Filinvest vs. CIR/CTA 5. G.R.

No 146941 August 9, 2007 FACTS: Petitioner claimed for a refund or in the alternative, issuance of a tax credit certificate (TCC) in the amount of P 4,178,134.00 representing excess creditable withholding taxes for taxable years 1994,1995 and 1996. CTA dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence its 1997 income tax return. CA assailed the decision of CTA and denied petition of Filinvest. The SC initially denied petition for review but on April 3, 2002, case was re-filed on a petition for reconsideration. ISSUE: Whether petitioner is entitled to the tax credit anent insufficient evidence. RULING: CA erred in ruling that petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving that it is entitled to the refund because of the latters failure to attach its 1997 ITR. It is worth nothing that under Section 230 of NIRC and Section 10 of Revenue Regulation No. 12-84, the CIR is given the power to grant a tax credit or refund even without a written claim therefore, if the former determines from the face of the return that payment had clearly been erroneously made. The CIRs function is not merely to receive the claims for refund but it is also given the positive duty to determine the veracity of such claim. Simply by exercising the CIRs power to examine and verify petitioners claim for tax exemption are granted by law, respondent CIR could have easily verified petitioners claim by representing the latters 1997 ITR, the original of which it has in its files. Hence, under solutio indebiti, the Government has to restore to petitioners the sums representing erroneous payments of taxes.

CIR vs. Rosemarie Acosta 9. G.R. No. 154068 August 3, 2007 FACTS: Acosta is an employee of Intel and was assigned in a foreign country. During that period Intel withheld the taxes due and remitted them to BIR. Respondent claimed overpayment of taxes and filed petition for review with CTA. CTA dismissed the petition for failure to file a written claim for refund with the CIR a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for review with the CTA. CA reversed the decision reasoning that Acostas filing of an amended return indicating an overpayment was sufficient compliance with the requirement of a written claim.

ISSUE: Whether or not CTA has jurisdiction to take cognizance of respondents petition for review. RULING: A party seeking an administrative rimedy must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to obtain relie but also to pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial intervention in order to give administrative agency an opportunity to decide the matter itself correctly and prevent unnecessary and premature resort to court action. At the time respondent filed her amended return, the 1997, NIRC was not yet in effect, hence respondent had no reason to think that the filing of an amended return would constitute the written claim required by law. CTA likewise stressed that even the date of filing of the Final Adjustment return was omitted, inadvertently or otherwise, by respondent in her petition for review. This is fatal to respondents claim, for it deprived the CTA of its jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Finally, revenue statutes are substantive laws and in no sense must with that of remedial laws. Revenue laws are not intended to be liberally constructed.

Atlas Consolidated Mining vs. CIR 14. G.R. 145526 March 16, 2007 FACTS: Petitioner presented to CIR applications for refund or tax credit of excess input taxes attributed from petitioners sales of gold on the theory that these were zero-related transactions under Sec 160 (6) of Tax Code 1986. CTA denied petition on grounds of prescription and insufficiency of evidence. The CTA and CA both found petitioner failed to comply with the evidentiary requirements for claims for tax refund. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner submitted sufficient evidence to justify grant of refund. RULING: CIR approved petitioners applications for zero-rating of its sales of gold to some companies. It has always been ruled that those seeking tax refunds or credits bear the burden of proving factual bases of their claims and of showing that the legislative entitled them to such claims. A photocopy of the purchase invoice or receipt evidencing the VAT paid shall be submitted together with the application for tax refund. CTA circular 1-95 likewise required submission of invoices or receipts showing the amounts of tax paid.

Both Courts correctly observed that petitioner never submitted nay of the invoices or receipts required and held this omission to be fatal to its cause. A judicial claim for refund or tax credit in CTA is by no means in original action but rather an appeal by way of petition for review of a previous unsuccessful administrative claim. Next, cases filed in CTA are litigated de novo. Thu8s, a petitioner should prove every minute aspect of its case by presenting, formally offering and submitting its evidence to the CTA. While CTA is not governed by technical rules of evidence, as rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily intended as tools in the administration of justice, the presentation of the purchase receipts is no0t a mere procedural technically which may be disregarded considering that it is the only means by which the CTA may ascertain and verify the truth of claims.

SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, vs.PHILIPPINE NATIONALCONSTRUCTION COMPANY and PEDRO BALUBAL, Respondents 94. G.R. No. 169596, March 28, 2007CARPIO MORALES, FACTS:Superlines Transportation Company (Superlines) is engaged in the business of providing public transportation. On 13 December 1990, one of its buses swervedand crashed into the radio room of respondent Philippine National ConstructionCompany (PNCC). The incident was initially investigated by PNCCs toll way patrol, Sofronio Salvanera,and Pedro Balubal, then head of traffic control and security department of the SouthLuzon tollway. The bus was then towed by the PNCC patrol upon request of trafficinvestigator Cesar Lopera.Superlines made several requests for PNCC to release the bus, but Balubal deniedthe same, despite Superlines undertaking to repair the damaged radio room.Superlines thus filed a complaint for recovery of personal property with damagesagainst PNCC and Balubal. The claim for damages, however, failed to impleadLopera and any other police officer responsible for the seizure and distraint of thebus as indispensable parties. ISSUES:Whether or not Superlines claim for damages against can be passed upon.Whether or not Superlines failure to implead indispensable parties is fatal to itscause of action. RULING:Anent the first issue, the Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The reason is that acontract of deposit was perfected between the police authorities, through Lopera,and PNCC, the former having turned over the bus to PNCC for safekeeping. Hence,for Superlines to pursue its claim for damages, it or the trial court motu propriomust implead as defendants the indispensable parties.With respect to the second issue, the Court ruled, again, in the negative.Accordingly, the failure of Superlines to implead indispensable parties is not fatal toits cause of action, since misjoinder or non-joinder of parties is not a ground for itsdismissal. In other words, the non-joinder of indispensable parties is not a groundfor the dismissal of an action. According to Section 11, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.

93. G.R. No. 152898 : February 12, 2007 SOFIA CANTON, deceased, represented by co-administrators of her estate, Macaraig Canton, Jr., and Juan V. Bolo, DOMINGO L. ANTIGUA,ROGELIO UY, and JUAN V. BOLO, Petitioners, v. CITY OF CEBU and/or METRO CEBU DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, Respondents.

FACTS: Employees of Metro Cebu Development Project (MCDP) identified the area disputed in the present case as part of the South Cebu Reclamation Project. On 24 June 1998, MCDP, with the assistance of the Squatters Prevention Encroachment Elimination Division (SPEED) of the Office of the City Mayor of Cebu City, removed the barbed wire fence from the disputed area on the ground that it was "an illegal construction for lack of necessary permit." Petitioners filed a case for forcible entry, docketed as Civil Case No. 926, against MCDP and the City of Cebu (collectively, respondents) before the Municipal Trial Court of Talisay, Cebu. Petitioners alleged that respondents' agents unlawfully entered their property and demolished their fence. Petitioners stated that their property is in San Roque, Talisay, Cebu and is outside the South Cebu Reclamation Project. Petitioners showed tax declarations to prove their ownership of the disputed area. Respondents, on the other hand, argued that petitioners have no right of ownership and of possession over the disputed area. The disputed area is foreshore land which was reclaimed and developed by respondents as part of the South Cebu Reclamation Project. ISSUE: Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeals' ruling, petitioners stated that "In its application of Sec. 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court of Appeals erred in outright dismissing the petition because copies of the complaint, answer, parties' position papers filed with the Municipal Trial Court and parties' appeal memoranda filed with the Regional Trial Court were not attached." HELD: The petition has no merit. The only issue presented for our consideration is the propriety of the Court of Appeals' outright dismissal of the petition. Instead of admitting his fault, petitioners' counsel would rather blame the Court of Appeals and the seeming harshness of its reliance on technical rules of procedure. 91. G.R. No. 170846 : February 6, 2007 NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. AURELLANO S. TIANGCO, LOURDES S. TIANGCO and NESTOR S. TIANGCO, Respondents.

FACTS: Herein respondents Aurellano, Lourdes and Nestor, all surnamed Tiangco, are the owners of a parcel of land with an area of 152,187 square meters at Barangay Sampaloc, Tanay, Rizal and registered in their names under TCT No. M-17865 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal. On the other hand, petitioner NPC is a government-owned and controlled corporation created for the purpose of undertaking the development and generation of power from whatever source. NPC's charter (Republic Act No. 6395) authorizes the corporation to acquire private property and exercise the right of eminent domain. NPC requires 19,423 square meters of the respondents' aforementioned property, across which its 500Kv Kalayaan-San Jose Transmission Line Project will traverse. NPC's Segregation Plan for the purpose shows that the desired right-of-way will cut through the respondents' land, in such a manner that 33,392 square meters thereof will be left separated from 99,372 square meters of the property. Within the portion sought to be expropriated stand fruit-bearing tress, such as mango, avocado, jackfruit, casuy, santol, calamansi, sintones and coconut trees. On November 20, 1990, after repeated unsuccessful negotiations with the respondents, NPC filed with the RTC of Tanay, Rizal a complaint for expropriation against them. In time, the respondents filed their answer. On March 14, 1991, the trial court issued a Condemnation Order, granting NPC the right to take possession of the area sought to be expropriated. In the same Order, the court directed the parties to nominate their respective commissioners, with a third member to be nominated and appointed by the court itself, to determine the proper amount of just compensation to be paid to the Respondents. As constituted in the manner thus indicated, the board of commissioners was composed of the following: for NPC, Atty. Restituto Mallo of its Legal Department; for the respondents, Mr. Basilio Afuang, a geodetic engineer and a real estate broker by profession; and for the court, Clerk of Court V Ms. Amelia de Guzman Carbonell. On April 5, 1991, the trial court issued an order directing NPC to pay and deposit with the Rizal Provincial Treasurer the amount of P81,204.00, representing the temporary provisional value of the area subject of the expropriation prior to the taking of possession thereof. On April 22, 1991, with NPC having complied with the deposit requirement, a writ of possession was issued in its favor. Thereafter, an ocular inspection of the premises was conducted and hearings before the board of commissioners were held, during which the Municipal Assessor of Tanay, Rizal was presented. He submitted a record of the Schedule of Values for taxation purposes and a certification to the effect that the unit value of the respondents' property is P21,000.00 per hectare.

