Table of contents: page Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 01 - 04 Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 - 04 Land Titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 - 26 Torts & a!ages . . . . . . . . . 26 - "# $blicon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "# - %2 &ales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

%2 - #6 &ectrans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #6 - 110 Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 -1"2 &'ccession . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1"" -1"# Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1"# -1(6 ) digests are arranged fro! the !ost recent to later cases A*+,-. 2000 1##6 -ontract of Agency/ 0alidity & +nforceability L12 3. -A 4+567A6. 1##6 The contention is far fro! !eritorio's. The receipt 8hich petitioner signed establishes a contract of agency to sell on co!!ission basis. There are so!e pro3isions of the la8 8hich re9'ire certain for!alities for partic'lar contracts: 1: ;hen the for! is re9'ired for the 3alidity of the contract 2: ;hen it is re9'ired to !a<e the contract effecti3e as against third parties =Arts. 1"(% & 1"(>? -i3il -ode: ": ;hen for! is re9'ired for the p'rpose of pro3ing the e@istence of the contract =&tat'te of 4ra'ds:. A contract to sell on co!!ission basis does not belong to any of these three categories? hence? it is 3alid and enforceable in 8hate3er for! it !ay be entered into. -i3il La8AAgency & Land TitlesA*PA to sell land & innocent p'rchaser for 3al'e 46A,-1&-$ A. 0+L$&$ 3. -$76T? A*LAL$2A +&-A61$ & 6+*. $4 ++ &? 2LA. *.6. ,o. 102%"%? A'g. 21? 1##6 Petitioner contends that the po8er of attorney =*PA: 8as a forgery and presented chec<s? his !arriage certificate? etc. to co!pare his gen'ine signat're 8ith that in the *PA. Be also alleged that the sa!e 8as not d'ly notariCed for as testified by Atty. T'big hi!self? he did not sign thereon nor 8as it e3er recorded in his notarial register. The *PA 8as 3alid and reg'lar on its face. 1t 8as notariCed and s'ch s'ch? carries the e3identiary 8eight 8ith respect to d'e e@ec'tion. ;hile it is tr'e that it 8as deno!inated as a *PA? a per'sal thereof re3ealed that it stated an a'thority to sell. Th's? there 8as no need for a separate &PA as the doc'!ent e@pressly a'thoriCed the agent to sell the s'bDect property. The &PA can be incl'ded in the *PA 8hen it is specified therein the act or transaction for 8hich the special po8er is re9'ired. ;e fo'nd? ho8e3er? that the basis presented by petitioner 8as inade9'ate to s'stain his contention. 2ere 3ariance of the signat'res is not concl'si3e proof of forgery. 4orgery cannot be pres'!ed. =Tenio-$bse9'io 3. -A? *.6. ,o. 10%#6%? 1 2ar. 1##4: Petitioner failed to pro3e his allegation and si!ply relied on the apprent difference of the signat'res. Bis denial had not established that the signat're of the *PA 8as not his. ;e agree 8ith the lo8er co'rt that pri3ate respondent 8as an innocent p'rchaser for 3al'e. 6espondent relied on the *PA presented by petitionerEs 8ife. 5eing the 8ife of the o8ner and

ha3ing 8ith her the title to the property? there 8as no reason for pri3ate respondent not to belie3e in her a'thority. 2oreo3er? the *PA 8as notariCed and carried 8ith it the pres'!ption of its d'e e@ec'tion. Th's? ha3ing had no in<ling on any irreg'larity and ha3ing no participation thereof? pri3ate respondent 8as a b'yer in good faith. =5a'tista 3. -A? *.6. ,o. 106042? 2> 4eb. 1##4: oc'!ents ac<no8ledged before a notary ha3e the e3identiary 8eight 8ith respect to their d'e e@ec'tion. The 9'estioned *PA and deed of sale? 8ere notariCed and therefore? pres'!ed to be 3alid and d'ly e@ec'ted. Atty. T'big denied ha3ing notariCed the said doc'!ents and alleged that his signat're had also been falsified. Be presented sa!ples of his signat're to pro3e his contention. 4orgery sho'ld be pro3ed by clear nad con3incing e3idence and 8hoe3er alleges it has the b'rden of pro3ing the sae!. F'st li<e petitioner? 8itness Atty. T'big !erely pointed o't that his signat're 8as different fro! that in the *PA and deed of sale. There had ne3er been an acc'rate e@a!ination of the signat're? e3en that of petitioner. To deter!ine forgery? it 8as held in -esar 3. &andiganbayan =*.6. ,os. (4%1#-(0? 1% Fan. 1#>(:: The process of identification !'st incl'de the deter!ination of the e@tent? <ind and significance of this rese!blance as 8ell as of 3ariation. 1t beco!es necessary to deter!ine 8hether the 3ariation is d'e to the operation of a different personality? or is only the e@epected and ine3itable 3ariation fo'nd in the gen'ine 8riting of the sa!e 8riter. 1t is also necessary to decide 8hether the rese!blance is the res'lt of a !ore or less s<illf'l i!itation? or is the habit'al and characteristic rese!blance 8hich nat'rally appeats in a gen'ine 8riting. ;hen these 2 9'estions are correctly ans8ered the 8hole proble! of identification is sol3ed. +3en granting that petitionerEs signat're 8as falsified? and the *PA and deed of sale 3oid? s'ch 8o'ld not re3o<e title s'bse9'ently iss'ed in fa3or of pri3ate respondent? an innocent p'rchaser for 3al'e. 4inally? the trial co'rt did not err in applying e9'itable estoppel? i.e.? 8here one or t8o innocents !'st s'ffer a loss? he 8ho by his cond'ct !ade the loss possible !'st bear it. 4ro! the e3idence? petitioner !'st bear the loss as 8hile he declared that he had sole access to the T-T? his 8ife 8as able to get it? hence petitioner did not obser3e d'e diligence. -i3il La8AAgency -$&21- L725+6 3. -A & 1&1 6$ P+6+G *.6.,o. 114"11? ,$0+25+6 1##6 Petitioner arg'es that the trial co'rtEs decision is 3oid beca'se the co!pro!ise agree!ent 'pon 8hich it 8as based is 3oid. Attorney-in-fact PaC *. 0illa!il-+strada did not possess the a'thority to sell nor 8as she ar!ed 8ith a 5oard 6esol'tion a'thoriCing the sale of its property. &he 8as !erely e!po8ered to enter into a co!pro!ise agree!ent in the reco3ery s'it she 8as a'thoriCed to file against the s9'atters on the lot? s'ch a'thority being e@presly confined to the HeDect!ent of third persons or s9'atters @@@I ;e agree 8ith petitioner. The a'thority granted to +strada 'nder the &PA 8as e@plicit and e@cl'sionary: for her to s'e to eDect all persons fo'nd on the lots so that petitioner co'ld ta<e !aterial possession thereof? and for this p'rpose? to appear at pre-trial and enter into a co!pro!ise agree!ent? b't only insofar as this 8as protecti3e of petitionerEs rights. ,o8here 8as +strada granted? e@pressly or i!pliedly? the po8er to sell the lot or portion thereof. ,either can confer!ent of the po8er to sell be 3alidly inferred fro! the specific a'thority Hto enter into a co!pro!ise agree!entI bec'ase of the e@plicit li!itation fi@ed by the grantor that the co!pro!ise entered into shall only be to protect petitionerEs rights. 1n the conte@t of the grant of po8ers to +strada? alienation by sale cannot be dee!ed protecti3e of petitionerEs rights? !ore so 8hen the land 8as being sold for P>0As9. !.? 3ery !'ch less than its assessed 3al'e of P2(0.00As9. !. ;hen the sale of a piece of land or any interest thereon is thro'gh an agent? the a'thority of the latter shall be in 8riting/ other8ise? the sale shall be 3oid. 4or the principal to confer the right 'pon an agent to sell real estate? a P$A !'st so e@press the po8ers of the agent in clear and 'n!ista<able lang'age. ;here there is any reasonable do'bt? no s'ch constr'ction shall be gi3en the doc'!ent. =citations o!itted: 5y selling to respondent PereC a portion of petitionerEs land thro'gh a co!pro!ise agree!ent? +strada acted 8itho't a'thority. The sale ipso D're is 3oid. &o is the co!pro!ise agree!ent. This being the case? the D'dg!ent based thereon is 3oid as 8ell.

