iali!a a/or'*a! *)!4, pr*)pio i* a *ai! *)!4 rai* ali!, a* /o)! 4 ERB i i* !+i*io. Bar a! *l/'*ri6 ai/*aio* +ao a++p! 4 U* a* proo/> *p+iall4 i/ a5 io a++o) aari6* ?a* i +a* a ar@ -o)l! a5 i a! i -o)l! )ia*)r! i/ -a -a* o+ appli+al a! a++pal i!+ -o)l! ipso facto r!r! *al ro)6 r lap* o/ i a* a4+orori6 i!+. So)! pro+!)ral poli+4 r)ir* a )r! o/ proo/ rlai o pr* iali!i4 o/ Alar= rporr** o -i Cal8 ) o ri piior.

The petitioner had atte$pted to $a*e co$parisons bet&een the figures

specified in the 123@ study and those of the Bureau of 4nergy 5tili6ation

or B45 (&hich &ere given earlier in 123>). Thus, the petitioner points out

that &hile the B459s decision indicated that 2,0/! cars on the average

passed by going in both directions along 7inoy Aquino Avenue, the

Alvare6 revalidation study gave an average car traffic of only 3,/2"

7
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt35


8/55

resulting in a decline of >/2 cars. The petitioner, ho&ever, conveniently

ignored or failed to note that the 2,0/! figure &as that given by applicant

'hell and not be the govern$ent agency itself. The B45 refers to the said

figure as the applicant9s esti$ated potential de$and. t is natural to epect

that an applicant &ould try to give up as high an esti$ated potential

de$and as possible to support its application.

The contention of the petitioner that the Alvare6 studyNreport is hearsay on

the ground inter alia that Alvare6 &as not presented as a &itness deserves

scant consideration by this #ourt. n the first place, the 4B is not bound

by technical rules of procedure as contained in the ules of #ourt, the

latter being $ade applicable to 4B only %in a suppletory character% (ule

1> of the ules of Practice and Procedure Coverning ?earings Before the

4B). More i$portantly, 'ection =, paragraph = and 'ection @, paragraph

= of the above-$entioned 4B ules provides as follo&s:

The Board $ay, in the disposition of cases, before it, ta*e

8udicial notice of any data or infor$ation eisting in its 8udicial

records, that $ay be relevant, pertinent or $aterial to the issues

involved,

The Board $ay also, on its o&n initiative or upon a $otion of a

party, conduct such investigation or studies on any $atter

pertinent, related or $aterial to the issues involved in a case the

results of &hich $ay be sued by the Board as bases for the

proper evaluation of the said issues. ((ollo, pp. =0"-=0@ E

underscoring supplied)

The petitioner asserts that the island divider along Benigno Aquino

Avenue in front of the proposed site &as not ta*en into consideration in

the 123@ survey. t could not be denied that the construction of such

divider could have an effect on the $atter of potential de$and. 7eithercan it be denied ho&ever that the gas station that &ould be affected &ould

be #alte itself. t is not alleged that there eists a divider along the &hole

of 'ucat oad for ea$ple. ?ence, the eisting outlets have no reason to

co$plain about the divider.

The contention that &hen construction is co$pleted (connecting 'ucat

oad to the coastal road), a good nu$ber of vehicles &ould pass through

the coastal road instead of along Benigno Aquino LAvenue; appears to 5s

as speculative. There is no need for the petitioner, &hich it failed to do, to

sho& qualitatively and convincingly that the effect &ould be such as to

$a*e the sales level go do&n to such an etent that the viability of the

eisting outlets &ould be seriously endangered or threatened.

The foregoing pronounce$ent of the #ourt of Appeals9 'iteenth +ivision is $ore in

*eeping &ith the policy of the 'tate and the rationale of the statutes enacted to

govern the industry.

n denying 'hell9s application, the #ourt of Appeals finally states that the proposed

service station &ould cause ruinous co$petition to respondent P+'#9s outlet in the

sub8ect vicinity.

e re$ain unconvinced.

t $ust be pointed out that in deter$ining the allo&ance or disallo&ance of an

application for the construction of a service station, the appellate court confined the

factors thereof &ithin the rigid standards governingpublic utilility regulation, &here

eclusivity, upon the satisfaction of certain require$ents, is allo&ed. ?o&ever,

eclusivity is $ore the eception rather than the rule in the gasoline service station

business. Thus, ule D, 'ection 1, of the ules and egulations Coverning the4stablish$ent, #onstruction, peration, e$odelling andNor efurbishing of

Petroleu$ Products etail utlets issued by the il ndustry #o$$ission,/>and

adopted by the 4B, enu$erates the follo&ing factors deter$ining the allo&ance or

disallo&ance of an application for outlet construction, to &it:

(a). The operation of the proposed petroleu$ products retail outlet &ill

pro$ote public interest in a proper and suitable $anner considering the

need and convenience of the end-users.

(b) easonable epectation of a co$$ercially viable operation.

(c) The establish$ent and operation thereof &ill not result in a $onopoly,co$bination in restraint of trade and ruinous co$petition.

(d) The require$ents of public safety and sanitation are properly observed.

(e) Cenerally, the establish$ent and operation thereof &ill help pro$ote

and achieve the purposes of epublic Act 7o. >1@/. /@

hile it is probable that the operation of the proposed 'hell outlet $ay, to a certain

etent, affect P+'#9s business, private respondent nevertheless failed to sho& that

its business &ould not have sufficient profit to have a fair return of its invest$ent.

8
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt36


9/55

The $ere possibility of reduction in the earnings of a business is not sufficient to

prove ruinous co$petition./3ndeed E

n order that the opposition based on ruinous co$petition $ay prosper, it

$ust be sho&n that the opponent &ould be deprived of fair profits on the

capital invested in its business. T r po**iili4 o/ r!)+io i ari6* o/ a )*i** i* o *)//i+i o pro r)io)* +opiio. #)* *o- a )*i** -o)l! o a *)//i+i 6ai* opa4 a /air ra o/ ir* o i* +apial i*./2Mere allegations

by the oppositor that its business &ould be ruined by the establish$ent of

the ice plants proposed by the applicants are not sufficient to &arrant this

#ourt to revo*e the order of the Public 'ervice #o$$ission.!0

t &ould not be re$iss to point out that #alte, P+'#9s principal, &hose products

are being retailed by private respondent in the service outlet it operates along the

MAN+o$estic oad in Pasay #ity, never filed any opposition to 'hell9s application.

All told, a cli$ate of fear and pessi$is$ generated by unsubstantiated clai$s of

ruinous co$petition already re8ected in the past should not be $ade to retard free

co$petition, consistently &ith legislative policy of deregulating and liberali6ing the

oil industry to ensure a truly co$petitive $ar*et under a regi$e of fair prices,adequate and continuous supply, environ$entally clean and high-quality petroleu$

products.

&EREFORE, in vie& of all the foregoing, the challenged +ecision of the #ourtof Appeals dated 7ove$ber 3, 122/, as &ell as the subsequent esolution dated

April >, 122!, in #A-C.. 'P 7o. =@>>1, is RE$ERSED a! SET AS#DE, andanother one rendered RE#NSTAT#NGthe rder dated 'epte$ber 1@, 1221 of the4nergy egulatory Board in 4B #ase 7o. 32-"@, granting the a$ended application

of Pilipinas 'hell Petroleu$ #orporation to relocate its service station to Benigno

Aquino Jr., Avenue, Paranaque, Metro Manila.

' +44+.

9
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/apr2001/gr_113079_2001.html#fnt38


10/55

G.R. No. %9 Nor 21, 1991

REPUBL#C OF T&E PL#PP#NES,petitioner,vs.

T&E COURT OF APPEALS a! ANTON#NA GU#DO, "AUROCASTAEDA, "ARGAR#TA GU#DO, GRAC#ANO L. A"ANTE, FEL#AGU#DO, ANTON#O AU#NO, CR#SANTA GU#DO, BUENA$ENTURA B.ENR#UE, CAND#DA GU#DO, (ACOB ASSAD, ESPERANA GU#DO,ANGEL BEN#TO, ALFREDO GU#DO, CLARA "#NDA ANSEL"O,EUFRON#A GU#DO, (OSE LORENO, PR#SC#LLA GU#DO $DA. DEESGUERRA, BENED#CTO LOPE, PROFET#A GU#DO, A#DA DELCAR"EN, BUENSUCESO GU#DO, &ER"#N#A $#LLAREAL, CARLOSGU#DO, A"ANDA C. R#$ERA, (OSE A. RO(AS a! E"#L#AN ". RO(AS, #NTERPORT RESOURCES CORPORAT#ON a! REG#STER OF

DEEDS OF R#AL ?"oro6 Bra+@, respondents.