On August 7, 1993, commissioner Basilio Afuang for the respondents filed his report. He pegged the price of the area sought to be expropriated at P30.00 per square meter or P582,690.00 in the aggregate; and for the improvements thereon, Afuang placed a valuation of P2,093,950.00. The figures are in contrast with the respondents' own valuation of P600,600.00, for the area, and P4,935,500.00, for the improvements. On September 14, 1993, NPC filed an amended complaint to acquire only 19,423 square meters of the respondents' property. The original area of 20,220 square meters initially sought to be expropriated under the original complaint turned out to be in excess of the area required. For its part, NPC made it clear that it is interested only in acquiring an easement of right-of-way over the respondents' property and that ownership of the area over which the right-of-way will be established shall remain with the Respondents. For this reason, NPC claims that it should pay, in addition to the agreed or adjudged value of the improvements on the area, only an easement fee in an amount equivalent to ten per cent (10%) of the market value of the property as declared by the respondents or by the Municipal Assessor, whichever is lower, as provided for under Section 3-A of Republic Act No. 6395, as amended by Presidential Decree 938.nroblesvirtuallawliba ISSUES: 1. Is it to be based on the 1984 or the 1993 valuation?cralaw 2. Should NPC pay for the value of the land being taken, or should it be limited to what is provided for under P.D. 938, that is, ten per cent (10%) of its market value as declared by the owner or the assessor (whichever is lower), considering that the purpose for which the property is being taken is merely for the establishment of a safe and free passage for its overhead transmission lines? HELD: the instant petition is GRANTED in part in that the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 14, 2005 vis a vis the award of P116,538.00, as and by way of just compensation for the 19,423 square meters of the respondents' property, is SET ASIDE, and the case is ordered REMANDED to the court of origin for the proper determination of the amount of just compensation for the portion thus taken, based on our pronouncements hereon. The same decision, however, is AFFIRMED, insofar as it pertains to the award of P325,025.00 for the improvements, with legal interest from the time of actual possession by the petitioner. 89. G.R. No. 149236 : February 14, 2007 PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. HON. JOSE G. PANEDA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 67, CONSOLACION CHAN, ELIZABETH CAPULLA, CAROLINE REYES, BERNARDO DE VERA, JULITA, LORNA, EDNA, RENE, MARITES, MARICAR, RICARDO, JR., and ROLANDO, all surnamed DE VERA, Respondents.

FACTS: Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court questioning the Decision dated April 20, 2001, promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 51820, which affirmed in toto the Order dated February 18, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 67, Bauang, La Union, docketed as Civil Case No. 594-BG; and the CA Resolution dated July 31, 2001 which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The antecedents of the case, as found by the RTC and upheld by the CA, are as follows:cra:nad On October 9, 1985, private respondent Bernardo de Vera, bought a parcel of land covered by Tax Declaration No. 1685 from petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB for brevity) and the former signed a "Contract of Sale with Option to Resell" prepared by the latter. Shortly after the sale, petitioner PNB placed in possession respondent de Vera who started to introduce improvements thereon such as the construction of roads and putting up of concrete fence. However, respondent de Vera was evicted by respondents Consolacion Chan, Elizabeth Capulla and Caroline Reyes. Thus, an action for quieting of title and damages was filed by plaintiffs-respondents Chan, et al. against Bernardo de Vera and his spouse, the latter filed a third-party complaint against third-party defendant (now petitioner) PNB. Both the de Veras and PNB did not contest plaintiffs-respondents' claim of possession and ownership over the questioned property, thus, the respondent judge gave his "imprimatur to plaintiffs' claim of the rights of possession, under claim of ownership over the disputed parcel of land described" in the complaint. After trial on the merits, respondent Judge rendered his decision, the decretal portion of which reads. ISSUE: Whether or not that the claim of the plaintiff have rights of possession, under claim of ownership over the disputed parcel of land described in the complaint? HELD: the Court hereby renders judgment:cra:nad a) Declaring the plaintiffs to be lawful possessors and owners over the litigated lot described in their Complaint in the above-entitled case. b) Ordering the third party defendant (PNB) to pay the value of the lot sold to the third party plaintiffs (DE VERAS) under the Contract of Sale With Option to Resell dated October 9, 1985 (Exh. "1") in the amount of P1,000.00 per square meter for the entire 33,873 square meters plus the sum of P20,000.00 spent for documentation or registration of the contract of sale, with legal interest thereon at the rate of 12% per month from the date of this judgment until full payment thereof to the DE VERAS. c) Condemning the third party defendant (PNB) to pay the third party plaintiffs (DE VERAS) the sum of P200,000.00 (sic) representing the value of the labor and

construction materials and improvements the latter introduced in the disputed lot from October 10, 1985 up to October 27, 1985. d) Ordering the third party defendant (PNB) to pay the third party plaintiffs (DE VERAS) the amount of P50,000.00 as reasonable attorney's fees in addition to the sum of P10,000.00 as actual and litigation expenses and, to pay the costs of this suit. e) Dismissing all other claims and counterclaims which the parties may have against each in this case for insufficiency of evidence.

88. G.R. No. 157806 : November 22, 2007 SPOUSES SHEIKDING BOOC and BILY BOOC, Petitioners, v. FIVE STAR MARKETING CO., INC., Respondent.

FACTS: On August 17, 1999, Five Star Marketing Co., Inc. (respondent) filed with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iligan City a Complaint for unlawful detainer against the spouses Sheikding and Bily Booc (petitioners), pertinent portions of which read as follows: 2. That plaintiff is the owner of the land and building situated in Quezon Avenue, Iligan City; 3. That defendants are the present occupants of the 3rd floor premises of the building, who were allowed to live temporarily in the premises for free; 4. That on March 15, 1999 the plaintiff notified all building occupants that it had withdrawn the privilege granted (rental free) to them coupled with a notice of rental rates in each premises concerned, and further required to any interested occupants to negotiate and sign a lease agreement with plaintiff. ISSUE: Whether or not that petitioners of Five Star has no cause of action against them? HELD: Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants [herein petitioners] and against the plaintiff [herein respondent], dismissing the above-entitled case and ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendants the following sum of money: a) P40,000.00 - As moral damages b) 25,000.00 - As attorney's fee; and

c) 1,000.00 - As appearance fee. The counterclaim for exemplary damages is denied for lack of merit.

87. G. R. No. 164195, April 05 : 2011 APO FRUITS CORPORATION AND HIJO PLANTATION, INC., PETITIONERS, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. FACTS: The LBP submits the following arguments in support of its 2nd motion for reconsideration: a) the test of "transcendental importance" does not apply to the present case; b) the standard of "transcendental importance" cannot justify the negation of the doctrine of immutability of a final judgment and the abrogation of a vested right in favor of the Government that respondent LBP represents; c) the Honorable Court ignored the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission showing that just compensation for expropriated agricultural property must be viewed in the context of social justice; and d) granting arguendo that the interest payment has factual and legal bases, only six (6%) percent interest per annum may be validly imposed.

We have more than amply addressed argument (d) above in our October 12, 2010 Resolution, and we see no point in further discussing it. Without in any way detracting from the overriding effect of our main and primary ruling that the present 2 nd motion for reconsideration is a prohibited motion that the Court can no longer entertain, and if only to emphatically signal an unequivocal finis to this case, we examine for the last and final time the LBP's other arguments. In the course of the Court's deliberations, Mr. Justice Roberto A. Abad questioned the application of Section 3, Rule 15 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court to the present 2nd motion for reconsideration. He posited that instead of voting immediately on the present 2nd motion for reconsideration, the Court should instead first consider the validity of our October 12, 2010 Resolution; he claimed that this Resolution is null and void because the Court violated the above-cited provision of the Internal Rules when it did not first vote on whether the Resolution's underlying motion (itself a 3 rd motion for reconsideration) should be entertained before voting on the motion's merits. We shall lay to rest Mr. Justice Abad's observation before dwelling on the merits of the present 2nd motion for reconsideration. ISSUE: Whether or not the second motion for reconsideration will be granted?

HELD: no merit in the LBP's second motion for reconsideration, and reject as well the Mr. Justice Abad's observation on how to approach the consideration of the present motion. Mr. Justice Abad's Observations/Objections; The Rules on 2nd Motions for Reconsideration. Mr. Justice Abad's observation apparently stemmed from the peculiar history of the present case. A recap of the history of the case: This case was originally handled by the Third Division of this Court. In its original Decision of February 6, 2007, the Division affirmed the RTC's decision setting the just compensation to be paid and fixing the interest due on the balance of the compensation due at 12% per annum. In its Resolution of December 19, 2007, the Third Division resolved the parties' motions for reconsideration by deleting the 12% interest due on the balance of the awarded just compensation. The parties' subsequent motions to reconsider this Resolution were denied on April 30, 2008; on May 16, 2008, entry of judgment followed. Despite the entry of judgment, the present petitioners filed a second motion for reconsideration that prayed as well that the case be referred to the Court en banc. Finding merit in these motions, the Third Division referred the case to the En Banc for its disposition. On December 4, 2009, the Court en banc denied the petitioners' second motion for reconsideration. Maintaining their belief in their demand to be granted 12% interest, the petitioners persisted in filing another motion for reconsideration. In the interim, the Court promulgated its Internal Rules that regulated, among others, 2nd motions for reconsideration. On October 12, 2010, the Court en banc granted - by a vote of 8 for and 4 against - the petitioner's motion and awarded the 12% interests the petitioners' prayed for, thus affirming the interests the RTC originally awarded. The Court subsequently denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration, giving rise to the present 2nd motion for reconsideration. It was at this point that the OSG moved for leave to intervene.

86. G.R. No. 171756 : March 27, 2007 SPOUSES RICARDO IMBAT and LILIA IMBAT, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES MEDARDO SOLIVEN and FLORENTINA NARVASA and VINEZ HORTALEZA, Respondents.

FACTS: In an action for forcible entry filed by herein respondents Spouses Medardo Soliven and Florentina Narvasa against herein petitioner Ricardo Imbat and his brother

Federico Imbat, which was docketed as Civil Case No. 700 (SF-94), the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of San Fabian-San Jacinto, Pangasinan rendered judgment, by Decision of March 29, 1995, in favor of respondents, ordering the brothers Imbat to, among other things, vacate the therein subject two parcels of riceland, one with an area of 9.521 sq.m., and the other with an area of 4,653 sq.m., "located in Barangay Anonang, San Fabian, Pangasinan." On appeal, Branch 40 of the Dagupan Regional Trial Court (RTC), noting that herein petitioners "merely denied all the allegations in the complaint with counterclaim for damages" without proffering any affirmative defenses, and that "during the pre-trial conference before the MCTC, both parties agreed on, inter alia, the "identities of the lands" subject of the case, affirmed the MCTC's decision. The MCTC decision became final and executory. A writ of execution was issued and enforced, but the Imbat brothers re-occupied the questioned premises, drawing the trial court to declare them in contempt. An alias writ of execution was issued and the two eventually vacated the premises. On July 24, 1998, petitioner Ricardo Imbat and his co-petitioner wife filed before the RTC of Dagupan a complaint for quieting of title against respondents after a similar complaint was dismissed by the MCTC for lack of jurisdiction. The complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-02478-D, alleged as follows:cra:nad 3. That the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in actual possession from the time it was donated by their parents, the following described real property to the exclusion of anyone including the defendants-spouses herein, to wit:cra:nad "A parcel of irrigated Riceland at Barangay Anonang, San Fabian, Pangasinan containing an area of TEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED THIRTY NINE (10,439) square meters, more or less. Bounded on the North by Zanja; on the South by Francisco Agsaoay; on the East by J. Corabat; and on the West by Lorenza Ferdamil. It is declared under Tax Declaration No. 0868 and assessed at P3,230.00 as per the land records of San Fabian, Pangasinan. The said property is not registered under Act 496 as amended nor under the Spanish Mortgage Law but registerable under Act 3344, as amended." ISSUE: Whether or not the petition may be granted? HELD: Petition is dismissed, on appeal, the RTC noted that "during the pre-trial conference," both parties stipulated on the two above-mentioned facts. Petitioners nevertheless insist that the land being claimed by respondents is a different one, that which is located at Barangay Binday. In support of this position, petitioners rely on a December 8, 1975 Recibo Ti Panangawat Ti Cuarta Nga Ingatang Ti Daga executed by above-mentioned Spouses Gatchalian from whom respondents acquired the property in question.