1t !ay be arg'ed that petitioner <ne8 of the co!pro!ise agree!ent since the principal is chargeable 8ith and bo'nd by the <no8ledge of or notice to his agent recei3ed 8hile the agent 8as acting as s'ch. 5't the general r'le is intended to protect those 8ho e@ercise good faith and not as a shield for 'nfair dealing. Bence? there is a 8ell-established e@ception to the general r'le as 8here the cond'ct and dealings of the agent are s'ch as to raise a clear pres'!ption that he 8ill not co!!'nicate to the principal the facts in contro3ersy. =2't'al Life 3. Bilton *reen? 241 7& 61": The logical reason for this e@ception is that 8here the agent is co!!itting fra'd? it 8o'ld be contrary to co!!on sense to e@pect that he 8o'ld co!!'nicate this to the principal. 0erily? 8hen an agent is engaged in the perpetration of fra'd 'pon his principal? he is not really acting for the principal b't is acting for hi!self? entirely o'tside the scope of his agency. =Aetna -as'alty 3. Local 5ldg.? 1#P2d 612? 616: 1ndeed? the basic tenets of agency rest on the highest considerations of D'stice? e9'ity and fair play? and an agent 8ill not be per!itted to per3ert his a'thority to his o8n ad3antage? and his act in secret hostility to the interests of his principal transcends the po8er afforded hi!. =citation o!itted: 1##( -i3il La8AAgencyA&alesA-ontract to sell T$.$TA &BA; 3. -A 244 &-6A "20 =1##( 2ay: A person dealing 8ith an agent is p't 'pon in9'iry and !'st disco3er 'pon his peril the a'thority of the agent efiniteness of price is essential ele!ent in for!ation of a binding contract of sale. PA6T,+6&B1P 1### Partnership/ -reation $f/ 6e9'isites A41&-$ 1,&76A,-+ -$6P.? +T AL. 0& -A Fan. 2(? 1### =1: Partnership/ creation of/ re9'isites J Art. 1%6% of the -- recogniCes the creation of a contract of partnership 8hen H2 or !ore persons bind the!sel3es to contrib'te !oney? property? or ind'stry to a co!!on f'nd? 8ith the intention of di3iding the profits a!ong the!sel3es.I 1ts re9'isites are: =1:!'t'al contrib'tion to a co!!on stoc<? and =2: a Doint interest in the profits.I 1n other 8ords? a partnership is for!ed 8hen persons contract Hto de3ote to a co!!on p'rpose either !oney? property? or labor 8ith the intention of di3iding the profits bet8een the!sel3es.I 2ean8hile? an association i!plies associates 8ho enter into a HDoint enterprise @ @ @ for the transaction of b'siness.I =2: 1ns'rance pool/ circ'!stances indicating partnership. J 1n the case before 's? the ceding co!panies entered into a Pool Agree!ent or an association that 8o'ld handle all the ins'rance b'sinesses co3ered 'nder their 9'ota-share reins'rance treaty and s'rpl's reins'rance treaty in 2'nich. The follo8ing 'n!ista<ably indicates a partnership? or an association co3ered by &ection 24 of the ,161##> Partnership? its Three 4inal &tages 162A 1 $& 3. -A? +T AL. &epte!ber 1##> Petitioner is charged for 3iolation of 5P 22? for iss'ing a chec< to co!plainant? +ddie Alarilla? as pay!ent for his share of assets of their partnership? 8hich 8as in the process of li9'idation? 8hich chec< ho8e3er bo'nced. There are three final stages of a partnership: =1: dissol'tion/ =2: 8inding-'p/ and =": ter!ination. issol'tion is the change in the relation of the partners ca'sed by any partner ceasing to be associated in the carrying on of the b'siness. 1t is that point of ti!e that the partners cease to carry on the b'siness together. ;inding 'p is the process of settling the

b'siness affairs after dissol'tion. Ter!ination is the point in ti!e after all the partnership affairs ha3e been 8o'nd 'p. Art. 1>2# of the ,-- states that H$n dissol'tion? a partnership is not ter!inated? b't contin'es 'ntil the 8inding 'p of partnership affairs is co!pleted. The best e3idence of the e@istence of the partnership? 8hich 8as not yet ter!inated =tho'gh in the 8inding 'p stage: 8ere the 'nsold goods and 'ncollected recei3ables? 8hich 8ere presented to the trial co'rt. &ince the partnership has not been ter!inated? the petitioner and co!plainant re!ained as co-partners. The chec< 8as th's iss'ed by the petitioner to co!plainant as 8o'ld a partner to another? and not as pay!ent fro! a debtor to a creditor. LA, T1TL+& 2001 Land titles/ certificate or registration L$6+TA 56A0$ -+60A,T+&? et al 3s. B$,. -$76T $4 APP+AL&? et al? *.6. ,o. 11>#>2? 4ebr'ary 1#? 2001 1t is a f'nda!ental principle in land registration that the certificate of title ser3es as e3idence of an indefeasible and incontro3ertible title to the property in fa3or of the person 8hose na!e appears therein? in this case the pri3ate respondentsK father? Antonio 4rancisco. A title once registered 'nder the Torrens &yste! cannot be defeated e3en by ad3erse? open and notorio's possession/ neither can it be defeated by prescription. Petitioners cannot pro3e their o8nership of the s'bDect parcels of land thro'gh ta@ declarations and corresponding ta@ receipts inas!'ch as they are not concl'si3e e3idence of o8nership. Land Titles/ P'blic lands 4+L1P+ &+01LL+ in his capacity as D'dicial ad!inistrator of the estate of F$AL71, $6T+*A andAor 4+L1P+ &+01LL+? +21L1A +&T6A A? et al 3s. ,AT1$,AL +0+L$P2+,T -$2PA,.? et al? *.6. ,o. 12#401? 4ebr'ary 2? 2001 7nless a p'blic land is sho8n to ha3e been reclassified as alienable or act'ally alienated by the &tate to a pri3ate person? that piece of land re!ains part of the p'blic do!ain. Bence? occ'pation thereof? ho8e3er long? cannot ripen into o8nership. 7nder the 6egalian doctrine? all lands of the p'blic do!ain belong to the &tate? 8hich is the so'rce of any asserted right to o8nership of land. All lands not other8ise appearing to be clearly 8ithin pri3ate o8nership are pres'!ed to belong to the &tate. 1n 2eng'ito 3. 6ep'blic? # the -o'rt held that MN'Onless p'blic land is sho8n to ha3e been reclassified or alienated to a pri3ate person by the &tate? it re!ains part of the inalienable p'blic do!ain. 1ndeed? Kocc'pation thereof in the concept of o8ner? no !atter ho8 long? cannot ripen into o8nership and be registered as a title.K To o3erco!e s'ch pres'!ption? incontro3ertible e3idence !'st be sho8n by the applicant. Absent s'ch e3idence? the land so'ght to be registered re!ains inalienable.M A person in open? contin'o's? e@cl'si3e and notorio's possession of a p'blic land for !ore than thirty years ac9'ires an i!perfect title thereto. That title !ay be the s'bDect of D'dicial confir!ation? p'rs'ant to &ection 4> of the P'blic Land Act. Bo8e3er? &ection 4 of Presidential ecree =P : ,o. 10%"? 10 paragraph MbM of the aforecited pro3ision applies only to alienable and disposable lands of the p'blic do!ain. -learly? the b'rden of proof that the land has been classified as alienable is on the clai!ant. 1n the present case? petitioners failed to discharge this b'rden. Bence? their possession of the disp'ted property? ho8e3er long? cannot ripen into o8nership. To begin 8ith? the po8er to classify a land as alienable belongs to the &tate? not to pri3ate entities. Bence? the prono'nce!ents of .ap or L&5 A cannot effect the reclassification of the property. &e!antics aside? petitioners are effecti3ely see<ing the !odification of L&5 AKs $-T? 8hich allegedly enco!passed e3en a parcel of land allegedly belonging to the!. Bence? the present

s'it? p'rportedly filed for the Mreco3ery of real property and da!ages?M is tanta!o'nt to a collateral attac< not sanctioned by la8. &ection 4> of P 1(2#? the Property 6egistration ecree 2oreo3er? the title beca!e indefeasible and incontro3ertible after the lapse of one year fro! the ti!e of its registration and iss'ance. 2" &ection "2 of P 1(2# pro3ides that MN'Opon the e@piration of said period of one year? the decree of registration and the certificate of title shall beco!e incontro3ertible. Any person aggrie3ed by s'ch decree of registration in any case !ay p'rs'e his re!edy by action for da!ages against the applicant or other persons responsible for the fra'd.M Petitioners also clai! that the disp'ted property sho'ld be recon3eyed to the!. This cannot be allo8ed. -onsidering that the land 8as p'blic before the 2iscellaneo's &ales Patent 8as iss'ed to L&5 A? petitioners ha3e no standing to as< for the recon3eyance of the property to the!. The proper re!edy is an action for re3ersion? 8hich !ay be instit'ted only by the $ffice of the &olicitor *eneral? p'rs'ant to &ection 101 of the P'blic Land Act 1n the light of o'r earlier dis9'isition? the theory has no leg to stand on. Absent any sho8ing that the land has been classified as alienable? their possession thereof? no !atter ho8 lengthy? cannot ripen into o8nership. 1n other 8ords? they ha3e not beco!e o8ners of the disp'ted property. 2oreo3er? L&5 AKs title 8as deri3ed fro! a 2iscellaneo's &ales Patent? not fro! .ap. 4inally? petitioners cannot? by a collateral attac<? challenge a certificate of title that has already beco!e indefeasible and incontro3ertible. 1f petitioners belie3e that they ha3e been defra'ded by .ap? they sho'ld see< redress? not in these proceedings? b't in a proper action in accordance 8ith la8. 2000 Land Titles: Ad3erse -lai! iaC 'arte 3. $ng 2ay 2000 This is a land disp'te bet8een iaC & the spo'ses $ng. iaC inherited the land fro! his parents. 1n 1#%# iaC sold the land to -orregidor. -orregidor later on sold bac< the land by 3irt'e of a deed of rep'rchase to iaC. -orregidor ho8e3er ref'sed to s'rrender the T- to iaC hence? she e@ec'ted an ad3erse clai! to the lot. The $ngKs clai! to be b'yers in good faith. $ng contend that the notice of ad3erse clai! 8as already cancelled 8hen they bo'ght the property. iaC disp'tes the legality of the cancellation & !aintains that the 6egistrar of eeds sho'ld not ha3e a'to!atically cancelled the notice of ad3erse clai! si!ply beca'se the "0 day period has lapsed. 67L1,*&: =1: A notice of ad3erse clai! re!ains 3alid e3en after the lapse of the "0-day period. - The good faith of appellant-spo'ses rests hea3ily on 8hether the notice of ad3erse clai! on Lot 120> 8as 3alidly cancelled by the 6egistrar of eeds. The iss'e is no longer of first i!pression. 1n the 1##6 case of &aDonas 3. -o'rt of Appeals =2(> &-6A %#:? 8e e@plained that a notice of ad3erse clai! re!ain 3alid e3en after the lapse of the "0-day period pro3ided by &ection %0 of P. . ,o. 1(2# or the Property 6egistration ecree. ;e e@plained in &aDonas that for as long as there is yet no petition for its cancellation? the notice of ad3erse clai! re!ains s'bsisting. Th's: MAt first bl'sh? the pro3ision in 9'estion 8o'ld see! to restrict the effecti3ity of the ad3erse clai! to thirty days. 5't the abo3e pro3ision cannot and sho'ld not be treated separately? b't sho'ld be read in relation to the sentence follo8ing? 8hich reads: MAfter the lapse of said period? the anotation of the ad3erse clai! !ay be cancelled 'pon filing of a 3erified petition therefor by the party in interest.M M1f the rationale of the la8 8as for the ad3erse clai! to ipso facto lose force and effect after the lapse of thirty days? then it 8o'ld ha3e been necessary to incl'de the foregoing ca3eat to clarify and co!plete the r'le. 4or then? no ad3erse clai! need be cancelled. 1f it has been a'to!atically ter!inated by !ere lapse of ti!e? the la8 8o'ld not ha3e re9'ired the party in interest to do a 'seless act.M 1n a petition for cancellation of ad3erse clai!? a hearing !'st first be cond'cted.