"ED#ALDEA,J.:p

This petition see*s the revie& of the decision of the #ourt of Appeals in #.A.-C..

#D 7o. 1=2// entitled %epublic of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellants versus

Antonina Cuido, et al., +efendants-Appellees,% &hich affir$ed the decision of the

egional Trial #ourt, 7ational #apital egion, Branch #FD, stationed in Pasig,

declaring the authenticity of +ecreto 7o. >1!" and Transfer #ertificate of Title 7o.

=//@@ of the egistry of +eeds of Morong, i6al.

The facts of the case are as follo&s:

The epublic of the Philippines, represented by the 'olicitor Ceneral, filed on

August ==, 12@2, a co$plaint for declaration of nullity of +ecreto 7o. >1!", the

o&ner9s duplicate copy of T#T 7o. =//@ and all titles derived fro$ said decree< and

the declaration of the parcel of land covered by the decree as belonging to the state,

ecept so $uch thereof as had been validly disposed of to third persons. The

co$plaint &as a$ended on ctober 1=, 12@2. t &as doc*eted as #ivil #ase 7o.

/!=!= of the #ourt of irst nstance of i6al. The co$plaint alleged inter alia, that:

1". The alleged +ecree 7o. >1!" issued on 'epte$ber 10, 1211

and the alleged o&ner9s copy of Transfer #ertificate of Title 7o.

=//@@ issued on May 1=, 12//, both in the na$e of rancisco

and ?er$ogenes Cuido, and &hich supposed o&ner9s duplicate

&as $ade the basis of the ad$inistrative reconstitution of

Transfer #ertificate of Title 7o. (=//@@) T-M-000= on March

=2, 12@>, or about !/ years later, are false, spurious and

fabricated and &ere never issued by virtue of 8udicial

proceedings for registration of land, either under Act 7o. !2>, as

a$ended, other&ise *no&n as the Fand egistration Act, or anyother la&, . . . (pp. 21-2=,(ollo)

7a$ed defendants &ere: 1) Antonina, Margarita, eli6a, #risanta and #andida, nee

Cuido, &ho clai$ to be the heirs of rancisco Cuido and &hose spouses &ere 8oined

as defedants< =) 4speran6a, Alfredo (&ho died during the pendency of this case and

&ho &as substituted by his heirs), 4ufronia, Cliceria, Priscilla, Profeti6a,

Buenaventura, Buensuceso and #arlos, all surna$ed Cuido, &ho clai$ed to be the

heirs of ?er$ogenes Cuido and &hose respective spouses &ere 8oined as

defendants< /) 'pouses Jose and 4$ilina o8as< !) Pacil +evelop$ent #orporation1!". The request &as denied on January 3,

12@>.

n March =2, 12@>, Alfredo Cuido, representing the other heirs, filed a petition

(4hibit %-%-1, p. 130, ecords) for reconstitution of T#T 7o. =//@@ &ith the

10


11/55

egistry of +eeds of Morong. The petition alleged that the original of Transfer

#ertificate of Title 7o. =//@@ could not be located in the files of the egistry of

+eeds of i6al after he and his co-heirs sought the registration of their 4tra-8udicial

'ettle$ent &ith uitclai$ dated +ece$ber 1@, 12@/. The petition &as supported by

the o&ner9s duplicate copy of the title.

The petition for ad$inistrative reconstitution of T#T 7o. =//@@ &as granted and areconstituted certificate of title LT#T (=//@@) T-M-000=; &as issued dated March

=2, 12@>.

After the reconstitution, the heirs presented before the egistry of +eeds of Morong

the 4tra-8udicial 'ettle$ent of 4state &ith uitclai$ &hich they eecuted on

+ece$ber 1@, 12@/ in favor of Jose o8as and &hich they had earlier presented for

registration. 'ubsequently, the entire parcel of land covered by the decree &as

subdivided into t&enty-one (=1) lots and t&enty-one (=1) different certificates of

titles &ere issued in lieu of the reconstituted T#T 7o. =//@@. The na$ed heirs and

no& spouses Jose and 4$ilia o8as sold the property to Pacil Manage$ent

#orporation and ne& titles &ere issued in favor of the buyer on June =", 12@>.

?o&ever, on August =>, 12@>, Pacil Manage$ent #orporation reconveyed all the

t&enty one lots to the for$er o&ners. n August =", 12@3, fourteen (1!) of theset&enty-one (=1) lots &ere echanged &ith shares of stoc*s of nterport esources

#orporation. n April =1, 1230, all the na$ed heirs renounced their rights over the

property in favor of their co-heir Alfredo Cuido, 'r. in echange for $onetary

considerations.

t appears that the only parties &ith eisting interests in the property sub8ect of this

case are nterport esources #orporation, the ?eirs of Alfredo Cuido, 'r. and

spouses Jose o8as and 4$ilia o8as.

After trial, the court a )uo rendered 8udg$ent dis$issing the co$plaint and

declaring +ecree 7o. >1!" and T#T 7o. =//@@, genuine and authentic. The

pertinent portion of the decision states:

#onsidering that +ecree >1!" and T#T 7o. =//@@ are genuine

and authentic, the decree cannot no& be reopened or revived.

A decree of registration binds the lands (sic),

quiets title thereto, is conclusive upon all

persons and cannot be reopened or revived

after the lapse of one year after entry of the

decree. (Glarde v. Fichauco, != '#A >!1)

?444, pre$ises considered, this case is hereby

dis$issed. Fi*e&ise, the counter clai$s of the defendants are

dis$issed.

The decision of the trial court &as appealed by the 'olicitor Ceneral to the #ourt of

Appeal &hich affir$ed said decision on July 1=, 1233 (pp. 1!2-1"!,(ollo).

n July 1>, 1233, the 'olicitor Ceneral filed a $otion for reconsideration of the

decision of the #ourt of Appeals. n the sa$e $otion, he prayed for an alternative

8udg$ent declaring the decree and its derivative titles authentic ecept &ith respect

to such portions of the property &hich &ere either: 1) possessed and o&ned by bona

fideoccupants &ho had already acquired indefeasible titles thereto< =) possessed and

o&ned by bona fide occupants and their fa$ilies &ith lengths of possession &hich

a$ounted to o&nership (p. ==!,(ollo).

The $otion for reconsideration &as denied by the appellate court in a resolution

dated 'epte$ber 1!, 1233, &hich reads:

After careful consideration of the $otion for reconsideration anddefendants-appellees9 opposition thereto, &e find no cogent

reason to 8ustify the reversal of ur +ecision dated July 1=,

1233, hence, the $otion is +474+.

Fi*e&ise +474+, is the alternative prayer to $odify the

afore$entioned +ecision %to the etent that the recognition of

the authenticity of +ecree 7o. >1!" and T#T 7o. =//@1 shall

not affect and pre8udice the parcels of land already possessed

and o&ned by bonafideoccupants &ho have already acquired

indefeasible titles thereto,% for to grant said alternative prayer

&ould be to run roughshod over ur decision averred to. (p.