This Recibo was not offered in evidence during the trial of the case, however. Nonetheless, respondents creditably explain that there was a mistake in indicating the location of the subject land, the vendors being residents of Binday, a neighboring barangay of Anonang. As for the Deed of Absolute Sale Exhibit "C" which appears to cover the subject land purportedly executed on May 28, 1949 in favor of petitioner Ricardo Imbat's father, respondents objected to its admission on the ground that, among other things, it was not properly identified and, in any event, it refers to another parcel of land.While petitioners presented the Joint Affidavit dated June 10, 1949 executed by Pantaleon Terre and Melchor Orte stating that Pedro Balarbar sold the subject property to Florentino Imbat, the affiants were not presented in court, hence, the statements in the affidavit remain hearsay.

85. G.R. No. 153456 : March 2, 2007 ROBERTO PADUA, Petitioner, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. DELFIN B. SAMSON, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, and MR. TEOFILO INOCENCIO, Respondents. FACTS: Private respondents Pepito Dela Cruz, et al were tenants of Lot Nos. 68 and 90 of the Dolores Ongsiako Estate in Anao, Tarlac. In 1966, upon the request of Anao Mayor Catalino Cruz (Mayor Cruz), Dela Cruz, et al. agreed to donate said properties to the municipality on the condition that these be used as school sites. The project did not materialize and, in 1977, Dela Cruz, et al. asked that the properties be returned to them. However, they found out that Mayor Cruz had distributed Lot No. 68 to Flor Labagnoy (Labagnoy) and Lot No. 90 to Edwin Cruz (Cruz) who were each issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT). Upon Petition for Cancellation of CLT filed by Dela Cruz, et al., Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary Condrado Estrella issued an Order dated April 19, 1982 (Estrella Order), cancelling the CLT issued to Labagnoy and Cruz. The latter filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment for lack of due process but the same was denied by Secretary Estrella in his Order dated September 19, 1984. Labagnoy and Cruz appealed to the Office of the President (OP) which dismissed the same in an Order dated May 9, 1990. Said May 9, 1990 OP Order became final and the same was partially executed with the restoration of Lot No. 68 in the possession of Dela Cruz, et al. However, during the pendency of the appeal before the OP, Cruz executed an Affidavit of Waiver over his interest in Lot No. 90 on the basis of which DAR Regional Office III issued an Order dated December 7, 1987 cancelling the CLT of Cruz and declaring Lot No. 90 open for disposition. On November 7, 1989, then DAR Secretary Miriam Defensor Santiago issued an Order awarding Lot No. 90 to herein petitioner

Roberto Padua (Padua) who had been occupying said property and paying the amortization thereon to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for review be granted HELD: Premises considered, Order is hereby issued granting the petition, thereby cancelling the Order of Award dated November 7, 1989 issued in favor of Roberto Padua involving Lot No. 90, Psd-185539, Ongsiako Estate and directing the Regional Director to cause the restoration of possession of said lot in favor of the petitioners. All payments made by Roberto Padua on account of said lot as rentals for the use thereof are forfeited in favor of the government. 83. G.R. No. 165831 : February 23, 2007 SPS. COL. PEDRO L. LUMBRES and REBECCA ROARING, Petitioners, v. SPS. PEDRO B. TABLADA, JR. and ZENAIDA N. TABLADA, Respondents.

FACTS: On January 16, 1996, after having been paid the sum total of P179,500.00, which the respondents claim to be the full purchase price of the subject lot, Spring Homes executed a Deed of Absolute Sale4 in favor of the Respondents. In the deed, Lot 8, Block 3 was already made to appear as covered by TCT No. T-284037. Respondents' accumulated payments totaling P179,500.00 consisted of the following: P39,400.00 by way of downpayment; P70,100.00 paid on signing of the contract; and P70,000.00 paid in monthly installments of P11,666.70 each. All such payments are evidenced by receipts of the corresponding transactions. Because the anticipated PagIbig loan failed to materialize, the P230,000.00, which, under the Contract to Sell, was supposed to be paid upon release of the loan, was left unpaid. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition in accordance with the deed of absolute sale be granted? HELD: DENIED, Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners, as the second buyer, registered their Deed of Absolute Sale, in contrast to the Deed of Sale of the respondents which was not registered at all precisely because of Spring Homes' failure to deliver the owner's copy of TCT No. T-284037, the respondents' right could not be deemed defeated as the petitioners are in bad faith. Petitioners cannot claim good faith since at the time of the execution of the Compromise Agreement in Civil Case No. 2194-95-C, they were indisputably and reasonably informed that the subject lot was previously sold to the Respondents. In fact, they were already aware that the respondents had constructed a house thereon and are presently in possession of the same.

82. G.R. No. 170603 : January 29, 2007

EDISON SO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. FACTS: On February 28, 2002, petitioner Edison So filed before the RTC a Petition for Naturalization under Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended. He alleged the following in his petition:cra:nad He was born on February 17, 1982, in Manila; he is a Chinese citizen who has lived in No. 528 Lavezares St., Binondo, Manila, since birth; as an employee, he derives an average annual income of around P100,000.00 with free board and lodging and other benefits; he is single, able to speak and write English, Chinese and Tagalog; he is exempt from the filing of Declaration of Intention to become a citizen of the Philippines pursuant to Section 6 of Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 473, as amended, because he was born in the Philippines, and studied in a school recognized by the Government where Philippine history, government and culture are taught; he is a person of good moral character; he believes in the principles underlying the Philippine constitution; he has conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the community in which he is living; he has mingled socially with the Filipinos and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino people; he has all the qualifications provided under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications under Section 4 of C.A. No. 473, as amended; he is not opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments; he is not defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of men's ideas; he is not a polygamist or a believer in the practice of polygamy; he has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude; he is not suffering from any incurable contagious diseases or from mental alienation; the nation of which he is a citizen is not at war with the Philippines; it is his intention in good faith to become a citizen of the Philippines and to renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, and particularly to China; and he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the time of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission as citizen of the Philippines. The petition was docketed as Naturalization Case No. 02-102984. ISSUE: Whether or not petition for naturalization be granted? HELD: DENIED, Thus, petitioner failed to show full and complete compliance with the requirements of naturalization law. For this reason, we affirm the decision of the CA denying the petition for naturalization without prejudice. It must be stressed that admission to citizenship is one of the highest privileges that the Republic of the Philippines can confer upon an alien. It is a privilege that should not be conferred except upon persons fully qualified for it, and upon strict compliance with the law.

81. G.R. No. 157493 : February 5, 2007 RIZALINO, substituted by his heirs, JOSEFINA, ROLANDO and FERNANDO, ERNESTO, LEONORA, BIBIANO, JR., LIBRADO and ENRIQUETA, all surnamed OESMER, Petitioners, v. PARAISO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. FACTS: Petitioners Rizalino, Ernesto, Leonora, Bibiano, Jr., Librado, and Enriqueta, all surnamed Oesmer, together with Adolfo Oesmer (Adolfo) and Jesus Oesmer (Jesus), are brothers and sisters, and the co-owners of undivided shares of two parcels of agricultural and tenanted land situated in Barangay Ulong Tubig, Carmona, Cavite, identified as Lot 720 with an area of 40,507 square meters (sq. m.) and Lot 834 containing an area of 14,769 sq. m., or a total land area of 55,276 sq. m. Both lots are unregistered and originally owned by their parents, Bibiano Oesmer and Encarnacion Durumpili, who declared the lots for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 3438 (cancelled by I.D. No. 6064-A) for Lot 720 and Tax Declaration No. 3437 (cancelled by I.D. No. 5629) for Lot 834. When the spouses Oesmer died, petitioners, together with Adolfo and Jesus, acquired the lots as heirs of the former by right of succession. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted HELD: The Petition is DENIED, and the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 26 April 2002 and 4 March 2003, respectively, are AFFIRMED, thus, (a) the Contract to Sell is DECLARED valid and binding with respect to the undivided proportionate shares in the subject parcels of land of the six signatories of the said document, herein petitioners Ernesto, Enriqueta, Librado, Rizalino, Bibiano, Jr., and Leonora (all surnamed Oesmer); (b) respondent is ORDERED to tender payment to petitioners in the amount of P3,216,560.00 representing the balance of the purchase price for the latter's shares in the subject parcels of land; and (c) petitioners are further ORDERED to execute in favor of respondent the Deed of Absolute Sale covering their shares in the subject parcels of land after receipt of the balance of the purchase price, and to pay respondent attorney's fees plus costs of the suit. Costs against petitioners. 80. G.R. No. 149909 : October 11, 2007 TERESA, MARIA CHRISTINA, GENARO III, MARIA LUISA, CRISPIN JR., VINCENT and RASCHEL, all surnamed GABRIEL, Petitioners, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EMMA, CORAZON and RAMONA, all surnamed RONQUILLO, Respondents. FACTS: On July 26, 1993, the probate court issued an Order, fixing the amount of compensation of Atty. Gabriel as executor in the amount of Php426,000.00 as of December 1992, plus Php3,000.00 a month thereafter until the final liquidation of the estate. At the time of the filing of the present petition, there has been no final liquidation of the Ronquillo estate. Upon the death of Atty. Gabriel on March 19, 1998, his uncollected compensation reached Php648,000.00.

While still acting as executor, Atty. Gabriel, with prior approval of the probate court, sold three parcels of land situated at Quiapo, Manila to William Lee for Php18,000,000.00. Due to certain disagreements between Atty. Gabriel and the respondents, a portion of the proceeds in the amount of Php1,422,000.00 was deposited with the probate court. The said sum included the compensation of Atty. Gabriel. Allegedly, to prevent the release of the compensation, respondents filed a notice with the probate court that there was a pending tax investigation with the Bureau of Internal Revenue concerning unpaid taxes of the estate from the sale of the land. ISSUE: Whether or not the BIR is correct? HELD: YES, For failure of petitioners to cure the defects that resulted in the dismissal of their petition, per Resolution dated May 25, 2001, the "Motion for Reconsideration" of the Resolution dated June 6, 2001, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. 79. G.R. No. 149909 : October 11, 2007 TERESA, MARIA CHRISTINA, GENARO III, MARIA LUISA, CRISPIN JR., VINCENT and RASCHEL, all surnamed GABRIEL, Petitioners, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EMMA, CORAZON and RAMONA, all surnamed RONQUILLO, Respondents. FACTS: On July 26, 1993, the probate court issued an Order4 fixing the amount of compensation of Atty. Gabriel as executor in the amount of Php426,000.00 as of December 1992, plus Php3,000.00 a month thereafter until the final liquidation of the estate. At the time of the filing of the present petition, there has been no final liquidation of the Ronquillo estate. Upon the death of Atty. Gabriel on March 19, 1998, his uncollected compensation reached Php648,000.00. While still acting as executor, Atty. Gabriel, with prior approval of the probate court, sold three parcels of land situated at Quiapo, Manila to William Lee for Php18,000,000.00. Due to certain disagreements between Atty. Gabriel and the respondents, a portion of the proceeds in the amount of Php1,422,000.00 was deposited with the probate court. The said sum included the compensation of Atty. Gabriel. Allegedly, to prevent the release of the compensation, respondents filed a notice with the probate court that there was a pending tax investigation with the Bureau of Internal Revenue concerning unpaid taxes of the estate from the sale of the land.7 chanroblesvirtuallawlibary ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for the certificate of title is valid HELD: Premises considered, for being insufficient in form and substance pursuant to Section 1, 2 & 3, par. 2, Rule 65, in relation to Section 3 pars. 3 & 5, Rule 46 and Section 11, Rule 13 both of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition for certiorari , prohibition and mandamus is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and accordingly DISMISSED. 78. G.R. No. 167848 : April 27, 2007