The hearing 8ill afford the parties an opport'nity to pro3e the propriety or i!propriety of the ad3erse clai!. Petitioner 8as 'nla8f'lly denied this opport'nity 8hen the 6egistrar of eeds a'to!atically cancelled the ad3erse clai!. ,eedless to state? the cancellation of her ad3erse clai! is ineffecti3e. Land Titles/ -on3eyance -$6P7G 3. &P&. *6$&P+ *.6. ,o. 1"(2#%? F'ne >? 2000. The sale? transfer or con3eyance of land refor! rights are? as a r'le? 3oid in order to pre3ent a circ'!3ention of agrarian refor! la8s. Bo8e3er? in the present case? the 3ol'ntary s'rrender or 8ai3er of these rights in fa3or of the &a!ahang ,ayon is 3alid beca'se s'ch action is dee!ed legally per!issible con3eyance in fa3or of the go3ern!ent. After the s'rrender or 8ai3er of said land refor! rights? the epart!ent of Agrarian 6efor!? 8hich too< control of the property? 3alidly a8arded it to pri3ate respondents. ;e ha3e already r'led that the sale or transfer of rights o3er a property co3ered by a -ertificate of Land Transfer is 3oid e@cept 8hen the alienation is !ade in fa3or of the go3ern!ent or thro'gh hereditary s'ccession. This r'ling is intended to pre3ent a re3ersion to the old fe'dal syste! in 8hich the lando8ners reac9'ired 3ast tracts of land? th's negating the go3ern!entKs progra! of freeing the tenant fro! the bondage of the soil. As s'ch Nthe far!er-beneficiaryO gained the rights to possess? c'lti3ate and enDoy the landholding for hi!self. Those rights o3er that partic'lar property 8ere granted by the go3ern!ent to hi! and to no other. To ins're his contin'ed possession and enDoy!ent of the property? he co'ld not? 'nder the la8? !a<e any 3alid for! of transfer e@cept to the go3ern!ent or by hereditary s'ccession? to his s'ccessors. espite the abo3e prohibition? ho8e3er? there are reports that !any far!er-beneficiaries of P 2% ha3e transferred the o8nership? rights? andAor possession of their far!sAho!elots to other persons or ha3e s'rrendered the sa!e to their for!er lando8ners. All these transactions or s'rrenders are 3iolati3e of P 2% and therefore? n'll and 3oid. Abandon!ent re9'ires =a: a clear and absol'te intention to reno'nce a right or clai! or to desert a right or property/ and =b: an e@ternal act by 8hich that intention is e@pressed or carried into effect. The intention to abandon i!plies a depart're? 8ith the a3o8ed intent of ne3er ret'rning? res'!ing or clai!ing the right and the interest that ha3e been abandoned. &'rrender of possession did not a!o'nt to an abandon!ent beca'se there 8as an obligation on the part of pri3ate respondents to ret'rn possession 'pon f'll pay!ent of the loan. P 2% pro3ides that title to land ac9'ired p'rs'ant to the land refor! progra! shall not be transferable e@cept thro'gh hereditary s'ccession or to the go3ern!ent? in accordance 8ith the pro3isions of e@isting la8s and reg'lations. &ection > of 6A ">44 also pro3ides that MNtOhe agric'lt'ral leasehold relation...shall be e@ting'ished by: ...=2:N3Ool'ntary s'rrender of the landholding by the agric'lt'ral lessee? . . . .M 0ol'ntary s'rrender? as a !ode of e@ting'ish!ent of tenancy relations? does not re9'ire co'rt appro3al as long as it is con3incingly and s'fficiently pro3ed by co!petent e3idence. PetitionerKs 3ol'ntary s'rrender to the &a!ahang ,ayon 9'alifies as a s'rrender or transfer to the go3ern!ent beca'se s'ch action for!s part of the !echanis! for the disposition and the reallocation of far!holdings of tenant-far!ers 8ho ref'se to beco!e beneficiaries of P 2%. P 8hat 8as prohibited 8as the perpetration of the tenancy or leasehold relationship bet8een the landlord and the far!er beneficiary. Land Titles/ Property/ $8nership -A62+L1,$ 2. &A,T1A*$? 2$,T&+66AT 2. &A,T1A*$? ,1L A 2. 15$L+$,? 5+L1, A 2A,ABA, A, F$&+41,A 2. -AP1,P1,? petitioners? 3s. TB+ -$76T $4 APP+AL& A, 2+T6$P$L1TA, ;AT+6;$6Q& A, &+;+6A*+ &.&T+2 *.6. ,o. 10#111? F'ne 2>? 2000 oc'!ents pro3ing o8nership s'ch as transfer and original certificates of title are the legs on 8hich petitionersE case stands. Pre!ised on the rele3ance of these doc'!ents? the trial co'rt r'led in fa3or of petitioners. Bo8e3er? the pro3erbial legs of e3idence are bro<en. ;hile the titles presented by petitioners sho8 o8nership? s'ch o8nership is not of the land clai!ed? b't o3er the

adDoining parcels of land. The technical descriptions in the titles presented by petitioners betray the! as adDacent and adDoining o8ners of the land clai!ed by 2;&& for registration. A torrens certificate of title co3ers only the land described therein together 8ith i!pro3e!ents e@isting thereon? if any? nothing !ore. The titles presented by petitioners co3ering as they do land adDacent to that clai!ed in 2;&&E application for registration? do not s'pport their clai!? b't e3en defeat it. 4'rther? 8e agree 8ith the -o'rt of Appeals that if petitionersE predecessors-in-interest being !e!bers of the bar and learned in the la8 !erely allo8ed and tolerated 2; or ,A;A&AEs 'se of the land? they 8o'ld ha3e red'ced the agree!ent into 8riting for 'se in the registration of their property 8hich at that ti!e 8as still 'nregistered. ;e hold that if petitionersE predecessors 8ere tr'ly the o8ners of the s'bDect parcels of land? they 8o'ld ha3e ta<en steps to ha3e the land properly titled long ago. The land 8as possessed by 2;&& long before ;orld ;ar 11. That 8as o3er si@ty =60: years agoR Petitioners Mslept on the rightsM they clai! to possess. 6elief is denied to a clai!ant 8hose right has beco!e MstaleM by reason of negligence or inattention for a long period of ti!e. 2;&& presented ta@ declarations to b'ttress its o8nership of the land. Tr'e? ta@ declarations do not pro3e o8nership. Bo8e3er? ta@ declarations can be strong e3idence of o8nership 8hen acco!panied by possession for a period s'fficient for prescription. &ince 2;&& possessed the land in the concept of o8ner for !ore than thirty ="0: years preceding the application? 2;&& ac9'ired o8nership by prescription. 5y placing the pipelines 'nder the land? there 8as !aterial occ'pation of the land by 2;&&? s'bDecting the land to its 8ill and control. N7nder Article ("1 of the -i3il -ode? MPossession is ac9'ired by the !aterial occ'pation of a thing or the e@ercise of a right? or by the fact that it is s'bDect to the action of o'r 8ill? or by proper acts and legal for!alities established for ac9'iring s'ch right.MO Petitioners cannot arg'e that 2;&&E possession 8as not MopenM. The e@istence of the pipes 8as indicated abo3e the gro'nd by MpilapilsM. +3en ass'!ing arg'endo that the pipes 8ere MhiddenM fro! sight? petitioner cannot clai! ignorance of the e@istence of the pipes. The possession !'st be p'blic in order to be the basis for prescription. 1f the o8ner pro3es that the possession is clandestine? it 8ill not affect his possession. Petitioners also cannot clai! that 2;&& abandoned its possession. There is no sho8ing that by discontin'ing the 'se of the pipes? 2;&& 3ol'ntarily reno'nced its clai! o3er the land. Petitioners did not pro3e that the spes rec'perendi 8as gone and the ani!'s re3ertendi 8as gi3en 'p. Land Titles/ Property/ Lis pendens GA1 A 675. &. AL5+6T$ 3s. -$76T $4 APP+AL&? +P14A,1$ F. ALA,$? -+-1L1A P. ALA,$? .$LA, A P. ALA,$? and ,ATAL1A 6+ALT.? 1,-. F'ne "0? 2000 The notice of lis pendens is an anno'nce!ent to the 8hole 8orld that a partic'lar real property is in litigation? and ser3es as a 8arning that one 8ho ac9'ires an interest o3er said property does so at his o8n ris<? or that he ga!bles on the res'lt of the litigation o3er said property. 1n 0ie8!aster -onstr'ction -orporation 3. 6eynaldo .. 2a'lit and +dgardo -astro? this -o'rt did not confine the a3ailability of lis pendens only to cases in3ol3ing the title to or possession of real property 8hen it held that: MAccording to &ection 24? 6'le 14 of the 6'les of -o'rt and &ection %6 of Presidential ecree ,o. 1(2#? a notice of lis pendens is proper in the follo8ing cases? 3iC.: a:....An action to reco3er possession of real estate/ b:....An action to 9'iet title thereto/ c:....An action to re!o3e clo'ds thereon/ d:....An action for partition/ and e:....Any other proceedings of any <ind in -o'rt directly affecting the title to the land or the 'se or occ'pation thereof or the b'ildings thereon.M Land Titles 6+P75L1- $4 TB+ PB1L1PP1,+& 3s. -A *.6. ,o. 1"01%4? F'ly 14? 2000