30,(ollo)

This petition before 5s &as filed on ctober 1!, 1233 &ith the sa$e prayer for the

declaration of nullity of +ecreto 7o. >1!" and T#T 7o. =//@@ as in the co$plaint

before the egional Trial #ourt and in the appeal before the #ourt of Appeals. The

prayer for an alternative 8udg$ent first brought to the #ourt of Appeals in the

$otion for reconsideration of its decision &as also reiterated, thus:

n the alternative, 8udg$ent be rendered on equitable grounds,

$odifying the aforesaid +ecision dated July 1=, 1233 of the

respondent #ourt of Appeals, that the recognition of the

authenticity of +ecree 7o. >1!" and T#T 7o. =//@@ shall be

11


12/55

valid only to the etent of the area of land in question not

possessed and o&ned by bonafide occupants &ith indefeasible

registered titles of o&nership or &ith the length of possession

&hich has ripened to title of o&nership thereto. (p. "!,(ollo)

n May 12, 1232, private respondent nterport esources #orporation filed a

$anifestation that on May 1", 1232, it entered into an Agree$ent &ith thePresidential #o$$ission on 5rban Poor (P#5P) for the disposition of five hundred

("00) hectares of the property involved in this case for the use of deserving urban

poor and to help the govern$ent in its ob8ective of alleviating the squatter proble$

in Metro Manila area. n the sa$e $anifestation, it also stated that nterport

esources had agreed to accept the alternative prayer of petitioner (pp. /01-

/0!,(ollo). #ounsel for private respondents Jose and 4$iliana o8as filed a 8oint

#o$$ent (p. /=!,(ollo) $anifesting no ob8ection to the granting of petitioner9s

alternative prayer. The illegiti$ate heirs of private respondent Alfredo Cuido, 'r.,

represented by Atty. Cilbert M. abella 1filed a separate co$$ent in &hich they$anifested that there is no legal basis for the recognition of any alleged right of

those occupants &ho &ere able to secure titles over portions of the ?acienda de

Angono (pp. "@1-"@!,(ollo). The other set of heirs of private respondent Alfredo

Cuido, 'r. conceded in their co$$ent, to a portion of petitioners9 alternative prayer,that is, only insofar as it &ould benefit those occupants in the property &ho obtained

certificates of titles to specific portions thereof (p. !=3,(ollo).

n their 8oint $e$orandu$ (pp. >=!->/",(ollo), all of the private respondents

sub$itted that they had unani$ously agreed to accept the alternative prayer of the

petitioner, thus:

'ince +ece$ber !, 1220 up to this sub$ission favorable

develop$ents have occurred in the relationship bet&een the

group deno$inated as the legiti$ate heirs of Alfredo Cuido, 'r.

represented herein by the Faurel Fa& ffices and the other

group of heirs represented herein by 4ecutri #lara$inda

Ansel$o Cuido and #lara$inda Cuido represented herein byAtty. Cilbert M. abella. 2These develop$ents have pro$ptedthe latter group to &ithdra& as they hereby &ithdra& using this

Joint $e$orandu$ signed by their counsel Atty. Cilbert M.

abella as the venue, their opposition to the Alternative Prayer.

ith the signature of their counsel, they no& $anifest before

this ?onorable 'upre$e #ourt their adherence to the position of

all the other private respondents, i.e., accepting the Alternative

Prayer of the petition, adopting nterport9s Manifestation and

Motion under date of May 1>, 1232 and praying li*e&ise that

8udg$ent be rendered based on said Alternative Prayer.

n this petition, the petitioner alleged that respondent appellate court co$$itted

serious errors and co$$itted grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision

$ore specifically:

a) in concluding and ruling that petitioner P %failed to satisfy

the require$ents of preponderant proof in support of its theory%

&hen, on the contrary, it has satisfactorily adduced $ore thansufficient evidentiary and conclusive proof, de$onstrating

convincingly that both docu$ents in question, purporting,

respectively, to be a +ecreto 7o. >1!" and Transfer #ertificate

of Title 7o. =//@@, covering a vast area of land, so called

%?acienda Angono,% located in Binangonan, i6al, are fa*e and

spurious< and

b) in denying and riding %roughshod% over the alternative prayer

in the Motion for econsideration (Anne %%) to $odify the

$ain #A +ecision (Anne %A%), despite the 8ustifiably legal and

equitable grounds for respondent #ourt of Appeals to grant the

sa$e, since there is evidentiary basis pointing to the alar$ing

situation &ith disastrous consequences, if and &hen the #A+ecision (Anne %A%) &ould be arbitrarily and fully

i$ple$ented, by &ay of cadastral chaos, $ultiplicity of suits

and loss of public faith in the Torrens 'yste$ as &ell as the

ensuing grandscale dispossession and social displace$ent of

several hundreds of bonafideoccupants and their fa$ilies &ho

had already secured indefeasible registered titles to portions of

the so-called ?acienda Angono.

t is the contention of petitioner that respondent #ourt of Appeals co$$itted serious

errors in the assess$ent of the evidence on record and acted &ith grave abuse of

discretion in concluding that the epublic failed to satisfy the require$ents of

preponderant proof in support of its theory.

n civil cases, the party having the burden of proof $ust establish his case by a

preponderance of evidence. 'tated differently, the general rule in civil cases is that a

party having the burden of proof of an essential fact $ust produce a preponderance

of evidence thereon ( Moore on acts, !, cited in Dicente J. rancisco, The evised

ules of #ourt in the Philippines, Dol. D, Part , p. "!=, 12@/ 4dition). By

preponderance of evidence is $eant si$ply evidence &hich is of greater &eight, or

$ore convincing than that &hich is offered in opposition to it (/= #.J.'., 10"1). The

ter$ %preponderance of evidence% $eans the &eight, credit and value of the

aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synony$ous &ith

the ter$s %greater &eight of evidence% or %greater &eight of the credible evidence.%

12


13/55

Preponderance of the evidence is a phrase &hich, in the last analysis, $eans

probability of the truth. Preponderance of the evidence $eans evidence &hich is

$ore convincing to the court as &orthy of belief than that &hich is offered in

opposition thereto. . . . . (=0 A$. Jur., 1100-1101)

The $atter of deter$ining &hich party had the preponderant evidence is &ithin the

province of the trial court before &ho$ the evidence of both parties are presented.The decision of &ho to believe and &ho not to believe goes to the credibility of a

&itness &hich, li*e&ise, is &ithin the province of the trial court.

All the facts and circu$stances of the case $ust properly be considered in

deter$ining the &eight of evidence (=0 A$. Jur., 10=@). n &eighing the evidence of

&itnesses, the trial court ta*es into consideration all the surrounding facts and

circu$stances of the case on trial including the $eans of *no&ledge of the

&itnesses, their true intentions, their see$ing honesty or lac* of it, their respective

opportunities for seeing and *no&ing the things about &hich they testify, their

conduct upon the &itness stand, their $anner of testifying, etc.

e have carefully gone through the records of this case and there is no reason forthis #ourt to reverse the decisions of both the court a )uo and the appellate court.

Both courts &ere one in concluding that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of

the theory presented by the private respondents, i.e., the authenticity of the

questioned docu$ents.

Petitioner9s pri$ary &itness &as rancisco #ru6, Jr., a docu$ent ea$iner of the P#

#ri$e Faboratory. The trial court su$$ari6ed his testi$ony as follo&s:

. . . . ?e found that as to Transfer #ertificate of Title 7o. =//@@,

the signature above the printed &ords egister of +eeds reveal

funda$ental divergencies in that the questioned signature &as

&ritten on a slo& and dra&n $anner, and no gradation of the in*

lines of the up and do&n stro*e &hereas the standard signaturesare eecuted &ith s$ooth and fluent $anner, habitual speed,

fir$ness of the stro*es, and sho& gradation of the in* lines< the

questioned and standard signatures have different slants,

different initial and different stro*es. As to the printing in the

questioned and standards T#Ts, they have different printing

characteristics, defects, spacing si6e and length. egarding the

red seal on the T#T, the questioned seal is dar* red in color,

&hile the standards are bright red and on eposure to ultra-violet

la$p the questioned seal has no fluorescence reaction &hile the

standards give red reactions. As to the paper the surface of the

questioned T#T has a deep bro&n discoloration and did not

penetrate in&ard indicative of artificial aging.

egarding +ecree 7o. >1!", rancisco #ru6, Jr. testified that as

to the signature and in* used are still intensely dar* &ithout the

indication of fading of color or oidation and appear fresh &hile

the in* used in the standards are faded or discolored due tooidation, the signatures in the questioned and standard decrees

have different shading, divergent stro*es and penlifts. n the dry

seal, the borderline reeds of the questioned seal are sharp &hile

in the standards they are full, there are @@ surrounding beads in

the questioned seal &hile there are 2@ in the standards, the

distances bet&een letters are different in the questioned and

standard docu$ents indicating they &ere not i$pressed by one

and the sa$e $achine. As to the rubber sta$p na$e, AFP? 4.

McP4, the color of the in* in the questioned signature is

reddish &hile in the standards they are blue< they have different

characteristics indicating they &ere not fro$ one and the sa$e

$achine. ith respect to the rubber sta$p eceived, the in*

used in the questioned docu$ent is pin*-red &hile the standardsfaded violet, the rubber sta$p have different characteristics, si6e

and spacing of letters< the paper used in the questioned decree

has no &ater $ar*. (pp., 1"1-1"=,(ollo).