BANK OF COMMERCE, Petitioner, v. SPS. PRUDENCIO SAN PABLO, JR., and NATIVIDAD O. SAN PABLO, Respondents. FACTS: Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, filed by petitioner Bank of Commerce seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 10 September 2004, and its Resolution dated 10 March 2005. The Court of Appeals, in its assailed Decision and Resolution reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City, Branch 56 dated 25 June 2002, which affirmed the Decision, of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Mandaue City, Branch 2, dismissing for lack of merit the complaint against Melencio Santos (Santos) and the Bank of Commerce filed by the respondent Spouses Prudencio (Prudencio) and Natividad (Natividad) San Pablo for the declaration of nullity of the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and cancellation of Real Estate Mortgage. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for certiorari be granted. HELD: The Petition for review is GRANTED and the assailed Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, Mandaue City, Cebu, in Civil Case 4135-A must be as they are hereby, SET ASIDE. We therefore declare the so-called Special Power of Attorney, the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage and the Foreclosure proceedings to be NULL and VOID ab initio. And, in the meantime, if the subject Lot No. 1882-C-1-A covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (26469)-7561 has been sold and a new transfer certificate of title had been issued, let the Registry of deeds of Mandaue City cancel the new title and issue a new one in favor of Natividad O. San Pablo, unless the new title holder is a purchaser in good faith and for value. In the latter case, respondent Bank of Commerce and respondent Melencio G. Santos are hereby held jointly and severally liable to petitioners for the fair market value of the property as of the date of finality of this decision. Moreover, private respondents are likewise held jointly and severally liable to petitioners P50,000.00 as moral damages, P25,000.00 as exemplary damages, P25,000.00 plus P1,000.00 per count appearance as attorney's fees and P10,000.00 as litigation expenses. No costs. 77. G.R. No. 170735 : December 17, 2007 IMMACULADA L. GARCIA, Petitioner, v. SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION LEGAL AND COLLECTION, SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Respondents. FACTS: Petitioner Immaculada L. Garcia, Eduardo de Leon, Ricardo de Leon, Pacita Fernandez, and Consuelo Villanueva were directors of Impact Corporation. The corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminum tube containers and operated two factories. One was a "slug" foundry-factory located in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, while the other was an Extrusion Plant in Cainta, Metro Manila, which processed the "slugs" into aluminum collapsible tubes and similar containers for toothpaste and other related products.

Records show that around 1978, Impact Corporation started encountering financial problems. By 1980, labor unrest besieged the corporation. ISSUE: Whether or not the corporation is entitled to pay all the workers. HELD: The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Resolution dated 28 May 2003 and the Order dated 4 August 2004 of the Social Security Commission are AFFIRMED 69. G.R. No. 135928 : July 6, 2007 TEODORO BERDIN, VICENTE ALEGARBES, and ABELARDO DE VERA, in Their Personal Capacities and as Representatives of the TUBIGON MARKET VENDORS ASSOCIATION, Petitioners, v. HON. EUFRACIO A. MASCARIAS, Municipal Mayor; CRESENCIANA L. BALATAYO, Municipal Treasurer; SAMUEL PURISIMA, INP Station Commander; THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL and/or MUNICIPALITY OF TUBIGON, PROVINCE OF BOHOL, Respondents.

FACTS: Petitioners Teodoro Berdin, Vicente Alegarbes, and Abelardo de Vera (petitioners), are the President, Vice President, and Adviser, respectively, of the Tubigon Market Vendors Association (Association), an association of vendors doing business in Tubigon, Bohol. Respondents Eufracio A. Mascarias, Narcisa L. Balatayo, and Lt. Abner Catalla, on the other hand, were, at the time Civil Case No. 4577 was filed, the Municipal Mayor, Treasurer, and the INP Station Commander, respectively, of Tubigon, Bohol. On 14 December 1988, the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubigon enacted Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36 increasing the taxes and fees of the municipality, to take effect on 1 January 1989. ISSUE: The issues raised by petitioners in their Memorandum may be summarized as follows: (1) whether the ordinances are valid and enforceable; (2) whether publication was necessary; and (3) whether there was exhaustion of administrative remedies. HELD: premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED IN PART. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 39045 is hereby MODIFIED in that the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubigon, Bohol is hereby DIRECTED to cause the publication of Tax Ordinance No. 88-11-36, Tax Ordinance No. 89-10-49, and Municipal Revenue Ordinance No. 90-01-54 for three (3) days in a newspaper or publication widely circulated within the jurisdiction of the local government, or their posting in the local legislative hall or premises and two other conspicuous places within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government. In all other respects, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 39045 affirming the 26 May 1998 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 4577 is hereby AFFIRMED.

68. G.R. No. 171068 : September 5, 2007 HEIRS OF MARCELINA ARZADON-CRISOLOGO, represented by Leticia C. del Rosario, MAURICIA ARZADON and BERNARDO ARZADON, Petitioners, v. AGRIFINA RAON, substituted by SUZIMA RAON-DUTERTE and OTHELO RAON, Respondents. FACTS: Agrifina Raon, her family had enjoyed continuous, peaceful and uninterrupted possession and ownership over the subject property since 1962, and had religiously paid the taxes thereon. They had built a house on the subject property where she and her family had resided. Unfortunately, in 1986, when her family was already residing in Metro Manila, fire razed and destroyed the said house. Nonetheless, they continued to visit the subject property, as well as pay the real estate taxes thereon. However, in August of 1986, her daughter, Zosie Raon, discovered that the subject property was already in the name of the spouses Montemayor under Tax Declaration No. 0010563 which was purportedly issued in their favor by virtue of an Affidavit of Ownership and Possession which the spouses Montemayor executed themselves. The Affidavit was alleged to have created a cloud of doubt over Raon's title and ownership over the subject property. ISSUE: Whether or not motion for reconsideration be granted HELD: Denied by the Court of Appeals in the following manner, to wit: After a careful study of the grounds relied upon by petitioners We find no new matters raised to justify a modification much less, a reversal of the Decision sought to be reconsidered. To reiterate, even assuming ex gratia argumenti that petitioner merely tolerated the Raons (sic) occupancy of the subject property, it must be stressed that the execution in 1962 of Valentin Raon's Affidavit, the corresponding payment of realty taxes and other acts of dominion which went unchallenged by the petitioners, had effectively severed their alleged juridical relation. Suffice it to state that these acts, taken as a whole, vest upon the Raons the right to claim ownership over the subject property irrespective of whether the nature of their occupation was rooted from the mere tolerance of the Arzadons or from a bona fide sale between Agrifina Raon and Rafael Ladera. 67. G.R. No. 170724 : January 29, 2007 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SAN LORENZO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. FACTS: On November 13, 1997, respondent San Lorenzo Development Corporation filed with the MTCC of Danao City an application for registration of title to a parcel of land, described as Lot 1 of the Consolidation-Subdivision Plan, Ccn-07-000094, being a portion of Lots 3151, 3152, 3158, 3159, 3160 and 3161, Cad. 681-D, Danao Cadastre, situated in Barangay Maslog, City of Danao, Province of Cebu, with a total area of

64,909 square meters, more or less. The application was docketed in the MTCC as LRC No. 100. On November 14, 1997, the MTCC issued an Order setting the application for initial hearing on March 5, 1998. The Order required that a copy thereof be furnished the Commissioner, Land Registration Authority, for notice and for the necessary publication to be made. On December 11, 1997, the Solicitor General entered his appearance as counsel for petitioner Republic and deputized the City Prosecutor of Danao City to appear in the case. On the same date, the Republic filed its opposition to the application. On February 24, 1998, another Order was issued by the MTCC resetting the initial hearing of the application to June 15, 1998. This was followed by an Order of May 15, 1998, resetting anew the initial hearing to September 23, 1998. ISSUE: Whether or not petition for application for registration be granted. HELD: The instant petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the decision dated May 23, 2005 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City in CA-G.R. CV No. 73996, as reiterated in its resolution of December 7, 2005, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the application for registration filed by respondent San Lorenzo Development Corporation is DENIED.

66. G.R. No. 150949 : June 21, 2007 JUDGE DOLORES L. ESPAOL,* Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 90, Dasmarias, Cavite, Petitioner, v. ATTY. BENJAMIN S. FORMOSO and SPOUSES BENITO SEE and MARLY SEE, Respondents. FACTS: On April 15, 1994, Sharcons Builders Philippines, Inc. (Sharcons) bought from Evanswinda Morales a piece of land consisting of 33,130 square meters in Paliparan, Dasmarias, Cavite. The property is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-278479 issued in her name by the Register of Deeds of Trece Martires City. Thus, TCT No. T-278479 in Evanswinda's name was cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. T-511462 was issued in the name of Sharcons. However, when the latter's workers tried to fence and take possession of the lot, they were prevented by the caretaker of spouses Joseph and Enriqueta Mapua. The caretaker claimed that spouses Mapua are the owners of the land. Sharcons verified the status of the title and found that TCT No.

T-107163 was indeed registered in the names of spouses Mapua as early as July 13, 1979. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for the land be granted. HELD: Denied the same in its Resolution of November 15, 2001. Hence, this petition. The basic question before us is whether petitioner erred in ruling that respondents are guilty of direct contempt of court for using falsified documents when Sharcons filed its complaint for quieting of title.

65. G.R. No. 158328 : February 23, 2007 FRANCO ESGUERRA, Petitioner, v. ALFONSO MANANTAN, DANILO MANANTAN, ARIANG ANTONIO, AQUILINO CONCEPCION, and FORTUNATO MIGUEL, Respondents. FACTS: On April 14, 1992, Franco filed his application for free patent of the subject property. On May 20, 1992, Free Patent No. 034914-92-1117 was issued in his name. Pursuant to such free patent title, the Register of Deeds of the Province of Nueva Ecija issued Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-15176 in Franco's name. Thereafter, Franco demanded that respondents vacate the premises, but they refused to do so. He then filed a complaint for ejectment against them before the RTC which was docketed as Civil Case No. 723-G. Pending the ejectment case, respondents filed a case for annulment of OCT No. P15176 which was docketed as Civil Case No. 779-G. This case was subsequently consolidated with Civil Case No. 723-G. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for appealing to the court of appeals be granted. HELD: The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated October 30, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 58050 and its Resolution dated May 20, 2003 denying the motion for reconsideration are MODIFIED. Petitioner Franco Esguerra is declared a co-owner and holder of imperfect title over Lot No. 661. Free Patent No. 034914-92-1117 and Original Certificate of Title No. P-15176, both in the name of Franco Esguerra are declared null and void. No pronouncement as to costs. 64. G.R. No. 158672 : August 7, 2007 COMMISSION ON AUDIT, REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 13, BUTUAN CITY, Petitioner, v. AGAPITO A. HINAMPAS and EMMANUEL J. CABANOS, Respondents.