An applicant see<ing to establish o8nership o3er land !'st concl'si3ely sho8 that he is the o8ner thereof in fee si!ple? for the standing pres'!ption is that all lands belong to the p'blic do!ain of the &tate? 'nless ac9'ired fro! the *o3ern!ent either by p'rchase or by grant? e@cept lands possessed by an occ'pant and his predecessors since ti!e i!!e!orial? for s'ch possession 8o'ld D'stify the pres'!ption that the land had ne3er been part of the p'blic do!ain or that it had been pri3ate property e3en before the &panish con9'est. The land in 9'estion is ad!ittedly p'blic. The applicant has no title at all. 1ts clai! of ac9'isition of o8nership is solely based on possession. 1n fact? the parcels of land applied for 8ere declared p'blic land by decision of the -adastral -o'rt. &'ch being the case? the application for 3ol'ntary registration 'nder P. . ,o. 1(2# N4or!erly Act ,o. 4#6.O is barred by the prior D'dg!ent of the -adastral -o'rt. The land ha3ing been s'bDected to co!p'lsory registration 'nder the -adastral Act and declared p'blic land can no longer be the s'bDect of registration by 3ol'ntary application 'nder Presidential ecree ,o. 1(2#. The second application is barred by res-D'dicata. As pre3io'sly held? MN;Ohere the applicant possesses no title or o8nership o3er the parcel of land? he cannot ac9'ire one 'nder the Torrens &yste! of registration.M ,onetheless? applicant anchors its application for registration of title on the pro3isions of P. . ,o. 1(2# or in the alternati3e -o!. Act ,o. 141? &ection 4> =b:? as a!ended by 6ep. Act ,o. 1#42? 8hich allo8s Mthose 8ho by the!sel3es or thro'gh their predecessors in interest ha3e been in open? contin'o's? e@cl'si3e and notorio's possession and occ'pation of agric'lt'ral lands of the p'blic do!ain? 'nder a bona fide clai! of ac9'isition of o8nership? for at least thirty years i!!ediately preceding the filing of the applicationM to apply for D'dicial confir!ation and registration of title. Bo8e3er? the e3idence is inconcl'si3e that applicant and its predecessors in interest had been in open? contin'o's? e@cl'si3e and notorio's possession of the land in 9'estion? en concepto de d'eSo? or a bona fide clai! of ac9'isition of o8nership for at least thirty ="0: years i!!ediately preceding the filing of the application? or since F'ne 12? 1#4(? or since ti!e i!!e!orial. The applicant failed to pro3e the fact of possession by itself and its predecessors in interest for at least thirty ="0: years before the filing of the application. Applicant failed to pro3e specific acts sho8ing the nat're of its possession and that of its predecessors in interest. The applicant !'st present specific acts of o8nership to s'bstantiate the clai! and cannot D'st offer general state!ents 8hich are !ere concl'sions of la8 than fact'al e3idence of possession.M MAct'al possession of land consists in the !anifestation of acts of do!inion o3er it of s'ch a nat're as a party 8o'ld nat'rally e@ercise o3er his o8n property.M The bare assertion of 8itnesses that the applicant of land had been in the open? ad3erse and contin'o's possession of the property for o3er thirty ="0: years is hardly Mthe 8ell-nigh incontro3ertibleM e3idence re9'ired in cases of this nat're. 1n other 8ords? facts constit'ting possession !'st be d'ly established by co!petent e3idence. -onse9'ently? the lo8er co'rt gra3ely erred in granting the application. Land Titles/ 6econstit'tion of Title 6+P75L1- $4 TB+ PB1L1PP1,+&? 3s. P1LA6 +&T1P7LA6 *.6. ,o. 1"6(>>? F'ly 20? 2000 Petition for reconstit'tion of title. 6ep'blic Act ,o. 26 lays do8n the special re9'ire!ents and proced're that !'st be follo8ed before D'risdiction !ay be ac9'ired o3er a petition for reconstit'tion of title. 1n &ection 1" of said Act? these re9'ire!ents and proced're are pro3ided as follo8s: M&+-T1$, 1". The -o'rt shall ca'se a notice of the petition? filed 'nder the preceding section? to be p'blished? at the e@pense of the petitioner? t8ice in s'ccessi3e iss'es of the $fficial *aCette? and to be posted on the !ain entrance of the pro3incial b'ilding and of the !'nicipal b'ilding of the !'nicipality or city in 8hich the land is sit'ated? at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. The co'rt shall li<e8ise ca'se a copy of the notice to be sent? by registered !ail or other8ise? at the e@pense of the petitioner? to e3ery person na!ed therein 8hose address is <no8n? at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing. &aid notice shall state? a!ong other things? the n'!ber of the lost or destroyed certificate of title if <no8n? the na!e of the registered o8ner? the na!e of the occ'pants or persons in possession of the property? the o8ner of the adDoining properties? the location? area and bo'ndaries of the property? and the date on 8hich all

persons ha3ing any interest therein !'st appear and file their clai! or obDection to the petition. The petitioner shall? at the hearing? s'b!it proof of p'blication? posting and ser3ice of the notice as directed by the co'rt.M These re9'ire!ents are !andatory and co!pliance 8ith the! is D'risdictional. 1n 6ep'blic 3. -o'rt of Appeals? the -o'rt held: M6econstit'tion of a certificate of title? in the conte@t of 6ep'blic Act ,o. 26? denotes the restoration in the original for! and condition of a lost or destroyed instr'!ent attesting NtoO the title of a person to a piece of land. The p'rpose of the reconstit'tion is to ha3e? after obser3ing the proced'res prescribed by la8? the title reprod'ced in e@actly the sa!e 8ay it has been 8hen the loss or destr'ction occ'rred. A!ong the conditions e@plicitly re9'ired by the la8 is p'blication of the petition t8ice in s'ccessi3e iss'es of the $fficial *aCette? and its posting at the !ain entrance of the pro3incial b'ilding and of the !'nicipal b'ilding of the !'nicipality or city in 8hich the land is sit'ated? at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing. This directi3e is !andatory/ indeed? its co!pliance has been held to be D'risdictional. . .M Th's? before the trial co'rt can ac9'ire D'risdiction to hear and decide a reconstit'tion case? co!pliance 8ith the follo8ing re9'isites is i!perati3e: M1. NThatO the notice of the petition be p'blished? at the e@pense of the petitioner? t8ice in s'ccessi3e iss'es of the $fficial *aCette? and posted on the !ain entrance of the pro3incial b'ilding and of the !'nicipal b'ilding of the !'nicipality or city in 8hich the land is sit'ated? at least thirty days prior to the date of hearing/ M2. NThatO the notice state a!ong other things? the n'!ber of the lost or destroyed certificates of title if <no8n? the na!e of the registered o8ner? the na!e of the occ'pants or persons in possession of the property? the o8ner of the adDoining properties and all other interested parties? the location? area and bo'ndaries of the property? and the date on 8hich all persons ha3ing any interest therein !'st appear and file their clai! of obDection to the petition/ M". NThatO a copy of the notice also be sent? by registered !ail or other8ise? at the e@pense of the petitioner? to e3ery person na!ed therein =i.e. the occ'pants or persons in possession of the property? the o8ner of the adDoining properties and all other interested parties: 8hose address is <no8n at least thirty days prior to the date of the hearing/ and M4. NThatO at the hearing? petitioner s'b!it proof of p'blication? posting and ser3ice of the notice as directed by the co'rt.M Land Titles 46A,-1&-$ + *7G2A,? et al. 3s. TB+ ,AT1$,AL T6+A&76+6 $4 TB+ 6+P75L1- $4 TB+ PB1L1PP1,+&? et al. *.6. ,o. 14"2>1? A'g'st "? 2000 6eco3ery fro! Ass'rance 4'nd 'nder the Property 6egistration ecree. &ection #( of Presidential ecree ,o. 1(2#? other8ise <no8n as the Property 6egistration ecree? pro3ides: &+-. #(. Action for co!pensation fro! f'nds. T A person 8ho? 8itho't negligence on his part? s'stains loss or da!age? or is depri3ed of land or any estate or interest therein in conse9'ence of the bringing of the land 'nder the operation of the Torrens syste! or arising after original registration of land? thro'gh fra'd or in conse9'ence of any error? o!ission? !ista<e or !isdescription in any certificate of title or in any entry or !e!orand'! in the registration boo<? and 8ho by the pro3isions of this ecree is barred or other8ise precl'ded 'nder the pro3ision of any la8 fro! bringing an action for the reco3ery of s'ch land or the estate or interest therein? !ay bring an action in any co'rt of co!petent D'risdiction for the reco3ery of da!age to be paid o't of the Ass'rance 4'nd. 1t !ay be discerned fro! the foregoing pro3isions that the persons 8ho !ay reco3er fro! the Ass'rance 4'nd are: 1: Any person 8ho s'stains loss or da!age 'nder the follo8ing conditions: a: that there 8as no negligence on his part/ and b: that the loss or da!age s'stained 8as thro'gh any o!ission? !ista<e or !alfeasance of the co'rt personnel? or the 6egistrar of eeds? his dep'ty? or other e!ployees of the 6egistry in the perfor!ance of their respecti3e d'ties 'nder the pro3isions of the Land 6egistration Act? no8? the Property 6egistration ecree/ or