The testi$ony of rancisco #ru6 &as corroborated by the report dated +ece$ber 1",

1230 of 'egundo A. Tabayoyong, 7B #hief +ocu$ent 4a$iner and #hief,

uestioned +ocu$ents 'tation. ?o&ever, Tabayoyong &as not presented in court.

The private respondents, on the other hand, presented Atty. +esiderio Pagui, for$er

#hief, uestioned +ocu$ents 'ection of the 7B. n 12@", even before the

co$plaint for declaration of nullity of +ecreta >1!" and T#T. 7o. =//@@ &as filed

in court, he &as requested by the Fand egistration #o$$ission to ea$ine and

verify the authenticity of +ecree 7o. >1!". The court a )uosu$$ari6ed histesti$ony as follo&s:

. . . ?e declared that the 7B received a request for ea$ination

of +ecree >1!" fro$ the Fand egistration #o$$ission &hich

&as for&arded to hi$ and after his ea$ination and

investigation, he $ade a report, uestioned +ocu$ent eport

7o. !@>->@" dated August ==, 12@" approved by 4rnesto C.

Brion, #hief #ri$inalistics +ivision and noted by Foren6o

Brion, +eputy +irector for Technical 'ervices, 7B. ?e found

that there are significant si$ilarities in hand&riting

13


14/55

characteristics eisting bet&een the questioned and standard

signatures AFP? 4. McP4 in the decree such as proportion of

the base and height align$ent, $ade in fact and unconscious

$ove$ent< lateral spacing< consistent peculiar sight up&ard

tendency of the signature< gradation of pen pressure, presence of

pen e$phasis and tapering of lines< individual highly developed

letter designs< line quality< natural variation, i-dots, periods anddash< and location of crossings of stro*es and that there are no

significant dissi$ilarities in &riting characteristics. There are

si$ilarities in type face design eisting bet&een the type&ritings

appearing in the questioned and standard docu$ents indicating

that the decrees &ere typed fro$ the sa$e brand or *ind of

type&riter. urther, he testified the +ecree >1!" sho&s natural

bro&nish coloration (unartificially) indicative of aged docu$ent

si$ilar &ith the decrees eecuted in 1210, 1211 an 121= on file

in the vault section, F#, the figure in &riting in %'ta$p

eceipt% in +ecree >1!" sho&s general characteristics &ith

those figures in &riting on 'ta$p eceipt in decrees eecuted in

1210, 1211 and 121=< the dry seal disclose si$ilarities in general

characteristics and the sta$ped signature in questioned decree

and the standard decrees have identical si$ilarities. As a

consequence of all these findings, he concluded that +ecree 7o.

>1!" is genuine. ?e also testified on the authenticity of the

o&ner9s duplicate of T#T =//@@, as follo&s: ?e testified further

that he li*e&ise ea$ined Transfer #ertificate of Title 7o.

=//@@ and after a co$parative ea$ination bet&een T#T 7o.

=//@@ and various ee$plars he found that there are significant

si$ilarities in hand&riting characteristics bet&een the

questioned and ee$plar signatures above the printed &ords

%egister of +eeds% indicating that the signatures &ere &ritten

by one and the sa$e person. There are significant si$ilarities in

type printing i$pressions bet&een the questioned typed printed

&ord and the corresponding ee$plars indicating that the

printed &ords in the questioned T#T and different ee$plars&ere i$pressed fro$ the sa$e printing $achine. As to the dry

seal i$pressions, there are significant si$ilarities bet&een the

questioned and ee$plar dry seal i$pressions, although the

questioned dry seal appears dar*er &hile the ee$plars are

lighter in color as variance in color is affected by different

conditions of storage. Fi*e&ise, the variance in color of the

docu$ents could be attributed to the different conditions &hen

the docu$ents &ere *ept in file. All these findings of the &itness

&ere li*e&ise eplained by &ay of various charts and photo-

enlarge$ents pp. 1"=-1"/,(ollo)

e are confronted here &ith varying testi$onies of t&o epert &itnesses. ?o&ever,

e agree &ith the court a )uoand respondent appellate court in giving $ore &eight

to the testi$ony of Atty. +esiderio Pagui than to that of Mr. rancisco A. #ru6. Their

respective educational and &or* bac*ground spea* of the differing levels of their

qualifications and co$petence to testify as epert &itnesses. rancisco #ru6, a

+ocu$ent 4a$iner of the P# #ri$e Faboratory, is a B'BA graduate &ho had

ea$ined not less than 10,000 docu$ents. Atty. Pagui, on the other hand, is thefor$er #hief of the uestioned +ocu$ent 'ection of the 7B, an FFB and B. '.

#ri$inology graduate, and had ea$ined about "0,000 questioned docu$ents. The

court a )uoobserved, and e note this fact, that Atty. Pagui testified in a straight-

for&ard $anner &hile Mr. #ru6 &avered in ans&ering so$e pertinent questions. e

also note fro$ the transcript of stenographic notes that Pagui9s ans&ers to so$e

technical questions reveal his authority as a docu$ent and hand&riting &itness,

&hich cannot be said of rancisco #ru6.

Atty. Pagui &as first to render a report on these questioned docu$ents. n August

==, 12@", upon the request of the Fand egistration #o$$ission, he, then #hief of

the 7B, uestioned +ocu$ents 'ection, conducted his investigation and sub$itted

his report finding these docu$ents authentic. At the ti$e he $ade the investigation,

he &as i$partial and not conscious of any i$pending ease before the court. our (!)years later, in 12@2, another request for investigation, this t i$e fro$ the ffice of

the 'olicitor Ceneral, &as received by the 7B. ?e &as disappointed and disgusted

by the reaction of then 7B +irector &ho pretended not to have *no&n about the

eisting 7B report on +ecreto >1!". This, according to Pagui &as one of the

reasons for his early retire$ent fro$ the 7B (T'7, March =@, 123!, pp. /2-!"). n

+ece$ber 1", 1230, the 7B rendered another report (4hibit %M%) finding +ecreto

7o. >1!" not genuine, signed by 'egundo Tabayoyong, &ho &as appointed 7B

#hief +ocu$ent 4a$iner and #hief of the uestioned +ocu$ents 'ection after the

retire$ent of Atty. Pagui. t is note&orthy that, Mr. Tabayoyong &as one of those

&ho confor$ed &ith the previous report of the 7B sub$itted by Atty. Pagui in

12@" as clai$ed by the latter and &hich &as not contradicted by the petitioner.

The petitioner also alleged that +ecree 7o. >1!", solitary in its hidden isolation anddetached fro$ the e*pedienteof the land registration case, surfaced >! years later

under $ysterious and bi6arre circu$stances.

The circu$stances surrounding the appearance of +ecree >1!" &as far fro$

$ysterious. acquel Marfori, a &itness for the petitioner, &ho &as then #hief of the

rdinary +ecree 'ection of the +ivision of riginal egistration, Fand egistration

#o$$ission testified that her office function is to receive copies of decrees, certified

copies of titles fro$ the egisters of +eeds, papers and docu$ents fro$ the #ourts,

the Bureau of Fands and other agencies and *eeps circulars and $e$oranda issued

by the office and fro$ the +epart$ent of Justice. 'he further testified that on

14


15/55

'epte$ber !, 12"!, then F# #o$$issioner Antonio 7oble8as issued #ircular 7o.

!, instructing all egisters of +eeds to for&ard all copies of decrees in their

possession for custody to the F# to co$plete the records of the #o$$ission. As

appearing in the record boo* of inventory in the F#, a$ong the decrees for&arded

to their office is +ecree >1!" (T'7, ctober =>, 123=, pp. "!-""). 'he li*e&ise

categorically stated that in the course of investigation of this case, a copy of +ecree

>1!" &as found in the vault section of the #o$$ission (Ibid, p. >>).