FACTS: On September 21, 1998, a certain Teodoro A. Gapuzan filed a letter-complaint with the OOMB alleging anomalies in the conduct of public biddings by the Office of the District Engineer, First Engineering District of Agusan del Sur, and the collusion of licensed private contractor Engr. Rafael A. Candol, representing JTC Development, Construction and Supply and NBS Construction under a joint venture agreement. The letter-complaint alleged that, despite these firms being holders of small licenses entitled only to projects costing not more than three million pesos (P3,000,000.00) on a single undertaking, Engr. Candol was awarded seven (7) projects of more than P3,000,000.00 each, to wit: 1. Construction of Bunawan Bridge, Phase IV, Bunawan 2. Construction of Bunawan Bridge, Phase V, Bunawan 3. Construction of Concrete Pavement and Approach, Bunawan Bridge 4. Improvement of Agusan-Davao Road (Tabon-Tabok-Wawa Section) 5. Improvement of Agusan-Davao Road (Bahbah-Patinay Section) 6. Improvement of Agusan-Davao Road (Sianib-Awa Section) 7. Improvement of Agusan-Davao Road (Noli-Panaytay Section) P13,000,000.00 P13,000,000.00 P7,000,000.00 P8,617, 890.60 P8,618,054.77 P9,072,998.54 P9,097,999.47

ISSUE: Whether or not the decision be reinstated. HELD: In G.R. No. 158672 [COA v. Hinampas, et al.]: The May 29, 2003 decision of the CA in C.A.-G.R. SP No. 70137 is SET ASIDE and the decision of the Ombudsman in OMB-MIN-ADM-00-032 is REINSTATED. 63. G.R. No. 169397 : March 13, 2007 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. RESTITUTO SARMIENTO, represented by his attorney-in-fact, MAGDALENO SARMIENTO, Respondent. FACTS: Restituto Sarmiento (respondent) through his brother-attorney-in-fact Magdaleno Sarmiento (Magdaleno) filed on November 29, 2000 with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Taguig, Metro Manila an application for registration of a parcel of land, delineated as Lot 535-D under Approved Survey Plan Swo-13-000465 with a total land area of 2,664 square meters and located at Barangay Wawa, Taguig, Metro Manila (the lot).

Respondent claimed to have acquired the lot through donation under a Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob dated July 16, 1988 executed by his father, Placido Sarmiento (Placido), which lot formed part of Lot 535 that was allegedly inherited by Placido from Florentina Sarmiento (Florentina). Respondent further claimed that he and his predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, uninterrupted, adverse, and public possession of the lot in the concept of an owner for more than 30 years. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for registration of a parcel of land be granted. HELD: The petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated May 20, 2005 and August 19, 2005, respectively, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The application for registration filed by respondent, Restituto Sarmiento, over Lot 535-D, with a total area of Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Four (2,664) square meters situated at Barangay Wawa, Taguig, Metro Manila is DENIED. 62. G.R. No. 151153 : December 10, 2007 SPOUSES CHARLITO COJA and ANNIE MESA COJA, Petitioners, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF FELICIANO AQUILLO, SR., namely: QUINCIANO VICTOR, SR., LORNA A. VICTOR, ANTONIO VICTOR, QUINCIANO A. VICTOR, JR., SUSANA A. VICTOR, CLARA AQUILLO, CARMENCITA AQUILLO, AGAPITO AQUILLO, NOEL AQUILLO, ADONIS AQUILLO, FELICIANO AQUILLO, JR., RONALD AQUILLO and ALDRIN AQUILLO, Respondents. FACTS: Luz Aquillo Victor (hereafter Luz) and Feliciano Aquillo, Jr. (hereafter Feliciano Jr.), both deceased, were the legitimate children of the late spouses Feliciano Aquillo, Sr. (hereafter Feliciano Sr.) and Lorenza Mangarin Aquillo (hereafter Lorenza). During their marriage, Feliciano Sr. and Lorenza acquired a 120-square meter lot located at Poblacion, Mandaon, Masbate, upon which they built their conjugal home.The subject lot was covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151 issued in the name of Feliciano Sr. After the death of Lorenza, Feliciano Sr. cohabited with Paz Lachica and lived at the aforesaid house. However, after Lorenza's death, her heirs failed to partition their hereditary shares in their inheritance. On February 27, 1960, while Lorenza was cohabiting with Feliciano Sr., Paz Lachica purchased a 192-square meter lot covered by Tax Declaration No. 02115 from the heirs of Juan Rivas. She later sold 40.10 square meters of the property to Isabel L. de Real leaving her with only 151.9 square meters. On July 7, 1965, or two (2) days before he died, Feliciano Sr. married Paz Lachica. After Feliciano Sr. died, his heirs also failed to partition among themselves their hereditary shares in their inheritance. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted.

HELD: The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 5, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 37583 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the portion ordering petitioners to deliver possession to respondents of the property originally covered by Tax Declaration No. 1151 to the extent of 93.3333 square meters is DELETED. In lieu thereof, the co-ownership between the parties over the subject 120-square meter property is recognized, to the extent of undivided shares of 93.3333 square meters for respondents and 26.6666 square meters for petitioners. 60. G.R. No. 158131 : August 8, 2007 SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOSE V. MARTEL, OLGA S. MARTEL, and SYSTEMS AND ENCODING CORPORATION, Respondents. FACTS: Respondents Jose V. Martel and Olga S. Martel (respondent Martels) are directors of respondent Systems and Encoding Corporation (SENCOR), an information technology firm, with respondent Jose V. Martel serving as Chairman of the Board of Directors. Petitioner is a government-owned and controlled corporation mandated by its charter, RA 1161, to provide financial benefits to private sector employees. SENCOR is covered by RA 1161, as amended by RA 8282, Section 22 of which requires employers like SENCOR to remit monthly contributions to petitioner representing the share of the employer and its employees. ISSUE: whether the concept of novation serves to abate the prosecution of respondent Martels for violation of Section 22(a) and (b) in relation to Section 28(e) of RA 1161, as amended. HELD: We rule in the negative and accordingly grant the petition. Petitioner sought reconsideration but the appellate court denied its motion in the Resolution of 5 May 2003. Hence, this petition. Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the DOJ's rulings because (1) respondent Martels were charged not with Estafa but with violation of Section 22(a) and (b) in relation to Section 28(e) of RA 1161, as amended, a special law impressed with public interest; (2) petitioner did not agree to settle respondent Martels' criminal liability; and (3) novation serves only to negate civil, but not criminal, liability. 59. G.R. No. 175895 : April 12, 2007 EDMUNDO JOSE T. BUENCAMINO, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, and CONSTANTINO PASCUAL, Respondents. FACTS: Edmundo Jose T. Buencamino, petitioner, is the incumbent mayor of San Miguel, Bulacan, while Constantino Pascual, private respondent, is the president of

Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation, a company engaged in the mining of marble blocks. On August 27, 2004, private respondent filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, public respondent, an administrative complaint against petitioner for grave misconduct, abuse of authority, acts unbecoming of a public officer, and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). In his complaint, private respondent alleged, among others, that the act of petitioner in demanding payment (without official receipt) of a "pass way" fee or a regulatory fee of P1,000.00 for every delivery truck that passes the territorial jurisdiction of San Miguel, Bulacan is illegal. ISSUE: Whether or not Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770, the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to amend or modify its rules as the interest of justice may require. And grant the petiton. HELD: The petition is denied. Furthermore, under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770, the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to amend or modify its rules as the interest of justice may require. Obviously, the Court of Appeals' reliance on Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, is in order. 57. G.R. No. 155785 : April 13, 2007 SIMPLICIO GALICIA, for himself, and as Attorney-in-Fact of ROSALIA G. TORRE, PAQUITO GALICIA, NELLIE GALICIA, LETICIA G. MAESTRO and CLARO GALICIA, Petitioners, v. LOURDES MANLIQUEZ vda. de MINDO and LILIA RICO MINANO, Respondents.

FACTS: In their Complaint, petitioners contended that their predecessor, Juan, was the true and lawful owner of a parcel of land situated in Concepcion Sur, Sta. Maria, Romblon known as Lot No. 139 and containing an area of 5.5329 hectares, the same having been declared in his name under various tax declarations the latest of which being Tax Declaration No. 0037, Series of 1994; after years of possession of the said land, Juan was driven away from the property through force by the heirs of a certain Ines Ramirez (Ines), one of whom is defendant Milagros; because of poverty and lack of knowledge, Juan was not able to assert his right to the said property but he informed his children that they own the above-described parcel of land; and the continuous possession of the property by Milagros and her co-defendants, tenants has further deprived herein petitioners of their right over the same. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted. HELD: On December 15, 1997, the RTC received a Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene with an attached Answer-in-Intervention filed by the compulsory heirs of Ines,

among whom are herein respondents, who are also co-heirs of defendant Milagros. The intervenors contended that the subject parcel of land forms part of the estate of Ines which is yet to be partitioned among them; an intestate proceeding is presently pending in the RTC of Odiongan, Romblon, Branch 81; the outcome of Civil Case No. OD-306, one way or the other, would adversely affect their interest; their rights would be better protected in the said civil case; and their intervention would not unduly delay, or in any way prejudice the rights of the original parties. 56. G.R. No. 156093 : February 2, 2007 NATIONAL POWER CORP., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES NORBERTO AND JOSEFINA DELA CRUZ, METROBANK, Dasmarias, Cavite Branch, REYNALDO FERRER, and S.K. DYNAMICS MANUFACTURER CORP., Respondents. FACTS: Petitioner NAPOCOR is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Republic Act No. 6395, as amended, with the mandate of developing hydroelectric power, producing transmission lines, and developing hydroelectric power throughout the Philippines. NAPOCOR decided to acquire an easement of right-of-way over portions of land within the areas of Dasmarias and Imus, Cavite for the construction and maintenance of the proposed Dasmarias-Zapote 230 kV Transmission Line Project. On November 27, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for eminent domain and expropriation of an easement of right-of-way against respondents as registered owners of the parcels of land sought to be expropriated, which were covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-313327, T-671864, and T-454278. The affected areas were 51.55, 18.25, and 14.625 square meters, respectively, or a total of 84.425 square meters. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted. HELD: the petition is GRANTED. The December 28, 1999 and March 23, 2000 Orders of the Imus, Cavite RTC and the November 18, 2002 Decision of the CA are hereby SET ASIDE. This case is remanded to the said trial court for the proper determination of just compensation in conformity with this Decision. No costs. The CA then cited Section 4, Rule 67 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to explain why Resolution No. 08-95 could not "be used as basis for determining the just compensation of the subject lots, which by reason of the changed commercial conditions in the vicinity, could have increased its value greater than its value three (3) years ago." The said resolution, which fixed the fair market value of the lots, including that of the disputed lots along Gen. Aguinaldo Highway, was approved on October 25, 1995, while petitioner filed the Complaint for the expropriation of the disputed lots on November 27, 1998, or more than three (3) years had elapsed after said resolution was approved. Reflecting on the commissioners' report, the CA noted that since the property underwent important changes and improvements, "the highest and most profitable use of the property is good for residential and commercial purposes.