2: Any person 8ho has been depri3ed of any land or interest therein 'nder the follo8ing conditions: a: that there 8as no negligence on his part/ b: that he 8as depri3ed as a conse9'ence of the bringing of his land or interest therein 'nder the pro3isions of the Property 6egistration ecree/ or by the registration by any other person as o8ner of s'ch land/ or by !ista<e? o!ission or !isdescription in any certificate of o8nerKs d'plicate? or in any entry or !e!orand'! in the register or other official boo< or by any cancellation/ and c: that he is barred or in any 8ay precl'ded fro! bringing an action for the reco3ery of s'ch land or interest therein? or clai! 'pon the sa!e. The Ass'rance 4'nd is intended to relie3e innocent persons fro! the harshness of the doctrine that a certificate is concl'si3e e3idence of an indefeasible title to land. Petitioners did not s'ffer any preD'dice beca'se of the operation of this doctrine. $n the contrary? petitioners so'ght to a3ail of the benefits of the Torrens &yste! by registering the property in their na!e. 7nfort'nately for petitioners? the original o8ners 8ere able to D'dicially reco3er the property fro! the!. That petitioners e3ent'ally lost the property to the original o8ners? ho8e3er? does not entitle the! to co!pensation 'nder the Ass'rance 4'nd. ;hile 8e co!!iserate 8ith petitioners? 8ho appear to be 3icti!s of 'nscr'p'lo's sco'ndrels? 8e cannot sanction co!pensation that is not 8ithin the la8Ks conte!plation. As 8e said in Treas'rer of the Philippines 3s. -o'rt of Appeals? the *o3ern!ent is not an ins'rer of the 'n8ary citiCenKs property against the chicanery of sco'ndrels. PetitionersK reco'rse is not against the Ass'rance 4'nd? as the -o'rt of Appeals pointed o't? b't against the rog'es 8ho d'ped the!. Land titles/ Property/ 5'yers in *ood 4aith ,AT1$,AL 1661*AT1$, A 21,1&T6AT1$, 3s. -$76T $4 APP+AL& and 1-Q 2A,*LAP7& *. 6. ,o. 114"4>? &epte!ber 20? 2000 LA, T1TL+&: ;e agree 8ith ,1A that the Transfer -ertificate of Title and the $riginal -ertificate of Title co3ering the s'bDect parcel of land contained a reser3ation granting the go3ern!ent a right of 8ay o3er the land co3ered therein. The transfer certificate of title? on 8hich both the trial co'rt and -o'rt of Appeals relied? contains s'ch a reser3ation. 1t states that title to the land shall be: H...s'bDect to the pro3isions of said Land 6egistration Act and the P'blic Land Act? as 8ell as those of 2ining La8s? if the land is !ineral? and s'bDect? f'rther to s'ch conditions contained in the original title as !ay be s'bsisting ='nderscoring o'rs:.I 7nder the $riginal -ertificate of Title? there 8as a reser3ation and condition that the land is s'bDect to Hto all conditions and p'blic ease!ents and ser3it'des recogniCed and prescribed by la8 especially those !entioned in &ections 10#? 110? 111? 112? 11" and 114? -o!!on8ealth Act ,o. 141? as a!ended.I This reser3ation? 'nli<e the other i!posed on the grant? 8as not li!ited by any ti!e period and th's is a s'bsisting condition. &ection 112? -o!!on8ealth Act ,o. 141? pro3ides that lands granted by patent? Hshall f'rther be s'bDect to a right of 8ay not e@ceeding t8enty !eters in 8idth for p'blic high8ays? railroads? irrigation ditches? a9'ed'cts? telegraphs and telephone lines? and si!ilar 8or<s as the *o3ern!ent or any p'blic or 9'asi-p'blic ser3ice or enterprises? incl'ding !ining or forest concessionaires !ay reasonably re9'ire for carrying on their b'siness? 8ith da!ages for the i!pro3e!ents only ='nderscoring o'rs:.I The canal ,1A constr'cted 8as only ele3en =11: !eters in 8idth. This is 8ell 8ithin the li!it pro3ided by la8. 2anglap's has therefore no ca'se to co!plain. Article 61# of the -i3il -ode pro3ides that? H+ase!ents are established either by la8 or by the 8ill of the o8ners. The for!er are called legal and the latter 3ol'ntary ease!ents.I 1n the present case? 8e find and declare that a legal ease!ent of a right-of-8ay e@ists in fa3or of the go3ern!ent. The land 8as originally p'blic land? and a8arded to respondent 2anglap's by free patent. The r'ling 8o'ld be other8ise if the land 8ere originally pri3ate property? in 8hich case? D'st co!pensation !'st be paid for the ta<ing of a part thereof for p'blic 'se as an ease!ent of a right of 8ay. ,either can 2anglap's arg'e that he 8as a transferee or b'yer in good faith. 7nder the Torrens syste!? for one to be a b'yer in good faith and for 3al'e? the 3endee !'st see the transfer

certificate of title and rely 'pon the sa!e.Bere? the annotation on the transfer certificate of title i!posed on 2anglap's the d'ty to refer to the conditions annotated on the bac< of the original certificate of title. This? he did not do. The la8 cannot protect hi!. 2anglap's is a transferee 8ith notice of the liens annotated in the title. $ne 8ho deals 8ith property registered 'nder the Torrens syste! is charged 8ith notice of b'rdens and clai!s that are annotated on the title Land Titles/ 6egistration A2+L1TA $L4$ 3s. TB+ 6+*1&T+6 $4 ++ &? et al? *.6. ,o. 1""46(? &epte!ber 2(? 2000 PetitionerEs reliance on her title is infir!. ;hile she presented n'!ero's doc'!ents to pro3e its a'thenticity? ho8e3er? they ha3e been disp'ted by 5enDa!in 4lestado? -hief of the 1nspection and 1n3estigation i3ision of the Land 6egistration A'thority =L6A:? in his 6eport sho8ing that her T.-.T. ,o. T-"20601 8as iss'ed 8itho't legal basis and that no doc'!ent 8as on file 8ith the Pri!ary +ntry 5oo< of the 6egistry of eeds of Trece 2artires -ity to s'pport the iss'ance thereof. This 6eport concl'des that petitionerEs T.-.T. ,o. T-"20601 is sp'rio's. &'ch finding is reinforced by the ,51 6eport dated F'ne 20? 1##6 sho8ing that the signat're of 6egister of eeds Antonia -ab'co appearing on petitionerEs title is a forgery. -onse9'ently? Atty. Arte!io -ana? Acting 6egister of eeds of -a3ite? filed a co!plaint 8ith the 6egional Trial -o'rt? 5ranch ># at 5acoor for ann'l!ent of petitionerEs title. The r'le that a title iss'ed 'nder the Torrens &yste! is pres'!ed 3alid and? hence? is the best proof of o8nership of a piece of land does not apply 8here the certificate itself is fa'lty as to its p'rported origin. Th's? petitioner cannot in3o<e the indefeasibility of her certificate of title. 1t bears e!phasis that the Torrens syste! does not create or 3est title b't only confir!s and records one already e@isting and 3ested. Th's? 8hile it !ay be tr'e? as petitioner arg'es? that a land registration co'rt has no D'risdiction o3er parcels of land already co3ered by a certificate of title? it is e9'ally tr'e that this r'le applies only 8here there e@ists no serio's contro3ersy as to the a'thenticity of the certificate. Land Titles/ -ertificate of title &P$7&+& 4L$6+,T1,$ GA6A*$GA and +6L1, A +,61L7+G-GA6A*$GA 3s. TB+ B$,$6A5L+ -$76T $4 APP+AL&? AL5+6TA GA6A*$GA 2$6*A,? *.6. ,o. 106401? &epte!ber 2#? 2000 &ec. 4>. -ertificate not s'bDect to collateral attac<. - A certificate of title shall not be s'bDect to collateral attac<. 1t can not be altered? !odified? or cancelled e@cept in a direct proceeding in accordance 8ith la8. ;e ha3e reiterated this r'le in the case of Balili 3s. -o'rt of 1nd'strial 6elations? citing the earlier cases of -onstantino 3s. +spirit' and -o 3s. -o'rt of Appeals. 1n Balili? 8e held that a certificate of title acc'!'lates in one doc'!ent a precise and correct state!ent of the e@act stat's of the fee held by its o8ner. The certificate? in the absence of fra'd? is the e3idence of title and sho8s e@actly the real interest of its o8ner. The title once registered? 8ith 3ery fe8 e@ceptions? sho'ld not thereafter be i!p'gned? altered? changed? !odified? enlarged or di!inished? e@cept in so!e direct proceeding per!itted by la8. $ther8ise? all sec'rity in registered titles 8o'ld be lost. 1n -onstantino? the -o'rt decided that the certificate? in the absence of fra'd? is the e3idence of title and sho8s e@actly the real interest of its o8ner. The title once registered? 8ith 3ery fe8 e@ceptions? sho'ld not thereafter be i!p'gned? altered? changed? !odified? enlarged or di!inished? e@cept in so!e direct proceeding per!itted by la8. $ther8ise all sec'rity in registered titles 8o'ld be lost. And in -o? 8e stated that a Torrens title cannot be collaterally attac<ed. The iss'e on the 3alidity of title? i.e.? 8hether or not it 8as fra'd'lently iss'ed? can only be raised in an action e@pressly instit'ted for that p'rpose. 1### 4orest Lands ,ot &'bDect to Pri3ate $8nership 'nless eclassified 1T7T6AL + 0 4AL-A&A,T$&