Petitioner9s &itness Mr. Jose #ru6, testified that the alleged CF nu$ber stated on

the decreto pertains to a t ract of land o&ned by Dictorio Banaag and not

Buenaventura Cuido< that said property &as located in Bulacan and not in i6al and

that T#T 7o. ="3=2 &as issued in that case and not #T >// as alleged by the

private respondents. ?o&ever, on cross-ea$ination, he said that T#T 7o. =>3=2 of

Banaag did not contain any decree nu$ber nor CF nu$ber. ?e also ad$itted that

indeed +ecree 7o. >1!" &as issued on 'epte$ber 1, 1211 in CF ecord 7o. =/"0.

n your report Mr. #ru6 appearing on page

= thereof, a$ quoting a portion of your

report appearing on page = thereof, second

paragraph: %Alfredo Cuido one of the heirsof ?er$ogenes Cuido, petitioned for the

reconstitution of the original Transfer

#ertificate of Title 7o. =//@@ of the egister

of +eeds of i6al and issuance of ne&

original Transfer #ertificate of Title, etc.,

etc.% and further$ore, this is the portion that

a$ going to as* you of: %but upon

verification it appears that the original of

said Transfer #ertificate of Title 7o. =//@@

bearing Boo* T-2!, page 1@@ could not be

located in the files of the egister of +eeds

of i6al.% +o you re$e$ber having stated

that in your report &hich a$ sho&ing toyou

A Ges sir, cannot find the original Transfer

#ertificate of Title on file &ith the egister

of +eeds of Pasig.

'o, this state$ent of Mr. Cuido in his

petition for reconstitution is correct

A Ges sir.

And also on the sa$e page under the

heading findings, you stated and quote: %n

the rdinary +ecree Boo* that #ourt of

Fand egistration ecord 7o. =/"0 &as

approved on August =>, 12@@ and issued

+ecree 7o. >1!" on 'epte$ber 1, 1211 for a

parcel of land located in the province ofi6al, but the na$e of o&ner, area and the

$unicipality it is located &as not

$entioned.% And you further stated and

quote: %t sho&s that #F ecord 7o. =/"0

&as really issued +ecree 7o. >1!" on

'epte$ber 1, 1211.% +o you affir$ those

state$ents you $ade

A Ges sir.

n other &ords, there &as really such a

decree issued on 'epte$ber 1, 1211

A Ges sir.

n fact Mr. #ru6, in one of your annees

to 4hibit %#% &hich is your report and

&hich has been $ar*ed in this proceedings

as 4hibit %#-@%, it &ould appear that there

is such a ecord =/"0, correct

A Ges sir.

n the Province of i6al

A Ges sir.

And there &as a decree issued on August

=>, 120> as appearing in the colu$n date

o*ay for decree, is that correct

A Ges sir.

15


16/55

Moreover, it states in the last colu$n that

the decree &as issued on 'epte$ber 1,

1211

A Ges sir.

Bearing the +ecree 7o. >1!"

A Ges sir.

And it is equally true Mr. #ru6 that

+ecree >1!" fro$ your investigation &as

a$ong those old docu$ents and decrees

found in the Dault 'ection of the Fand

egistration #o$$ission, is that correct

A That appears to be in the vault 'ection

because Justice Hapunan &as the one &ho

gave $e that decree.

And Justice *apunan suppose told you

that it ca$e fro$ the Dault 'ection of the

Fand egistration #o$$ission that is &hy

in your report, the one in the Dault 'ection

&here salvage and issued +ecrees are *ept

sho&s that +ecree 7o. >1!" &as found in

their files, is that correct

A Ges sir. (T'7, pp. 13-==, ?earing of June

2, 123=)

The testi$onies of the $unicipal treasurers and ta assessors that none of the private

respondents registered in their na$es big tracts of land nor paid any property ta

corresponding to large tracts of land &as sufficiently eplained by private

respondents. riginally, the property sub8ect of this case &as &holly o&ned by the

heirs, herein private respondents Cuidos, pro-indiviso. The title to this land &as

never registered in their individual na$es. +ecree 7o. >1!" &as issued in the na$e

of %?erederos de Buenaventura Cuido y 'ta. Ana (rancisco and ?er$ogenes

Cuido)% &hile T#T 7o. =//@@ &as registered in the na$e of his t&o sons, rancisco

and ?er$ogenes Cuido. The declaration of property dated 12!1 (4hibit 3) and the

property taes (4hibits 11, 11-A to 11-) for defendants &ere all in the na$e of

+on Buenaventura Cuido y 'ta. Ana. n fact, even after the reconstitution of T#T

7o. =//@@ on March =2, 12@> and its subsequent subdivision into =1 different titles,

these parcels &ere still registered in the na$e of the heirs of rancisco and

?er$ogenes, Cuido ('ee T#T 7os. M-00@32, M-003!> to M-003>>).

Alfredo Cuido, 'r., during his lifeti$e, testified that the o&ner9s duplicate copy of

T#T 7o. =//@@ (4hibits %"% and %"-A% for defendants) &as given to hi$ by

Joaquin Cuido &ho is the son of Justo Cuido, the latter appearing to be a brother of+on Buenaventura Cuido. Thus,

q ill you eplain to us ho& 4hibits " and

"-A ca$e into your possession

a t &as given to $e by Joaguin Cuido, $y

uncle.

q ill you relay to this ?on. #ourt under

&hat circu$stances this docu$ent &as

given to you by your uncle

a sued Joaquin Cuido and his brother

because they &anted to get the possession

and ad$inistration of ?acienda de Angono,

sir.

q here did you file the case

a n Pasig, sir.

q ho is Joaquin Cuido

a ?e is the son of Justo Cuido, sir.

q hat happened to the case you file

a 7othing happened, they 8ust *ept silent.

hen Joaquin Cuido testified in #ourt he

said he cannot deny that &e are his nephe&s

and even pointed and identified us in #ourt

giving their na$es. Joaquin Cuido even

testified that he is already old and he does

not &ant his conscience to bother hi$.

16


17/55

q ill you relay to us under &hat

circu$stances your uncle Joaquin Cuido

gave you these docu$ents

a Joaquin Cuido &ent to our house in

#ardona, one 'unday and he said, Alfredo

have docu$ents here regarding that land and &ill give it to you but help $e because

a$ sic* and &ant to be treated. said, do

not have $uch $oney but if you li*e, &ig

bring you to the office of Jose oas, you

bring all those docu$ents in your

possession.

q as that proposal of yours to go to the

office of Mr. oas $ateriali6ed

a Ges, sir, &e proceeded to #inera$a.

q hat transpired &hile you &ere at the

office of Mr. oas at #inera$a

a Mr. oas chec*ed the docu$ents and he

said to Joaquin Cuido, &ill give you the

help you &ere as*ing.

ATTG. M47+IA

The original of these docu$ents is no& in

the possession of the F#, &ill reserve $y

ea$ination of the &itness on that point,

your ?onor.

q hat happened &hen Mr. oas chec*ed

the docu$ents

a ?e as*ed Mr. Joaquin Cuido to return.

q +id he return thereafter

a Ges, 'ir, after three days, $ore or less.

q hat happened &hen he returned to the

office of Mr. oas

a ?e &as given the a$ount of P/0,000.00,

sir.

q hat happened after the $oney &as given

to Joaquin Cuido

a ?e left, sir.

q s that pay$ent to Mr. Joaquin Cuido

evidenced by any docu$ent

a A chec*, sir.

q e request that this chec* 7o. 1>!"2 ?

of the epublic Ban*, 4scolta dated March=2, 12@> for P/0,000.00 . . . (pp. //-!0,

T'7, August ==, 123/).

The petitioner suspects that the circu$stances attending issuance of the reconstituted

T#T =//@@ &as not regular. alleged that the petition for reconstitution &as filed and

proved on the sa$e day and the reconstituted title issued on the sa$e day. hen

presented on the stand, Atty. Priscilla M. Tech, then egister of +eeds of i6al

(Morong Branch), &ho issued the reconstituted title clarified that the reconstituted

title &as not issued on the sa$e day the petition &as filed. The reconstituted title

&as actually issued days after the petition for reconstitution &as filed although the

reconstituted title sho&ed that it &as released on the sa$e day the petition &as filed

in accordance &ith 'ection "> 3of Act !2>. Be that as it $ay, the fact alone that thepetition for reconstitution &as approved on the sa$e day that it &as filed did not

render the approval suspect. n ad$inistrative reconstitution of a certificate of title

supported by the o&ner9s duplicate copy of the title, no other requisite &as required

under 'ection > of epublic Act => unli*e in 8udicial reconstitution under 'ection 1=

of the sa$e la&. The egister of +eeds correctly granted the reconstitution on the

basis of private respondents o&ners9 duplicate copy of T#T 7o. =//@@.

n civil cases, it is a &ell settled rule that the appellate &ill not reverse a finding of

fact by the trial court $ade conflicting testi$ony and depending largely upon the

cridibility of &itnesses &ho testified in the presence of the court, the court failed to

ta*e into consideration so$e $aterial circu$stance or to &eigh accurately all of the

$aterial facts circu$stances presented to it for consideration (Balta6ar, et al. v.