55. G.R. No. 164582 : March 28, 2007 PILAR ESPINA, ELEANOR G. AQUINO, LORENE C. BARNUEVO, MARICRIS S. J. BANDINO, JULIO M. PETALIO, JR., NOEL T. DE BORJA, REMEGIO P. BASCO, MATEO D. DEOCAREZA, EMILIANO A. EBREO, BENJAMIN PAZ, LEONORA PAZ, CLAUDIO DE LOS REYES, LEANDRO R. CELIS, PATERNO FERNANDEZ, ANICETO M. RODRIGUEZ, DONATO M. PUNZALAN, LOURDES ALFONSO Q., ALLAN PANLILIO, DAISY V. ARCEO, ALEJANDRO D. PASCUAL, MA. CORAZON T. BAJO, ARNOLD M. BLANCO, CRISTITO S. ABELA, DIOSCORO FAJANILAG, and AGUSTIN WONG, Petitioners, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, MONDE M.Y. SAN BISCUIT CORP., M.Y. SAN BISCUIT INC., MRS. MHEW WHA LIM and MR. KENG SUN MAR, Respondents. FACTS: On 27 December 2000, in a conciliation proceeding before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) NCMB-NCR Director Leopoldo de Jesus, the duly authorized representative of M.Y. San Worker's Union-PTGWO and M.Y. San Sales Force Union-PTGWO was informed of the closure or cessation of business operations of respondent M.Y. San as a result of the intended sale of the business and all the assets of respondent M.Y. San to respondent Monde M.Y. San Corporation (Monde) and was notified of their termination, effective 31 January 2001. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted. HELD: Court grants the instant Petition insofar as it REVERSES the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated 23 September 2003, 3 March 2004, and 23 June 2004 and DECLARES the signing of the certification of non-forum shopping by 25 of the 28 named petitioners substantial compliance with the Rules. This Court though finds it unnecessary to remand the case to the Court of Appeals and proceeds to RESOLVE the same based on the merits. This Court thus AFFIRMS the Decision dated 30 August 2002 of the National Labor Relations Commission affirming the Decision dated 25 April 2002 of the Labor Arbiter finding that the closure of respondent M.Y. San was valid and bona fide and in accordance with statutory requirements, and that petitioners were not illegally dismissed by either respondent M.Y. San or Monde. No costs. 54. G.R. No. 161305 : February 9, 2007 MILAGROS PANUNCILLO, Petitioner, v. CAP PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent. FACTS: Petitioner was hired on August 28, 1980 as Office Senior Clerk by respondent. At the time of her questioned separation from respondent on April 23, 1999, she was receiving a monthly salary of P16,180.60. In order to secure the education of her son, petitioner procured an educational plan (the plan) from respondent which she had fully paid but which she later sold to Josefina Pernes (Josefina) for P37,000. Before the actual transfer of the plan could be effected, however, petitioner pledged it for P50,000 to John Chua who, however, sold it to Benito Bonghanoy. Bonghanoy in turn sold the plan to Gaudioso R. Uy for P60,000.

Having gotten wind of the transactions subsequent to her purchase of the plan, Josefina, by letter of February 10, 1999, informed respondent that petitioner had "swindled" her but that she was willing to settle the case amicably as long as petitioner pay the amount involved and the interest. She expressed her appreciation "if respondent could help her in anyway." ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted. HELD: the petition is DENIED. The assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated May 16, 2003 and Resolution dated November 17, 2003 are AFFIRMED. 53. G.R. No. 164820 : December 8, 2008 VICTORY LINER, INC., petitioner, v. PABLO RACE, Respondent. FACTS: Petitioner Victory Liner, Inc. filed the present Motion for Reconsideration seeking modification of our Decision dated 28 March 2007. In the said Decision, we found that respondent Pablo Race, employed as one of petitioner's bus drivers, was illegally dismissed by petitioner since petitioner failed to comply with both substantive and procedural due process in terminating respondent's employment. However, considering the leg injury sustained by respondent in an accident which already rendered him incapable of driving a bus, we ordered payment of his separation pay instead of his reinstatement. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for (1) the award of full backwages inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent to respondent is not warranted; and (2) the dismissal of respondent is authorized under Article 284 of the Labor Code be granted. HELD: the Motion is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated 28 March 2007 in G.R. No. 164820 is MODIFIED in that petitioner is ordered to pay the respondent, in lieu of reinstatement, SEPARATION PAY of one (1) month pay for every year of service, and LIMITED BACKWAGES, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, for a period of five (5) years, computed from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002. 52. G.R. No. 164459 : April 24, 2007 LIMITLESS POTENTIALS, INC., Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, CRISOSTOMO YALUNG, and ATTY. ROY MANUEL VILLASOR, Respondents. FACTS: On 12 October 1995, Digital Networks Communications and Computers, Inc. (Digital) and herein petitioner Limitless Potentials, Inc. (LPI), a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, entered into a Billboard Advertisement Contract whereby petitioner was to construct one billboard advertisement for Digital's product for a period of one year, with an agreed rental of P60,000.00 per month plus Value Added Tax (VAT). It was agreed, among other things, that Digital will

make a three-month deposit in the following manner, to wit: (a) P60,000.00 plus VAT upon the signing of the contract, and (b) P120,000.00 plus VAT upon completion of the billboard. Digital complied with the aforesaid agreement. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted. HELD: Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated 16 September 2003 and 8 July 2004, respectively, affirming the Decision of the RTC dated 28 April 2000, denying herein petitioner's motion to recover damages against the injunction bond, are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. 51. G.R. No. 174689 : October 22, 2007 ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. FACTS: Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was born in the City of Manila to the spouses Melecio Petines Silverio and Anita Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. His name was registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" in his certificate of live birth (birth certificate). His sex was registered as "male." He further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a female" and that he had always identified himself with girls since childhood. Feeling trapped in a man's body, he consulted several doctors in the United States. He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment and breast augmentation. His attempts to transform himself to a "woman" culminated on January 27, 2001 when he underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, Thailand. He was thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a plastic and reconstruction surgeon in the Philippines, who issued a medical certificate attesting that he (petitioner) had in fact undergone the procedure. ISSUE: Whether or not the petiton be granted. HELD: DENIED, It might be theoretically possible for this Court to write a protocol on when a person may be recognized as having successfully changed his sex. However, this Court has no authority to fashion a law on that matter, or on anything else. The Court cannot enact a law where no law exists. It can only apply or interpret the written word of its co-equal branch of government, Congress. Petitioner pleads that "the unfortunates are also entitled to a life of happiness, contentment and the realization of their dreams." No argument about that. The Court recognizes that there are people whose preferences and orientation do not fit neatly into the commonly recognized parameters of social convention and that, at least for them, life is indeed an ordeal. However, the remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts. 50. G.R. No. 148246 : February 16, 2007

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JUAN C. TUVERA, VICTOR P. TUVERA and TWIN PEAKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents. FACTS: The long-term campaign for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his wife Imelda, and their associates, has been met with many impediments, some of which are featured in this case, that have led to doubts whether there is still promise in that enterprise. Yet even as the prosecution of those cases have drudged on and on, the era of their final reckoning is just beginning before this Court. The heavy hammer of the law is just starting to fall. The instant action originated from a civil complaint for restitution and damages filed by the Republic of the Philippines against Marcos and his longtime aide Juan Tuvera, as well as Tuvera's son Victor and a corporation the younger Tuvera had controlled. Trial on the case against the Tuveras proceeded separately before the Sandiganbayan. After the Republic had presented its evidence, the Tuveras successfully moved for the dismissal of the case on demurrer to evidence. The demurrer was sustained, and it falls upon this Court to ascertain the absence or existence of sufficient proof to support the relief sought by the Republic against the Tuveras. ISSUE: Whether or not the amount that they will pay is amounting to one million pesos. HELD: petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated 23 May 2001 is REVERSED. Respondents Juan C. Tuvera, Victor P. Tuvera and Twin Peaks Development Corporation are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay to the Republic of the Philippines One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos, as and for temperate damages, and One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos, as and for exemplary damages, plus costs of suit.

48. G.R. Nos. 166309-10 : March 9, 2007 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. UNIMEX MICRO-ELECTRONICS GmBH, Respondent. FACTS: On June 5, 1987, the Collector of Customs issued a default order against Handyware for failing to appear in the seizure proceedings. After an ex parte hearing, the Collector of Customs forfeited the goods in favor of the government. Subsequently, on June 15, 1987, respondent Unimex (as shipper and owner of the goods) filed a motion to intervene in the seizure proceedings. The Collector of Customs granted the motion but later on declared the June 5, 1987 default order against Handyware as final and executory, thus affirming the goods' forfeiture in favor of the government. ISSUE: Whether or not petition be granted. HELD: the assailed decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 75359 and 75366 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, upon payment of the necessary customs duties by respondent Unimex Micro-Electronics GmBH, is hereby ordered to pay respondent the value of the subject shipment in the amount of Euro 669,982.565. Petitioner's liability may be paid in Philippine currency, computed at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment. 47. G.R. No. 170346 : March 12, 2007 HEIRS OF NICOLAS JUGALBOT, Represented by LEONILA B. JUGALBOT, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS and HEIRS OF VIRGINIA A. ROA, Represented by LOLITA R. GOROSPE, Administratrix, Respondents. FACTS: On September 28, 1997, an Emancipation Patent (EP) was issued to Nicolas Jugalbot based on the latter's claim that he was the tenant of Lot 2180-C of the Subdivision plan (LRC) TSD-10465, subject property of the case at bar, with an area of 6,229 square meters, located at Barangay Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City. The subject property was registered in the name of Virginia A. Roa under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-11543, the same being issued on April 1, 1970 in the name of "Virginia A. Roa married to Pedro N. Roa." The property was originally registered in the name of Marcelino Cabili from whom Virginia A. Roa purchased the same sometime in 1966. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition is meritorious. HELD: the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 81823 promulgated on October 19, 2005 is AFFIRMED. The Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City is ordered to CANCEL Transfer Certificate of Title No. E-103 for having been issued without factual and legal basis, and REINSTATE Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-11543 in the name of Virginia A. Roa. The city Assessor's