Fan. 20? 1### The -o'rt of Appeals correctly held that Hthe e3idence is 'nreb'tted that the s'bDect land is 8ithin the 4orest 6eser3e AreaI and hence? not capable of pri3ate appropriation and occ'pation. 1n 6ep'blic c 6egister of eeds of L- =244 &-6A ("%:? 8e held that H4orest land? li<e !ineral or ti!ber lands 8hich are p'blic lands? are not s'bDect to pri3ate o8nership 'nder the -onstit'tion? beco!e pri3ate properties. 1n the absence of s'ch classification? the land re!ains 'nclassified p'blic land 'ntil released therefro! and rendered open to disposition.I 5efore any land !ay be declassified for! the forest gro'p and con3erted into alienable or disposable land for agric'lt'ral or other p'rposes? there !'st be a positi3e act fro! the go3ern!ent. +3en r'les on the confir!ation of i!perfect titles do not apply 'nless and 'ntil the land classified as forest land is released in an official procla!ation to that effect so that it !ay for! part of the disposable agric'lt'ral lands of the p'blic do!ain *o3ern!ent 1!!'nity fro! Laches and +stoppel for Acts of its $fficials 6eco3ery of $8nership of &'bidi3ision Lands &oldin *ood 4aith by Pri3ate e3eloper to 1nnocent P'rchaser for 0al'e 6P 3 -A? et al. Fan. 21? 1### =1: The &tate can be p't in estoppel by the !ista<es or errors of its officials or agents.- +stoppels against the p'blic are not fa3ored/ they !'st be in3o<ed only in rare and 'n's'al circ'!stances as they co'ld operate to defeat the effecti3e operation of a policy adopted to protect the p'blic. Bo8e3er? the go3ern!ent !ay not be allo8ed to deal dishonorably or capricio'sly 8ith its citiCens. 1n the case at bar? for nearly 20 years? petitioner failed to correct and reco3er the alleged increase in the lands area of &t. F'de. 1ts prolonged inaction strongly !ilitates against its ca'se? as its is tanta!o'nt to laches? 8hich !eans Hthe fail're or neglect? for an 'nreasonable and 'ne@plained length of ti!e? to do that 8hich by e@ercising d'e diligence co'ld or sho'ld ha3e been done earlier/ it is negligence or o!ission to assert a right 8ithin a reasonable ti!e? 8arranting a pres'!ption that the party entitled to assert it either abandoned it or declined to assert it. =2: 5'yers of the s'bdi3ision lots that 8ere allegedly HenlargedI relied in good faith on the clean certificate of &F+1. J 5eca'se s'bdi3ision let b'yers 8ere in good faith and did not notice any fla8 in &F+1Es certificates of title? it is only fair and reasonable to apply the e9'itable principle of estoppel by laches against the go3ern!ent to a3osi an inD'stice to the innocent p'rchaser for 3al'e. P'blic Lands: $nly the &tate -an 1nstit'te 6e3ersion Proceedings 76L71A*A 0 -A Fan. 22? 1### +3en ass'!ing that pri3ate respondents ac9'ired title to Let ,o. 6("2-5 thro'gh fra'd and !isrepresentation? it is only the &tate 8hich !ay instit'te re3ersion proceedings 'nder &ec. 101 of the P'blic Land Act considering the finding that the s'bDect lot 8as p'blic land at the ti!e of the sales applications. This la8 pro3ides: &ec. 101. J All actions for re3ersion to the *o3Et of land of the p'blic do!ain or i!pro3e!ents thereon shall be instit'ted by the &ol*en or the officer acting in its stead? in the proper co'rts? in the na!e of the 6P. 1n other 8ords? petitioners ha3e no standing at all to 9'estion the 3alidity of respondentsE title. Land 6egistration: +ffect of ;ithdra8al of Application for Land 6egistration 16. $4 LA, & 0&. -A? +T AL.? 4eb. 2"? 1### =1: &ection "% of the Land 6egistration Act =Act 246: !andates that the 8Adra8al of the application for land registration sho'ld not !ean that the conflicting interests of the parties ceased to e@ist and therefore the land registration proceedings !'st be p'rs'ed to its concl'sion. J The la8 states that an oppositor 8ho clai!s o8nership o3er the property co3ered by the

application? or part thereof? !ay no8 clai! in his ans8er that the land be registered in his na!e in the sa!e proceeding. =2: The 8Adra8al of application for registration of land does not obliterate the conflicting clai!s o3er the sale parcel of land. J 14 the ir. $f Lands registers an ad3erse clai!? the lo8er co'rt is bo'nd to deter!ine the conflicting interest ofthe clai!ant and the applicant and incase neither s'cceeds thro'gh e3idence of proper title for registration? the co'rt !ay dis!iss the case. An opposition presented by the ir. $f Lands is for all intents and p'rposes? a conflicting interest as against that of the applicant or of the pri3ate oppositors? asserting a clai! o3er the land registered. -onse9'ently? the 8Adra8al by either the applicant or any of the pri3ate oppositors doesnEt ipso fact obliterate the conflicting interests in the case. ,either is the case ter!inated beca'se 'nder the la8? as a!ended? the trial co'rt is re9'ired to resol3e the clai!s of the re!aining parties? the 8ithdra8al of the application by the applicant andAor so!e pri3ate oppositors not8ithstanding. -i3il La8A land Titles +L41, 0$L7,TA et al. 3. &P&. 2A*TA,**$L & -$6AG$, 1G$,? et al. A'g'st 1### The general r'le is that a person dealing 8ith a registered land has a right to rely on the Torrens -ertificate of Title 8itho't the need of in9'iring f'rther. 5't this r'le cannot apply 8hen the party has act'al <no8ledge of facts and circ'!stances that 8o'ld i!pel a reasonably ca'tio's !an to !a<e s'ch in9'iry or 8hen the p'rchaser has <no8ledge of a defect or lac< of title in his 3endor or of s'fficient facts to ind'ce a reasonably pr'dent !an to in9'ire into the stat's of the title of the property in litigation. 1n the case at bar? respondent spo'ses 8ho <ne8 of the defect in title cannot be dee!ed b'yers in good faith as against the tr'e o8ner of the land or interest thereon. 1n the case therefore? there is no need for petitioners to file a separate action to enforce their right to rep'rchase the property as against the ne8 registered o8ners. 1##> 6egistered Land? &ale of/ 5'yers in good faith defined/ T8o Transfer -ertificates of Title on sa!e land? 6'le &P&. &$,.A & 1&2A+L 2ATBA.? F6 3. -A? +T AL. &epte!ber 1##> 1n the three cases !erged in this one petition? petitioners? &ps. 2athay? clai! title to three lots? 8hich ha3e been also bo'ght and thereafter occ'pied by three different parties. The &- dis!issed the petition. A p'rchaser in good faith is Hone 8ho b'ys property of another? 8itho't notice that so!e other person has a right to? or interest in? s'ch property and pays a f'll and fair price for the sa!e at the ti!e of p'rchase? or before he has notice of the clai!s or interest of so!e other person in the property.I As a r'le? he 8ho asserts the stat's of a p'rchaser in good faith and for 3al'e? has the b'rden of pro3ing s'ch assertion. Petitioners canEt in3o<e good faith beca'se at the ti!e the property 8as sold to the!? the pri3ate respondents 8ere occ'pying and c'lti3ating the property. Tho'gh as a r'le? a person dealing 8ith registered land need not go beyond the certificate of title? 8here there are circ'!stances 8hich 8o'ld p't the party on g'ard? as is the case at bar? it is e@pected fro! the p'rchaser to in9'ire first into the stat's and nat're of the possession of the occ'pants. 4ail're to do so 8o'ld bar hi! fro! in3o<ing the rights of a p'rchaser in good faith. As stated in the case of 5altaCar 3. -A? bet8een t8o persons both of 8ho! are in good faith and both innocent of any negligence? the la8 !'st protect and prefer the la8f'l holder of registered title o3er the transferee of a 3endor bereft of any trans!issible rights. 1n the instant case? petitioners ha3e no rights against pri3ate respondents. Their reco'rse is against their 3endors. ;here t8o transfer certificates of title ha3e been iss'ed on different dates? to t8o different persons? for the sa!e parcel of land? e3en if both are pres'!ed to be titleholders in good faith? it does not necessarily follo8 that he 8ho holds the earlier title sho'ld pre3ail. The better approach? ass'!ing a reg'larity in the iss'ance of the t8o titles? is to trace the original certificates fro! 8hich the disp'ted certificates of title 8ere deri3ed. &ho'ld there be only one