17


18/55

Alberto, // Phil. //>< 'ee also Carcia v. Carcia de Bartolo$e, >/ Phil. !="< Melli6a

v. To&le, /! Phil. /!@< #aragay v. 5rqui6a, "/ Phil. @2< Jai-alai #orp. of the

Philippines v. #hing Hiat Bie*, et al., C.. F-@2>2, March /0,12>0< Tui Bon ?ui v.

epublic, F-3/@0, 7ove$ber 12,12">< 7eyra v. 7eyra, @> Phil. =23). n the instant

case, e do not see any reason for the application of the eception to the 8ust cited

rule. Moreover, questions of authenticity being one of fact, this #ourt &ill not

disturb the conclusions of the #ourt of Appeals (4gao v. #A, C.. 7o. @2@3@, June=2, 1232, 1@! '#A !3!.), especially &hen said appellate court $erely ai$ed the

findings of the court a quo &hich conducted the trial, had the opportunity to observe

the de$eanor of the principal &itnesses (the hand&riting and docu$ent eperts),

assessed their ability to ans&er technical questions calling for the application of their

special education and training.

7o less than this #ourt in the case of Guido, et al., v. de +ora, et al., C.. 7o. !01/,

ebruary !,1202,1= Phil. @13 declared the eistence of ?acienda de Angono and

recogni6ed the o&nership thereof by the %Cuidos% &hen it affir$ed the decision of

the then #ourt of irst nstance of the Province of i6al, that:

1. That the o&nership and possession of the hacienda of

Angono, as it appears described in the decision of said court, inaccordance &ith the a$ended co$plaint, pertains to Justo

Cuido, Juliana Cuido, Buenaventura Cuido and other

participants &ith the$ in said hacienda< by virtue thereof the

court belo& ordered the defendants to restore said possession to

the plaintiffs.

The 'olicitor Ceneral also faulted respondent appellate court fro$ denying their

alternative prayer see*ing the $odification of its decision by rendering 8udg$ent

declaring +ecreta >1!" and T#T =//@@ valid and genuine ecept &ith respect to

such portions of the property &hich &ere either: 1) possessed and o&ned by bona

fideoccupants &ho had already acquired indefeasible titles thereto< or =) possessed

by bona fideoccupants for such length of ti$e as to a$ount to o&nership &ithout

having obtained certificates of titles thereto.

Anent the alternative prayer of the petitioner, e find no legal basis for the

declaration of the questioned docu$ents as valid only &ith respect to such portions

of the property not possessed and o&ned by bonafideoccupants &ith indefeasible

registered titles of o&nership or &ith lengths of possession &hich had ripened to

o&nership. ?aving been found valid genuine, +ecreta 7o. >1!" therefore, possessed

all the attributes of a decree of registration. 'ection /1 of the Prope egistration

+ecree (P.+. 1"=2), second paragraph provides:

The decree of registration shall bind the land and quiet title

thereto, sub8ect only to such eceptions or l iens as $ay be

provided by la&. t shall be conclusive upon and against all

persons, including the 7ational Covern$ent and all branches

thereof, &hether $ention by na$e in the application or notice,

the sa$e being included in the general description %To all &ho$

it $ay concern%.

Fi*e&ise, T#T 7o. =//@@, having been found true and authentic also possessed all

the attributes of a torrens certificate of title. By epress provision of 'ection !@ of

P.+. 1"=2, no to registered land in derogation to that of the registered o&ner shall be

acquired by prescription or adverse possession. declare that the decree and its

derivative titles is valid but only &ith respect to the etent of the area described in

the decree possessed by occupants &ith indefeasible registered titles or possessors

&ith such lengths of possession &hich had ripened o&nership is to under$ine the

people9s faith in the torrens being conclusive as to all $atters contained therein. The

certificate serves as evidence of an indefeasible ti tle to the proper favor of the person

&hose na$es appear therein. After epiration of the one year period fro$ the

issuance of the decree of registration upon &hich it is based, it beco$es

incontrovertible (see case of Pa$intuan v. 'an Agustin, !/ Phil, ""3< eyes and7adres v. Borbon and +irector of Fands, "0 Phil. @21, Juco v. rancisco, .C. p.

=13>, April 1",12"@, Bri6uela v. Dargas, "/ .C. =3==, May 1",12"@), unless

subsequent to issuance of the decree a third party $ay be able to sho& that acquired

title thereto by any of the $eans recogni6ed by la&.

t should be noted ho&ever, that prior to the reconstruction of T#T 7o. =//@@ on

March =2, 12@>, Lthere &as; no record in ffice of the egister of +eeds of i6al

sho& of the eistence any registered titl e covering the land area sub8ect of this case.

The #ourt ta*es 8udicial notice of the fact that prior to said certain portions of the

area &ere in the possession of occupants &ho successfully obtained certificates of

titles over the are occupied by the$. There &ere also occupants &ho had obtained

certificates of titles over the area possessed by the but the lengths of their possession

&ere long enough to a$ount to o&nership, had the land been in fact unregistered.This fact is ad$itted by the parties.

Although prescription is unavailing against private respondents because they are

holders of a valid certificate of title, the equitable presu$ption of laches $ay be

applied against the for failure to assert their o&nership for such an unreasonable

length of ti$e (only in 12@>) against subsequent occupants. The records sho&ed that

it &as only in 12@! &hen they tried obtain an original certificate of title. hen

rebuffed by the F# they applied for a reconstitution of a T#T only in 12@>.

18


19/55

n the recent case of-ola v. CA, C.. 7o. F-!>"@/, 7ov. 1/, 123>, 1!" '#A !/2,

citing the cases ofPabalete v. charri, /r., C.. 7o. F-=!/"@, /@ '#A "13, "=1,

"== quoting0eia de -ucas v. Gamponia, 100 Phil. =@@, it &as held that %although

the defense of prescription is unavailing to the petitioners (Pablo and Mai$a Fola)

because, ad$ittedly, the title to Fot 7o. ""1@ is still registered in the na$e of the

respondent (dolores Iabala), still the petitioners have acquired title to it by virtue of

the equitable principle of laches due to the respondent9s failure to assert her clai$o&nership for thirty t&o (/=) years.%

Moreover, conscious of the resulting %large scale dispossession and social

displace$ent of several hundreds ofbona fideoccupants and their fa$ilies% &hich

the 'olicitor Ceneral pointed out, the private respondent agreed unani$ously to

accept the alternative prayer of the petitioner in their 8oint $e$orandu$ (pp. >=!-

>/>,(ollo). This agree$ent by private respondents ta*es the for$ of a &aiver.

Though a valid and clear right over the property eists in their favors, they

see$ingly have voluntarily abandoned the sa$e in favor of. 1) those &ho possessed

and actually occupied specific portions and obtained torrens certificates of titles, and

=) those &ho possessed certain specific portions for such lengths of ti$e as to

a$ount to full o&nership. The &aiver, not being contrary to la&, $orals, good

custo$s and good policy, is valid and binding on the private respondents.

?o&ever, &ith respect to the second set of possessors, &hose alleged bona

fide occupancy of specific portions of the property is not evidenced by Torrens

Titles, it is i$perative that their clai$sNoccupancy be duly proven in an appropriate

proceeding.

A##+7CFG, the decision of the #ourt of Appeals in #A-C.. 7o. 1=2// is

AM4+ sub8ect to the herein declared superior rights of bona fide occupants

&ith registered titles &ithin the area covered by the questioned decree and bona

fideoccupants therein &ith length of possession &hich had ripened to o&nership, the

latter to be deter$ined in an appropriate proceeding.

' +44+.

19


20/55

G.R. No. 123. Nor 21, 2001H

SUPRE"E TRANSL#NER #NC., FEL#PE S#A a! NO$ENC#OFLORES,petitioners, vs. &ON. COURT OF APPEALS, GLOR#ABRAAL a! ior LOT#S BRAAL, rpr*! 4 r /ar,NOEL BRAAL, respondents.