Office of Cagayan de Oro is likewise directed to CANCEL Tax Declaration No. 80551 issued to Nicolas Jugalbot and RESTORE Tax Declaration No. 270922 in the name of Virginia Angcod Roa. The heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot, represented by Leonila B. Jugalbot or any other person claiming a right or interest to the disputed lot through the latter's title are directed to VACATE the premises thereof and peaceably turn over its possession to petitioners Heirs of Virginia A. Roa, represented by Lolita R. Gorospe. No pronouncement as to costs. 46. G.R. No. 159298 : July 6, 2007 ARMANDO F. CHAN, Petitioner, v. HON. SIMEON V. MARCELO, in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN, ANTONIO A. ODEJERTE, Borongan, Eastern Samar, DAVID P. ADONGAY, JR., and VIRGILIO G. ALERIA - All from Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Engineering District, Catarman, Northern Samar, Respondents. FACTS: Armando F. Chan (petitioner) assails in his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the August 29, 2002 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 68022, affirming the March 1, 2001 Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman), as well as the CA's July 25, 2003 Resolution, denying his Motion for Reconsideration.2 cra The material facts are of record. In his Affidavit-Complaint, docketed as OMB-ADM-0-99-0431, petitioner charged before the Ombudsman the following officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), Northern Samar Engineering District, Catarman: District Engineer Antonio A. Odejerte (Odejerte), Assistant District Engineer Serafin V. Perez (Perez), Construction Section Chief David P. Adongay, Jr. (Adongay), and Assistant Construction Engineer Virgilio G. Aleria (Aleria), for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service allegedly committed by taking advantage of their official functions to implement a barangay sports facilities project (subject project) in Sitio Barikig, Barangay Urdaneta, Lavezares, Northern Samar, marred by the following irregularities:cra:nad First, the public funds used for the subject project were realigned from a five-seater public toilet project in Sitio Barikig, Barangay San Miguel, Lavezares, Northern Samar, in violation of existing regulations in that the site for the subject project is the private property of Nonilon Ebdane and Moises Parane, as shown by tax declarations issued in their names. Second, the project cost of P239,126.95 is excessive and unconscionable considering that the construction work undertaken consisted of mere excavation and filling, and was completed within 15 days or half of the contract period. Third, the photograph of the project site taken on August 28, 1998 shows that the subject project is non-existent, contrary to the Statement of Time Lapsed and Work

Accomplished and Certificate of Completion issued by Aleria on March 14, 1998 and the Certificate of Acceptance issued on March 18, 1998 by Bienvenido Cagsawa (Cagsawa), who was the Barangay Chairman of Barangay Enriqueta, not Barangay Urdaneta where the subject project is situated. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition has lack of merit. HELD: DENIED, Clearly, the two sets of documents are conflicting. Such disparity, however, cannot be resolved by us here and now for the issue - whether the donee is Barangay Enriqueta or Barangay Urdaneta - is purely factual, one best left to the postaudit jurisdiction of the Commission on Audit. Besides, there is no necessity for us to look into said issue because, regardless of which set of documents should prevail, one conclusion is inevitable - that at the time the subject project was implemented, the project site had already become public property by virtue of the donation effected. Petitioner's objection to the project as having been built on private property is therefore specious. 45. G.R. No. 155731 : September 3, 2007 LOLITA LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. BODEGA CITY (Video-Disco Kitchen of the Philippines) and/or ANDRES C. TORRES-YAP, Respondents. FACTS: On March 1, 1995, petitioner filed with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, National Capital Region, Quezon City, a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondents contending that she was dismissed from her employment without cause and due process. In their answer, respondents contended that no employer-employee relationship ever existed between them and petitioner; that the latter's services rendered within the premises of Bodega City was by virtue of a concessionaire agreement she entered into with Respondents. The complaint was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for lack of merit. However, on appeal, the NLRC set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. Upon remand, the case was assigned to a different Labor Arbiter. Thereafter, hearings were conducted and the parties were required to submit memoranda and other supporting documents. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted. HELD: the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner. 43. G.R. No. 150301 : October 2, 2007 PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT, BRANCH 169, MALABON, METRO MANILA, THE MUNICIPALITY OF NAVOTAS, METRO MANILA, HON. FLORANTE M. BARREDO, in his official capacity as Municipal Treasurer of Navotas, Metro Manila, and HON. NORBERTO E. AZARCON, in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Auction Sale Committee of Navotas, Metro Manila, Respondent. FACTS: The controversy arose when respondent Municipality of Navotas assessed the real estate taxes allegedly due from petitioner Philippine Fisheries Development Authority (PFDA) for the period 1981-1990 on properties under its jurisdiction, management and operation located inside the Navotas Fishing Port Complex (NFPC). The assessed taxes had remained unpaid despite the demands made by the municipality which prompted it, through Municipal Treasurer Florante M. Barredo, to give notice to petitioner on October 29, 1990 that the NFPC will be sold at public auction on November 30, 1990 in order that the municipality will be able to collect on petitioner's delinquent realty taxes which, as of June 30, 1990, amounted to P23,128,304.51, inclusive of penalties. Petitioner sought the deferment of the auction sale claiming that the NFPC is owned by the Republic of the Philippines, and pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 977, it (PFDA) is not a taxable entity. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted. HELD: the petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated July 19, 2001 and September 19, 2001, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 42472 are SET ASIDE. The Realty Tax Order of Payment issued by respondent Municipality of Navotas on September 16, 2002 is declared VOID EXCEPT as to the amount of P62,841,947.79 representing the total taxes due as of December 31, 2001 on the properties leased by petitioner to private parties. Respondent Municipality of Navotas is DIRECTED to refrain from levying on the Navotas Fishing Port Complex (NFPC) to satisfy the payment of the real property tax delinquency. 42. G.R. No. 170740 : May 25, 2007 JULITA P. TAN, Petitioner, v. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by the PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY, Respondent. FACTS: Julita P. Tan, petitioner herein, is the registered owner of a parcel of land consisting of 7,161 square meters located at the southern bank of the Zapote River in Sitio Wawa, Pulang Lupa, Las Pias City. Her ownership is evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 78188 of the Registry of Deeds, same city. She acquired this property from the San Antonio Development Corporation (SADC) as shown by a document denominated "Irrevocable and Exclusive Special Power of Attorney" dated April 6, 2001, whereby she assumed SADC's "obligation of paying all imposable taxes due said land." In consideration of such assumption and "for value" she "stepped into the shoes" of SADC "free to exercise such rights and prerogatives as owner of the

subject property, including the right to collect and demand payment for the sale and/or use of the subject land or any portion thereof, by and from any person or entity. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be reversed. HELD: the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 6, 2005, in CA-G.R. SP No. 84667 is REVERSED. The Decision of the RTC, Branch 202, Las Pias City is AFFIRMED. Section 2, Rule 67 (on Expropriation) of the same Rules provides, among others, that upon the filing of the complaint or at any time thereafter and after due notice to the defendant, the plaintiff shall have the right to take or enter upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits with the authorized government depositary an amount equivalent to the assessed value of the property. It bears reiterating that in Republic v. Vda. de Castellvi, we ruled that just compensation is determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first. G.R. No. 166732 April 27, 2007 INTEL TECHNOLOGY PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. FACTS Petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged primarily in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing and exporting advanced and large- scale integrated circuit components (ICs).3 It is registered with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as a value-added tax (VAT) entity in 1996 under Certificate of Registration RDO Control No. 96-540-000713.4 It is likewise registered with the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) as an Ecozone export enterprise.5 As a VAT-registered entity, petitioner filed with the Commission of Internal Revenue its Monthly VAT Declarations and Quarterly VAT Return for the second quarter of 1998 declaring zero-rated export sales of P2,538,906,840.16 and VAT input taxes from domestic purchases of goods and services in the total amount of P11,770,181.70. Petitioner alleged that its zero-rated export sales were paid for in acceptable foreign currency and were inwardly remitted in accordance with the regulations of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). ISSUE Whether or not the petition will be granted HELD the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated August 12, 2004 of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 79327 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant case is REMANDED to the Court of Tax Appeals for the determination and computation of petitioners tax credit/refund.

SOFIA CANTON, deceased, represented by co-administrators of her estate Petitioners,

- versus -

CITY OF CEBU and/or METRO CEBU DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, Respondents. G.R. No. 152898

February 12, 2007 The Facts On 24 June 1998, MCDP removed the barbed wire fence from the disputed area on the ground that it was an illegal construction for lack of necessary permit. Petitioners filed a case for forcible entry against MCDP and the City of Cebu(collectively, respondents) before the MTC of Talisay, Cebu. They alleged that respondents agents unlawfully entered their property and demolished their fence. They stated that their property is in San Roque, Talisay, Cebu and is outside the South Cebu Reclamation Project and showed tax declarations to prove their ownership of the disputed area. Respondents argued that the disputed area is foreshore land which was reclaimed and developed by respondents as part of the South Cebu Reclamation Project. In November 15 1998, the MTC ruled in favor of petitioners and stated that the only issue raised before it is prior physical possession and not the right to ownership or possession. Thus, respondents removal of the fence on the ground of lack of a construction permit may be legally proper but they should have secured the aid of the court prior to entering into possession of the disputed property. MCDP filed a notice of appeal with the Regional Trial Court. The RTC reversed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court and declared that the disputed area is foreshore land that is not subject of any foreshore lease agreement between the government and any private individual. Hence, the disputed area should be considered as part of the public domain belonging to the State irrespective of its location, whether it be in the Municipality of Talisay or the City of Cebu. Petitioners filed their petition with the appellate court on 16 January 2002. On 19 February 2002, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution which dismissed the petition

outright for failure of the petitioners to attach to their petition copies of the complaint, answer, parties position papers filed with the Municipal Trial Court, and parties appeal memoranda filed with the Regional Trial Court, in violation of Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on 1 March 2002. However, petitioners did not submit copies of the complaint and answer filed with the Municipal Trial Court. Neither did petitioners submit copies of the appeal memoranda filed with the Regional Trial Court. Petitioners characterized the Court of Appeals ruling as overly harsh in applying the Rules, applying technicality rather than substance in disposing their petition. The Court of Appeals did not appreciate petitioners obstinacy.

The Issue Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in outright dismissing the petition because copies of the complaint, answer, parties position papers filed with the Municipal Trial Court and parties appeal memoranda filed with the Regional Trial Court were not attached?

The Ruling of the Court The petition has no merit. The only issue presented for our consideration is the propriety of the Court of Appeals outright dismissal of the petition. Instead of admitting his fault, petitioners counsel would rather blame the Court of Appeals and the seeming harshness of its reliance on technical rules of procedure.

Failure to Comply with Section 2, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Petitioners insist that the Court of Appeals adopted its own rule. They state that Section 2, Rule 42 does not require any of the pleadings enumerated by the Court of Appeals. Petitioners submit that if the Court of Appeals is allowed to continue to dismiss petitions for failure to attach specific pleadings, practice before the Court of Appeals would be reduced to a guessing game as to what pleading will satisfactorily support the petition in the mind of the court. Section 2, Form and contents,(d) Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the petition. Section 3 of the same Rule states that non-compliance with any of Section 2s requirements is a ground for the dismissal of the petition. In his motion for reconsideration, petitioners counsel, instead of submitting the pleadings required by the Court of Appeals, continued to assert that the complaint, or answer, filed with the Municipal Trial Court and parties appeal memoranda filed with the Regional Trial Court are not indispensable to support the allegations in view of the clear and concise statement of the matters in dispute by both court of origin and appellate and the parties position paper. Rules of procedure must be used to facilitate, not to frustrate, justice. However, petitioners and their counsel should bear in mind that the right to appeal is not a natural right. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, and it may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. A party who seeks to appeal must comply with the laws requirements; otherwise, he forfeits his privilege. Rules of procedure may be relaxed only to relieve a litigant of an injustice which is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the prescribed procedure. G.R. No. 155682 March 27, 2007 BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS and MORTGAGE BANK, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents. FACTS Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CA but the CA dismissed the same in the May 28, 2002 Decision There are three conditions for the grant of a claim for refund of creditable withholding tax: 1) the claim is filed with the CIR within the two-year period from the date of payment of the tax;19 2) it is shown on the return of the recipient that the income payment received was declared as part of the gross income;20 and, 3) the fact of withholding is established by a copy of a statement duly issued by the payor to the payee showing the amount paid and the amount of the tax withheld therefrom. The third condition is specifically imposed under Section 10 of Revenue Regulation No. 6-85 There is no doubt that petitioner complied with the first two requirements in that the claim it filed on January 30, 1998 was well within the two-year prescriptive period counted from the date of filing of its annual income tax return (Exhibit "A") on April 12, 1996; and that said return reflects the amount of P1,622,576.00 subject of the claim.