co!!on original certificate? the transfer certificate iss'ed on an earlier date along the line !'st pre3ail? absent any ano!aly or irreg'larity tainting the process of registration. Land registration/ A!end!ent and Alteration of -ertificate of Title +6,+&T$ A;&$,? +T AL. 3. 6+*1&T+6 $4 ++ & $4 L'eCon -ity +T AL. &epte!ber 1##> The case re3ol3es aro'nd the iss'e of 8hether &ec. 10> of P 1(2# =Land 6egistration Act: applies in the instant case 8here a contract to sell is in3ol3ed. The first b'yer? Lo'is a8son? died 8itho't ha3ing finished paying the 8hole a!o'nt? 8hich obligation 8as ass'!ed by petitioners? his heirs. The 6T- and -A ref'sed the cancellation of the certificate in the na!e of Lo'is a8son and iss'ance of a ne8 title in the na!e of petitioners. The &- allo8ed the application of &ec 10> of P 1(2# contending that this is a case of a contract to sell and not a contract of sale. 1n the case of &alaCar 3. -A? in a contract of sale? the title to the property passes to the 3endee 'pon the deli3ery of the thing sold/ in a contact to sell? o8nership is by agree!ent? reser3ed in the 3endor and is not to pass to the 3endee 'ntil f'll pay!ent of the p'rchase price. Th's? since Lo'is a8son 8as 'nable to pay the 8hole price? 8hich 8as co!pletely paid by petitioners? the property did not beco!e part of the estate of Lo'is a8son. Partition is therefore not the proper re!edy to deter!ine the o8nership of the lot 8hose title had not been 3ested in Lo'is a8son d'ring his lifeti!e as his death ca'sed the loss of his D'ridical personality? 8hich is the fitness to be the s'bDect of legal relations. 1##% -i3il La8ALand Titles B+16& $4 4+L1-1 A -A,L7+? et al. 3. -A? et al. F'ly 1##% The !ortgagor of titled real estate ac9'ired 'nder the P'blic Land Act b't foreclosed by a r'ral ban<? !ay redee! said property 8ithin 2 years fro! registration of the sheriffKs certificate of sale/ and if said !ortgagor fails to e@pire s'ch right? he or his heirs !ay still rep'rchase the land 8ithin ( years fro! the e@piration of the t8o-year rede!ption period. -i3il La8ALand Titles TB+ 16+-T$6 $4 LA, & 3. -A? T+$ $6A A51&TA $? et al. F'ly 1##% 1s ne8spaper p'blication of the notice of initial hearing in an original land registration case !andatory or directoryU 2andatory. Ad!ittedly? P. . ,o. 1(2#? V2" pro3ides that p'blication in the $* s'ffices to confer D'risdiction 'pon the land registration co'rt. Bo8e3er? the 9'estion boils do8n to 8hether? absent any p'blication in a ,$*-? the land registration co'rt can 3alidly confir! and register the title of pri3ate respondents. ;e hold in the negati3e. The la8 'sed the ter! HshallI in prescribing the 8or< to be done by the -o!!issioner of Land 6egistration 'pon the latterEs receipt of the co'rt order setting the ti!e for initial hearing. The 8ord denotes an i!perati3e and th's indicates the !andatory character of a stat'te. P. . ,o. 1(2#? V2" re9'ires notice of the initial hearing by !eans of p'blication? !ailing and posting? all of 8hich !'st be co!plied 8ith. 1f the intent of the la8 8ere other8ise? said section 8o'ld not ha3e stressed in detail the re9'ire!ents of !ailing of notices to all persons na!ed in the petition. 1ndeed? if !ailing of notices is essential? then by parity of reasoning? p'blication in a ,$*- is li<e8ise i!perati3e since the la8 incl'ded s'ch re9'ire!ent in its detailed pro3ision. 4'rther? a land proceedings is in re!? hence !'st be 3alidated essentially thro'gh p'blication. 1t !ay be as<ed 8hy p'blication in a ,$*- is !andatory 8hen the la8 already re9'ires notice by p'blication in the $*? !ailing and posting. The reason is d'e process and the reality that the $* is not as 8idely read and circ'lated and is oftenti!es delayed in its circ'lation. -i3il La8ALand TitlesA6econstit'tion $6T1*A& & -$. 3. F7 *+ T16&$ 0+LA&-$ & $L$6+& 2$L1,A

A'g'st 1##% 6.A. ,o. 26? V1"? lays do8n the re9'isites for ac9'isition by the co'rt of D'risdiction o3er a proceeding for reconstit'tion of title: 1: P'blication? at petitionerKs e@pense? of notice of the petition for reconstit'tion t8ice in s'ccessi3e iss'es of the $*? and posting thereof on the !ain entrance of the pro3incial b'ilding and of the !'nicipal b'ilding of the !'nicipality or city in 8hich the land is sit'ated? at least "0 days prior to the date of hearing/ 2: &pecific state!ent in the notice of the n'b!er of the lost or destroyed certificates of title if <no8n? the na!e of the registered o8ner? the na!e of the occ'pants or persons in possession of the property? the o8ner of the adDoining properties and all other interested parties? the location? area and bo'ndaries of the property? and the date on 8hich all persons ha3ing any interest therein !'st appear and file their clai! or obDection to the petition/ ": &ending? by registered !ail or other8ise? at the e@pense of petitioner? of a copy of the notice to e3ery person na!ed therein =i.e.? the occ'pants or persons in possession of the property? the o8ner of the adDoining properties and all other interested parties: 8hose address is <no8n? at least "0 days prior to the date of the hearing/ and 4: &'b!ission by petitioner at the hearing of proof of the p'blication? posting and ser3ice of notice as directed by the co'rt. -i3il La8ALand Titles F7A, -. -A60AFAL 3. -A & &$L1 B$2+& *.6. ,o. #>"2> $ctober 1##% 1s there denial of d'e process if an applicant for land registration is 'nable to testifyU 2ay a land registration co'rt? after it is con3inced that the property s'bDect of an application for registration 'nder the Torrens syste! is already go3erned by an e@isting certificate? dis!iss s'ch application and th's ignore petitionerEs insistence on s'b!itting f'rther e3idence of his alleged titleU ;hat constit'tes s'fficient e3idence to sho8 identity of the land applied for 8ith the land already titled in fa3or of pri3ate respondentU The petition has no !erit. 4irst 1ss'e: 1dentity of the Property Applied 4or. The 2 reports prepared by the L6A and +,6 &'r3ey i3ision clearly sho8ed that there 8as an o3erlapping bet8een the 2 properties. 5eca'se the f'tility of petitionerEs application 8as apparent? the trial co'rt dee!ed it 'nnecessary to hear f'rther e3idence. ;e agree. There 8as nothing irreg'lar in the trial co'rtEs order to the L6A and +,6 to s'b!it reports on the location of the land co3ered by petitionerEs application and pri3ate respondentEs certificate of title. The a'thority of the land registration co'rt to re9'ire the filing of additional papers to aid it in its deter!ination of the propriety of the application is based on P. . ,o. 1(2#? V21? fro! 8hich? it is also clear that oc'lar inspection of the property 8as !erely discretionary? not !andatory. Li<e8ise? the land registration co'rt 8as not obliged to order the s'r3ey of the contested lot? especially 8hen another go3ern!ent agency had already s'b!itted a report finding that the contested lot 8as identical 8ith that described in pri3ate respondentEs certificate of title and reco!!ending dis!issal of the application for registration. 4'rther? the order of the land co'rt for the L6A and +,6 to s'b!it reports 8as in accordance 8ith the p'rposes of the L6A =G'Siga 3. -A? #( &-6A %40? %4% N1#>0O:

-i3il La8ALand TitlesA6econ3eyance 01-T$61A L+*A6 A 3. -A? ,+; -ATBA. B$7&+? 1,$ctober 1##% The parties entered into a lease agree!ent o3er a L- property o8ned by petitioner =12" ;est A3en'e:. 4or so!e reason? petitioner ref'sed to sign the contract? altho'gh ,e8 -athay Bo'se =,-B: !ade a deposit and a do8npay!ent of rentals. Th's? ,-B s'ed before the 6Tfor specific perfor!ance 8ith preli!inary inD'nction and da!ages.