D E C # S # O N

U#SU"B#NG,J.I

This petition see*s to annul the decision L1;dated 'epte$ber =1, 122", of the

#ourt of Appeals in #A C.. 7o. /2@3!, and its resolution L=;dated June 13, 122>

denying petitionersQ $otion for reconsideration.

Petitioners 'upre$e Transliner nc. and elipe 'ia are the registered o&ners of

a bus driven by co-petitioner 7ovencio lores. n 'epte$ber =!, 1220, the bus

collided &ith a passenger 8eepney carrying private respondents Cloria and Fotis

Bra6al. At the ti$e of the incident, the 8eepney &as o&ned and registered in the

na$e of Marcelino Dillones and driven by eynaldo +ecena.

As a result of the collision, private respondents suffered in8uries. They

instituted #ivil #ase 7o. 'P-//1= for da$ages against petitioners based on )uasi1delictand against Dillones and +ecena for breach of contract. Petitioners, in turn,

filed a third-party co$plaint against #ountry Ban*ers nsurance #o$pany, insurer

of the 'upre$e Transliner bus.

+uring the trial, Cloria Bra6al testified that on 'epte$ber =!, 1220, she and

her daughter Fotis &ere on board the passenger 8eepney &hen the 'upre$e

Transliner bus hit it, causing the$ in8uries that required $edical treat$ent.

+ecena and Dillones testified on their o&n behalf and presented Fu6vi$inda

Malabanan and 'gt. 7icolas M. oas as &itnesses. +ecena recounted that on

'epte$ber =!, 1220, at about =:00 P.M., he &as driving a passenger 8eepney bound

for #andelaria, ue6on. n board, the 8eepney &as about fifteen passengers,

including private respondents Cloria and Fotis Bra6al. 5pon reaching 'a$paloc,

'ariaya, ue6on, a 'upre$e Transliner bus co$ing fro$ the opposite direction,

suddenly appeared on a curved portion of the road and overtoo* another 8eepney,

&hich it &as then follo&ing. Thereafter, the bus collided &ith +ecenaQs 8eepney.

Petitioners presented 7ovencio lores and Moises Alvare6, the Manager of

'upre$e Transliner. Both testified that the passenger 8eepney &as running very fast

&hen the accident occurred. n the third-party co$plaint, petitioners sho&ed that

they already sub$itted the required docu$ents for insurance clai$ and that #ountry

Ban*ers nsurance #o$pany pro$ised to settle the clai$, but did not.

n ctober =3, 122=, the trial court rendered its 8udg$ent, the dispositive

portion of &hich reads:

?444, finding that the plaintiffs Lhave; established by preponderance of

evidence the allegations of the co$plaint, 8udg$ent is hereby rendered:

7 T?4 #MPFA7T:

1. rdering the defendants elipe 'ia, as registered o&ner of the 'upre$e Bus, and

7ovencio lores pri$arily liable for the da$ages of the plaintiffs and directing the$

to 8ointly and severally pay plaintiffs the follo&ing:

a. The a$ount of T47TG D4 T?5'A7+ P4'' (P=",000.00) by &ay of

actual da$ages, =00=, vigorously

argue that: (a) the $a8ority decision unduly deprives petitioners of their property&ithout due process of la& and %in a $anner shoc*ing to good conscience% < (b) in

invalidating the sale of Fot @=@ to the late To$as Alonso, the ponencia unfairly

deviated fro$ established doctrine to favor a $ere obiter dictu$ as $isapplied in

Fiao v. #ourt of Appeals, using as basis factual findings either unsupported by the

evidence or contradicted by the appellate courtQs findings of fact< (c) the core issues

of fraud and &ant of 8urisdiction afflicting the reconstitution of respondent #ebu

#ountry #lubQs title &ere not squarely and frontally $et, to the pre8udice and

da$age of the petitioners< and (d) the dissenting opinion deserves a second hard

loo* as it presents a $ore balanced, sober, factually accurate, and 8uridically precise

approach to the critical issues of this case, including prescription and laches.

n the other hand, respondent #ebu #ountry #lub, nc., in its Motion for

econsideration dated March ", =00=, staunchly assails the decision insofar as it

declared that %Fot @=@-+-= of the Banilad riar Fands 4state legally belongs to the

Covern$ent of the epublic of the Philippines.% espondent argues that the ffice

of the 'olicitor Ceneral ('C), as representative of the Covern$ent, has not

intervened nor has it been i$pleaded in the egional Trial #ourt (T#) nor during

the appeal in the #ourt of Appeals, and, the Torrens #ertificate of Title, T#T 7o.

T-1/10 (T-11/"1) of respondent, covering Fot @=@, Banilad riar Fands 4state,

cannot be collaterally attac*ed and nullified in this case at bar.

e find no $erit in petitionersQ $otion for reconsideration. The $atters raised in the

$otion have already been substantially discussed in the decision.

t $ust be e$phasi6ed that in civil cases, the burden of proof to be established by

preponderance of evidence is on the plaintiff &ho is asserting the affir$ative of an

issue. ?e has the burden of presenting evidence required to obtain a favorable8udg$ent, and he, having the burden of proof, &ill be defeated if no evidence &ere

given on either side. / nas$uch as petitioners pray for the %+eclaration of 7ullity

and 7on-4istence of +eedNTitle, #ancellation of #ertificates of Title and ecovery

of Property% against the respondent, they had the burden to establish their clai$s of

o&nership of the sub8ect property &hich they failed to do in this case.

'ection 13 of Act 7o. 11=0 or the riar Fands Act ! unequivocally provides: %7o

lease or sale $ade by the #hief of the Bureau of Public Fands (no& the +irector of

Fands) under the provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the 'ecretary

of the nterior (no&, the 'ecretary of 7atural esources). Thus, petitionersQ clai$ of

o&nership $ust fail in the absence of positive evidence sho&ing the approval of the

23


24/55

'ecretary of nterior. Approval of the 'ecretary of the nterior cannot si$ply be

presu$ed or inferred fro$ certain acts since the la& is eplicit in its $andate. This

is the settled rule as enunciated in 'olid 'tate Multi-Products #orporation v. #ourt

of Appeals " and reiterated in Fiao v. #ourt of Appeals. > Petitioners have not

offered any cogent reason that &ould 8ustify a deviation fro$ this rule.

#ontrary to petitionersQ protestations, &e squarely resolved the core issues of fraudand &ant of 8urisdiction afflicting the reconstitution of respondentQs title. hile &e

held that the issue of the validity of respondentQs title is factual &hich cannot be

revie&ed on appeal, nevertheless, &e have ans&ered each ground raised by

petitioner in assailing respondentQs title. @ 7eedless to stress, $ere allegations of

fraud are not enough. 3 raud is never presu$ed but $ust be proved by clear and

convincing evidence, 2 $ere preponderance of evidence not even being adequate. 10

As &e have held in 'aguid v. #ourt of Appeals, contentions $ust be proved by

co$petent evidence and reliance $ust be had on the strength of the partyQs o&n

evidence and not upon the &ea*ness of the opponentQs defense. 11 Petitioners failed

to discharge that burden.

Moreover, it cannot be over-accentuated that To$as Alonso, petitionersQ

predecessor-in-interest, never asserted any clai$ of o&nership over the disputed

property during his lifeti$e. hen he &as alive, To$as Alonso did not eert any

effort to have the title of the disputed property reconstituted in his na$e or see*

recovery thereof fro$ the respondent &hich &as in possession since 12/1. 1=

'ignificantly, To$as Alonso had caused the reconstitution of his title on Fot 310,

&hich is ad8acent to the disputed property, so$eti$e in 12!> and yet petitioners

failed to sho& that To$as Alonso eerted the sa$e effort to reconstitute his alleged

title to the sub8ect property. As successors-in-interest, petitioners $erely stepped into

the shoes of To$as Alonso. They cannot clai$ a right greater than that of their

predecessor. 7otably, To$as Alonso and his son rancisco Alonso &ere not ordinary

or unschooled $en. They &ere learned $en of the la&. They belonged to the landed

gentry and, thus, had adequate financial resources at their disposal. To$as Alonso