ISSUE: whether it complied with the third condition by presenting merely a Certificate of Income Tax Withheld on Compensation or BIR Form No. W-2 (Exhibit "II") and Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld under BIR Form No. 1743W (Exhibits "C" through "Z").

HELD: the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. As to petitioners Exhibit "II," while it was issued by a payor, the document does not state the amount and nature of the income payment. Hence, it cannot be verified from the document if the tax withheld is correct. Perhaps aware of the deficiencies in its evidence, petitioner also presented Exhibit "B" which is a list of Miscellaneous Assets it sold to various persons. However, Exhibit "B" was prepared by petitioners own real estate department, and is therefore of doubtful credence. Furthermore, there is nothing in Exhibit "B" which would link the the transactions described therein to the taxes reflected in Exhibit "II" and Exhibits "C" through "Z". For all its deficiencies, therefore, petitioners Exhibits "C" through "Z" cannot take the place of BIR Form No. 1743.1 and its Exhibit "II," of BIR Form No. 1743-750. Petitioner cannot fault the CA and CTA for finding said evidence insufficient to support its claim for tax refund. Such finding of both courts, obviously grounded on evidence, will not be so lightly discarded by this Court, not even on a plea for liberality of which petitioner, by its own negligence, is undeserving.

G.R. No. 163445 December 18, 2007 ASIA INTERNATIONAL AUCTIONEERS, INC. and SUBIC BAY MOTORS CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. HON. GUILLERMO L. PARAYNO, JR., in his capacity as Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BIR, Region III, THE REVENUE DISTRICT OFFICER, BIR, Special Economic Zone, and OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, respondents. FACTS : Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7227 creating the Subic Special Economic

Zone (SSEZ) and extending a number of economic or tax incentives therein. Section 12 of the law provides: (a) Within the framework and subject to the mandate and limitations of the Constitution and the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code, the [SSEZ] shall be developed into a self-sustaining, industrial, commercial, financial and investment center to generate employment opportunities in and around the zone and to attract and promote productive foreign investments; (b) The [SSEZ] shall be operated and managed as a separate customs territory ensuring free flow or movement of goods and capital within, into and exported out of the [SSEZ], as well as provide incentives such as tax and duty-free importations of raw materials, capital and equipment. However, exportation or removal of goods from the territory of the [SSEZ] to the other parts of the Philippine territory shall be subject to customs duties and taxes under the Customs and Tariff Code and other relevant tax laws of the Philippines; (c) The provision of existing laws, rules and regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, no taxes, local and national, shall be imposed within the [SSEZ]. In lieu of paying taxes, three percent (3%) of the gross income earned by all businesses and enterprise within the [SSEZ] shall be remitted to the National Government, one percent (1%) each to the local government units affected by the declaration of the zone in proportion to their population area, and other factors. In addition, there is hereby established a development fund of one percent (1%) of the gross income earned by all business and enterprise within the [SSEZ] to be utilized for the development of municipalities outside the City of Olongapo and the Municipality of Subic, and other municipalities contiguous to the base areas. In case of conflict between national and local laws with respect to tax exemption privileges in the [SSEZ], the same shall be resolved in favor of the latter; (d) No exchange control policy shall be applied and free markets for foreign exchange, gold, securities and future shall be allowed and maintained in the [SSEZ]; (emphasis supplied) On January 24, 1995, then Secretary of Finance Roberto F. De Ocampo, through the recommendation of then Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) Liwayway VinzonsChato, issued Revenue Regulations [Rev. Reg.] No. 1-95,2 providing the "Rules and Regulations to Implement the Tax Incentives Provisions Under Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 12, [R.A.] No. 7227, otherwise known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992." Subsequently, Rev. Reg. No. 12-973 was issued providing for the "Regulations Implementing Sections 12(c) and 15 of [R.A.] No. 7227 and Sections 24(b) and (c) of [R.A.] No. 7916 Allocating Two Percent (2%) of the Gross Income Earned by All Businesses and Enterprises Within the Subic, Clark, John Hay, Poro Point Special Economic Zones and other Special Economic Zones under PEZA." On September 27, 1999, Rev. Reg. No. 16-994 was issued "Amending [RR] No. 1-95,

as amended, and other related Rules and Regulations to Implement the Provisions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 12 of [R.A.] No. 7227, otherwise known as the Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992 Relative to the Tax Incentives Granted to Enterprises Registered in the Subic Special Economic and Freeport Zone."

ISSUE: Does the trial court have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case? HELD: The petition is denied. Petitioners insistence for this Court to rule on the merits of the case would only prove futile. Having declared the court a quo without jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant case, any further disquisition would be obiter dictum.

G.R. No. 155682 : March 27, 2007 BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS and MORTGAGE BANK, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondents. FACTS: The facts are as stated by the CTA. In its Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Form No. 1702 or Corporation/Partnership Annual Income Tax Return for fiscal year 1995, Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (petitioner) declared a net operating loss of P211,476,241.00 and total tax credit of P13,103,918.00, representing the prior year's excess tax credit of P11,481,342.00 and creditable withholding taxes of P1,622,576.00.a On February 4, 1998, petitioner filed with the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) an administrative claim for refund of creditable taxes withheld for the year 1995 in the amount of P1,622,576.00. As the CIR failed to act on its claim, petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CTA on April 13, 1998. It attached to its Petition several documents, including: 1) Certificate of Income Tax Withheld on Compensation (BIR Form No. W-2) for the Year 1995 executed by Oscar Lozano covering P720.00 as tax withheld on rental income paid to petitioner (Exhibit "II"); and 2) Monthly Remittance Return of Income Taxes Withheld under BIR Form No. 1743W issued by petitioner, indicating various amounts it withheld and remitted to the BIR (Exhibits "C" through "Z"). cra In his Answer, respondent CIR interposed special and afirmative defenses, specifically that petitioner's claim is not properly documented. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted. HELD: DENIED for lack of merit. Perhaps aware of the deficiencies in its evidence, petitioner also presented Exhibit "B" which is a list of Miscellaneous Assets it sold to various persons. However, Exhibit "B" was prepared by petitioner's own real estate department, and is therefore of doubtful credence. Furthermore, there is nothing in

Exhibit "B" which would link the the transactions described therein to the taxes reflected in Exhibit "II" and Exhibits "C" through "Z". For all its deficiencies, therefore, petitioner's Exhibits "C" through "Z" cannot take the place of BIR Form No. 1743.1 and its Exhibit "II," of BIR Form No. 1743-750. Petitioner cannot fault the CA and CTA for finding said evidence insufficient to support its claim for tax refund. Such finding of both courts, obviously grounded on evidence, will not be so lightly discarded by this Court, not even on a plea for liberality of which petitioner, by its own negligence, is undeserving. G.R. No. 134062 : April 17, 2007 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Respondent. FACTS: In two notices dated October 28, 1988, petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) assessed respondent Bank of the Philippine Islands' (BPI's) deficiency percentage and documentary stamp taxes for the year 1986 in the total amount of P129,488,656.63:cra:nad 1986 - Deficiency Percentage Tax Deficiency percentage tax Add: 25% surcharge 20% interest from 1-21-87 to 10-28-88 P 7, 270,892.88 1,817,723.22 3,215,825.03 15,000.00 Compromise penalty

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND COLLECTIBLE

P12,319,441.13

1986 - Deficiency Documentary Stamp Tax Deficiency percentage tax Add: 25% surcharge P93,723,372.40 23,430,843.10

15,000.00 Compromise penalty

TOTAL AMOUNT DUE AND COLLECTIBLE

P117,169,215.50.5

Both notices of assessment contained the following note:cra:nad Please be informed that your [percentage and documentary stamp taxes have] been assessed as shown above. Said assessment has been based on return - (filed by you) (as verified) - (made by this Office) - (pending investigation) - (after investigation). You are requested to pay the above amount to this Office or to our Collection Agent in the Office of the City or Deputy Provincial Treasurer ofra In a letter dated December 10, 1988, BPI, through counsel, replied as follows: 1. Your "deficiency assessments" are no assessments at all. The taxpayer is not informed, even in the vaguest terms, why it is being assessed a deficiency. The very purpose of a deficiency assessment is to inform taxpayer why he has incurred a deficiency so that he can make an intelligent decision on whether to pay or to protest the assessment. This is all the more so when the assessment involves astronomical amounts, as in this case. We therefore request that the examiner concerned be required to state, even in the briefest form, why he believes the taxpayer has a deficiency documentary and percentage taxes, and as to the percentage tax, it is important that the taxpayer be informed also as to what particular percentage tax the assessment refers to. 2. As to the alleged deficiency documentary stamp tax, you are aware of the compromise forged between your office and the Bankers Association of the Philippines [BAP] on this issue and of BPI's submission of its computations under this compromise. There is therefore no basis whatsoever for this assessment, assuming it is on the subject of the BAP compromise. On the other hand, if it relates to documentary stamp tax on some other issue, we should like to be informed about what those issues are. 3. As to the alleged deficiency percentage tax, we are completely at a loss on how such assessment may be protested since your letter does not even tell the taxpayer what particular percentage tax is involved and how your examiner arrived at the deficiency. As soon as this is explained and clarified in a proper letter of assessment, we shall inform you of the taxpayer's decision on whether to pay or protest the assessment. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted. HELD: The petition is hereby GRANTED. Taxes are the lifeblood of the government, for without taxes, the government can neither exist nor endure. A principal attribute of

sovereignty, the exercise of taxing power derives its source from the very existence of the state whose social contract with its citizens obliges it to promote public interest and common good. The theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from necessity; without taxes, government cannot fulfill its mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the people. G.R. No. 145526 : March 16, 2007 ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. FACTS: Petitioner Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation is engaged in the business of mining, production, and sale of various mineral products. On March 31, 1993, petitioner presented to respondent Commissioner of Internal Revenue applications for refund or tax credit of excess input taxes for the second, third and fourth quarters of 1992 in the following amounts: P24,031,673 for the second quarter, P16,597,709.17 for the third quarter and P29,839,894.82 for the last. Petitioner attributed these claims to its sales of gold to the Central Bank, copper concentrates to Philippine Associated Smelting and Refining Corporation (PASAR) and pyrite to Philippine Phosphates, Inc. (Philphos) on the theory that these were zero-rated transactions resulting in refundable or creditable input taxes under Section 106(b) of the Tax Code of 1986.ra Owing to respondent's continuous inaction and the imminent expiration of the two-year period for beginning a court action for tax credit or refund, petitioner brought its claims to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) by way of a petition for review. ISSUE: Whether or not the petition be granted. HELD: The petition is hereby DENIED. While the CTA is not governed strictly by technical rules of evidence, as rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily intended as tools in the administration of justice, the presentation of the purchase receipts and/or invoices is not [a] mere procedural technicality which may be disregarded considering that it is the only means by which the CTA may ascertain and verify the truth of respondent's claims.