&as even a $e$ber of #ongress. The length of ti$e that has elapsed, spanning si

decades, before the institution of the suit to recover the property, begs for a valid

eplanation, of &hich none &as convincingly offered. PetitionersQ silentacquiescence for several decades and belated invocation of an alleged right spea*

strongly of the staleness of their clai$. Their clai$s can hardly evo*e 8udicial

co$passion. Digilantibus et non dor$ientibus 8ura subveniunt. %f eternal vigilance

is the price of safety, one cannot sleep on oneQs right for $ore than a tenth of a

century and epect it to be preserved in its pristine purity.% 1/

e li*e&ise find no $erit in respondentQs $otion for reconsideration insofar as the

decision declared that Fot @=@-+-= of the Banilad riar Fands 4state legally belongs

to the Covern$ent of the epublic of the Philippines.

t $ust be borne in $ind that the disputed property is part of the %riar Fands% over

&hich the Covern$ent holds title and are not public lands but private or patri$onial

property of the Covern$ent 1! and can be alienated only upon proper co$pliance

&ith the require$ents of Act 7o. 11=0 or the riar Fands Act.chanrob1es virtual la&

library

'ections 11, 1= and 13 of Act 7o. 11=0 provide:chanrob1es virtual 1a& library

'4#T7 11. 'hould any person &ho is the actual and bona fide settler upon and

occupant of any portion of said lands . . . desire to purchase the land so occupied by

hi$, he shall be entitled to do so at the actual cost thereof to the Covern$ent, and

shall be allo&ed ten years fro$ the date of purchase &ithin &hich to pay for the

sa$e in equal annual install$ents, if he so desires, all deferred pay$ents to bear

interest at the rate of four per centu$ per annu$ on all deferred pay$ents.

* * *

'4#T7 1=. . . . hen the cost thereof shall have been thus ascertained the #hief

of the Bureau of Public Fands shall give the said settler and occupant a certificate

&hich shall set forth in detail that the Covern$ent has agreed to sell to such settler

and occupant the a$ount of land so held by hi$, at the pri6e so fied, payable as

provided in this Act . . . and that upon the pay$ent of the final install$ent together

&ith all accrued interest the Covern$ent &ill convey to such settler and occupant

the said land so held by hi$ by proper instru$ent of conveyance, &hich shall be

issued and beco$e effective in the $anner provided in section one hundred and

t&enty-t&o of the Fand egistration Act. . . .

'4#T7 13. 7o lease or sale $ade by the #hief of the Bureau of Public Fands

under the provisions of this Act shall be valid until approved by the 'ecretary of the

nterior.

t &as thus pri$ordial for the respondent to prove its acquisition of its title by clear

and convincing evidence in vie& of the nature of the land. n fact, it is essential for

both respondent and petitioners to establish that it had beco$e private property.Both parties failed to do so. As &e have held earlier, petitioners have not succeeded

to prove their clai$ of o&nership over the sub8ect property.

n the part of respondent, it failed to shed light on ho& its predecessor in interest,

5nited 'ervices #ountry #lub, nc., acquired its title. 'urprisingly, there is not even

one evidence to sho& &hen and ho& its predecessor in interest, 5nited 'ervices

#ountry #lub, nc., acquired the property fro$ anybody. t $ay be true that records

&ere destroyed during the &ar, but respondent has not offered any clear evidence,

testi$onial or docu$entary, on the circu$stances surrounding the acquisition of Fot

@=@, thereby creating a &ide chas$ in its clai$ of o&nership. t only serves to

24


25/55

underscore the paucity of the proof of respondent to support its clai$ of o&nership

over the disputed property.

espondent relies solely on its reconstituted title &hich, by itself, does not deter$ine

or resolve the o&nership of the land covered by the lost or destroyed title. The

reconstitution of a title is si$ply the re-issuance of a lost duplicate certificate of title

in its original for$ and condition. t does not deter$ine or resolve the o&nership ofthe land covered by the lost or destroyed title. A reconstituted title, li*e the original

certificate of title, by itself does not vest o&nership of the land or estate covered

thereby. 1"

7either $ay the re&ards of prescription be successfully invo*ed by respondent, as it

is an iron-clad dictu$ that prescription can never lie against the Covern$ent. 'ince

respondent failed to present the paper trail of the propertyQs conversion to private

property, the lengthy possession and occupation of the disputed land by respondent

cannot be counted in its favor, as the sub8ect property being a friar land, re$ained

part of the patri$onial property of the Covern$ent. Possession of patri$onial

property of the Covern$ent, &hether spanning decades or centuries, can not ipso

facto ripen into o&nership. Moreover, the rule that statutes of li$itation do not run

against the 'tate, unless therein epressly provided, is founded on %the great

principle of public policy, applicable to all govern$ents ali*e, &hich forbids that the

public interests should be pre8udiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to

&hose care they are confided.% 1>

urther$ore, the declarations in the #ourtQs 8udg$ent that the sub8ect property

belongs to the Covern$ent is not an offshoot of a collateral attac* on respondentQs

title. The validity of the reconstitution of title to the land in question &as directly in

dispute, and the proceedings before the trial court &as in the nature of a direct attac*

on the legality of respondentQs title.

inally, our declaration that Fot @=@-+-= of the Banilad riar Fands 4state legally

belongs to the Covern$ent does not a$ount to reversion &ithout due process of la&

insofar as both parties are concerned. The disputed property is a riar Fand and both

parties failed to sho& that it had ceased to belong to the patri$onial property of the'tate or that it had beco$e private property.

7 D4 T?44, &e +47G &ith finality the separate $otions for

reconsideration of the petitioners and(espondent.

' +44+.

25


26/55

A.C. No. %03 A)6)* 31, 200%

RUDECON "ANAGE"ENT CORPORAT#ON a! ATTY. RUDEGEL#O D.TACORDA,co$plainants,vs.

ATTY. "ANUEL N. CA"AC&O,respondent.

4 ' F 5 T 7

AUSTR#A'"ART#NE,J.I

n 7ove$ber =/, =000, udecon Manage$ent #orporation and Atty. udegelio +.

Tacorda filed &ith the ntegrated Bar of the Philippines (BP) a verified co$plaint

for disbar$ent or suspension fro$ the practice of la& against Atty. Manuel 7.

#a$acho for *no&ingly co$$itting foru$-shopping, in violation of 'upre$e #ourt

Ad$inistrative #ircular 7o. 0!-2! in relation to the provisions of 'ection ", ule @,

122@ ules of #ivil Procedure and the #anons of the #ode of Professional

esponsibility.

The factual antecedents leading to the instant co$plaint are as follo&s:

n 'epte$ber /, 1223, 'isenando 'ingson, represented by herein respondent Atty.

Manuel 7. #a$acho, filed &ith the egional Trial #ourt (T#) of ue6on #ity a

co$plaint against herein co$plainant udecon Manage$ent #orporation for

da$ages and reconveyance, doc*eted as #ivil #ase 7o. -23-/"!!!.1

The case &asoriginally raffled to Branch @2, T#, ue6on #ity (Branch @2 for brevity) but &as

eventually re-raffled to Branch 3" of the sa$e court.

n 'epte$ber =1, 1223, 'ingson, again represented by Atty. #a$acho, filed &ith

Branch @3, T#, ue6on #ity (Branch @3 for brevity) a %Motion for ntervention

(ith Attached Ans&er in ntervention ith Affir$ative +efenses and #o$pulsory

#ounterclai$)% in #ivil #ase 7o. -23-/"/=>, entitled, %udecon Manage$ent

#orporation,plaintiff1appelleevs. a$on M. Delu6, defendant1appellant,% a case for

unla&ful detainer on appeal before said court. =

n ctober 1, 1223, udecon filed a $otion before Branch @3 see*ing to cite

'ingson and his counsel, Atty. #a$acho, for conte$pt for having allegedly violated

the rule against foru$ shopping. udecon contends that the ans&er-in-intervention

filed before Branch @3 involves the sa$e issues already raised in the co$plaint filed

&ith Branch @2.

n 7ove$ber >, 1223, Branch @3, issued an order, &ith the follo&ing dispositiveportion:

?444, finding appelleeQs herein Motion to be &ell ta*en, this

#ourt finds &ould-be-intervenor, 'isenando 'ingson and his counsel, Atty.

Manuel 7. #a$acho to have violated the rule on foru$-shopping and

holds the$ liable for conte$pt of #ourt under #ircular 7o. 0!-2! and

'ection ", ule @, ules of #ourt in relation to ule @1 and hereby

repri$ands both of the$ &ithout pre8udice to any ad$inistrative and

Documents

Rule 133 Evid Cases