;e do not ha3e to belabor the fact that all the s'ccessors-in-interest of -abrera to the lot 8ere transferees for 3al'e and in good faith? ha3ing relied as they did on the clean titles of their predecessors. The s'ccessi3e o8ners 8ere each ar!ed 8ith indefeasible titles 8hich bro'ght the! 8ithin the aegis of the Torrens syste!. 1t is settled that one 8ho deals 8ith registered property 'nder the Torrens syste! need not go beyond the sa!e? b't only has to rely on the title/ he is charged 8ith notice only of s'ch b'rdens and clai!s as are annotated on the title. =&ando3al 3. -A? 260 &-6A 2>" N1##6O: Bere? no notice of lis pendens 8as e3er annotated on any of the titles. And e3en if there 8ere s'ch a notice? it 8o'ld not ha3e created a lien o3er the property as the !ain office of a lien is to 8arn prospecti3e b'yers that the property they intend to p'rchase is the s'bDect of a pending litigation. Therefore? since the property is already in the hands of L'!inl'n? an innocent p'rchaser for 3al'e? it can no longer be ret'rned to -abrera? !'ch less to ,-B. Another thing to consider is that -abrera 8as i!pleaded as a respondent only on 12 A'g'st 1##1? after pro!'lgation of the *ancayco decision. The dispositi3e portion itself ordered ,-B? not -abrera? to recon3ey the property to Legarda. -abrera 8as ne3er a party to this case. ,either did he act as ,-BKs representati3e. As held in ,P- 3. ,L6- =*.6. ,o.s #0#""-61? 2# 2ay 1##%:? D'risdiction o3er a party is ac9'ired by 3ol'ntary appearance or by coerci3e process Ns'!!onsO. 1n other 8ords? 'ntil -abrera 8as i!pleaded as party respondent and ordered to file a co!!ent on 12 A'g'st 1##1 resol'tion? the -o'rt ne3er obtained D'risdiction o3er hi!? and to co!!and ,-B to recon3ey a property 8hich 'sed to be -abreraKs 8o'ld be inappropriate as a 3iolation of d'e process. Ass'!ing that recon3eyance is possible? that ,-B and -abrera are one the sa!e and that -abreraKs pay!ent redo'nded to the benefit of ,-B? recon3eyance? 'nder the facts and e3idence here? 8o'ld still not address the iss'es raised herein. The application of the sale price to LegardaKs D'dg!ent debt constit'ted a pay!ent 8hich e@ting'ished her liability to ,-B as the party in 8hose fa3or the obligation to pay da!ages 8as established. =Art. 1240? ,--: 1t 8as a pay!ent in the sense that ,-B had to resort to a co'rts'per3ised a'ction sale in order to e@ec'te the D'dg!ent. ;ith f'lfill!ent of the D'dg!ent debtorKs obligation? nothing else 8as re9'ired to be done. 7nder the *ancayco r'ling? the order of recon3eyance 8as pre!ised on the alleged gross negligence of -oronel. The fact that -abrera is an ,-B officer does not !a<e hi! a p'rchaser in bad faith. Bis act in representing the co!pany 8as ne3er 9'estioned nor disp'ted by Legarda. And 8hile it is tr'e that he 8on in the bidding? it is li<e8ise tr'e that said bidding 8as cond'cted by the boo<. There is no call to be alar!ed in case an official of the co!pany e!erges as the 8inning bidder since in so!e cases? the D'dg!ent creditor hi!self personally participates in the bidding. Legarda? as D'dg!ent debtor? cannot clai! she 8as illegally depri3ed of her property beca'se s'ch depri3ation 8as done in accordance 8ith the r'les on e@ec'tion of D'dg!ents. ;hether the !oney 'sed to pay for said property ca!e fro! the D'dg!ent creditor or its representati3e is not rele3ant. ;hat is i!portant is that it 8as p'rchased for 3al'e. -abrera parted 8ith real !oney at the a'ction. Bad there been no real p'rchase and pay!ent belo8? the s'bDect property 8o'ld ne3er ha3e been a8arded to -abrera and registered in his na!e? and the D'dg!ent debt 8o'ld ne3er ha3e been satisfied. Th's? to re9'ire either ,-B or -abrera to recon3ey the property 8o'ld be an 'nla8f'l intr'sion into the la8f'l e@ercise of the latterKs proprietary right o3er the land in 9'estion? an act 8hich 8o'ld constit'te an act'al denial of property 8itho't d'e process. 1t !ay be tr'e that the lot co'ld ha3e fetched a higher price? b't there is not hint of any irreg'larity as regards -abreraKs bid price. 4'rther? despite this lo8 selling price? Legarda still failed to redee! her property 8ithin the 1-year rede!ption period. &he co'ld not feign ignorance of the a'ction sale on acco'nt of her co'nselKs fail're to infor! her? as the a'ction sale co!plied 8ith re9'ire!ents of notice and p'blication 'nder the 6'les. 1n absence of any clear and con3incing proof that s'ch re9'isites 8ere not follo8ed? the pres'!ption of reg'larity stands. ;hile Legarda !aintains she 8as in the 7.&. d'ring the rede!ption period? she ad!itted that she left only 16 days after the a'ction sale/ !oreo3er? her !other represented her d'ring the latterKs absence. ,either ,-B nor -abrera sho'ld be !ade to s'ffer the gross negligence of -oronel. 1f Legarda !ay be said to be innocent beca'se she 8as ignorant of her co'nselKs negligence? 8ith

!ore reason are ,-B and -abrera innocent. As bet8een 2 parties 8ho !ay lose o't to negligence or inco!petence of co'nsel of one? the party 8ho 8as responsible for !a<ing it happen sho'ld s'ffer the conse9'ences. This reflects a basic co!!on la8 !a@i!. Bere it 8as Legarda 8ho !isD'dged and hired the ser3ices of a la8yer 8ho practically abandoned her case and 8ho contin'ed to retain hi! e3en after his pro3en apathy and negligence. The *ancayco decision !a<es !'ch of the fact that Legarda is no8 Hconsigned to pen'ryM and? therefore? the -o'rt M!'st co!e to the aid of the distra'ght client.M 1t !'st be re!e!bered? ho8e3er? that this -o'rt renders decision not on the basis of e!otions? b't on its so'nd D'dg!ent? applying the rele3ant la8. 2'ch as 8e !ay pity Legarda? 8e cannot play the role of a M<night in shining ar!orM -i3il La8ALand Titles A,1+L -. 01LLA,7+0A 3. -A? LA, 6+*1&T6AT1$, A7TB$61T.? $$ Q1A, T1$Q ,o3e!ber 1##% 1n 2agdalena Bo!eo8ners 3. -A =1>4 &-6A "2(? "2#-"0 N1##0O:? this -o'rt en'!erated the cases 8here a notice of lis pendens is proper: 1: action to reco3er possession of real estate 2: action to 9'iet title ": action to re!o3e clo'ds 4: action for partition (: any other proceeding of any <ind in co'rt directly affecting the title to the land or the 'se or occ'pation thereof or the b'ildings thereon. +le!ents to annotate a notice of lis pendens: =1: property !'st be of s'ch character as to be s'bDect to the r'le/ =2: co'rt !'st ha3e D'risdiction both o3er the person and the res/ and =": property or res in3ol3ed !'st be s'fficiently described in the pleadings. $nly the first re9'isite is at iss'e here. Altho'gh it is not necessary for the applicant to pro3e his o8nership or interest o3er the property so'ght to be affected by lis pendens? the applicant !'st? in the co!plaint or ans8er filed in the case? assert a clai! of possession or title o3er the s'bDect property in order to gi3e d'e co'rse to his application. As settled? lis pendens !ay be annotated only 8here there is an action or proceeding in co'rt 8hich affects the title to? or possession of? real property. A notice of lis pendens does not create a none@istent right or lien. 1t ser3es !erely as a 8arning to a person 8ho contracts on the s'bDect property that he does so at his peril and s'bDect to the res'lt of the pending litigation. The registration of the notice of lis pendens is done 8itho't lea3e of co'rt. The 6'le !erely re9'ires an affir!ati3e relief to be clai!ed in the ans8er to enable a defendant to apply for the annotation of the notice. There is no re9'ire!ent that an applicant-defendant !'st pro3e his right or interest o3er the property so'ght to be annotated 'pon. To re9'ire that an applicant !'st pro3e his o8nership or his interest o3er the property so'ght to be affected 8ith the notice of lis pendens 8ill 'nd'ly restrict the scope of the r'le. 1n s'ch case? a party 9'estioning the o8nership of the registered o8ner 8ill litigate his or her case 8itho't an ass'rance that the property 8ill be protected fro! 'n8anted alienation or enc'!brance d'ring the pendency of the action? thereby defeating the 3ery p'rpose and rationale of the registration. -i3il La8ALand TitlesA1nnocent P'rchaser for 0al'e *L$61A 6. -67G 3. -A? 6$2. 0. &7GA6A & 2A,7+L 6. 01G-$, + ,o3e!ber 1##% Petitioner o8ned a lot in L-. 1n 1#%%? she li3ed-in 8ith 6o!y &'Cara 8itho't benefit of !arriage. 1n 1#>2? solely o't of lo3e and affection? she e@ec'ted a deed of sale in 6o!yEs fa3or 8itho't !onetary consideration. 6o!y registered the doc'!ent in his fa3or and 'sed the property as collateral for a ban< loan. 6o!y failed to pay off the loan? th's the !ortgage 8as foreclosed. Petitioner paid the ban< to restr'ct're the loan? res'lting in the e@tension of the rede!ption period to 2 years. 5't 8itho't petitionerEs <no8ledge? 6o!y redee!ed the property and thereafter a3oided petitioner. Th's petitioner filed an affida3it of ad3erse clai! 8ith the 6 of

L-? asserting that the sale to 6on!y 8as 3oid for lac< of consideration and for being contrary to la8 and p'blic policy. Petitioner then s'ed before the 6T- for 9'ieting of title? declaration of n'llity of doc'!ents? etc. The 6T- r'led that the sale bet8een petitioner and 6o!y 8as 3alid? 8ith lo3e? affection and acco!odation being the consideration for the sale/ f'rther? that 0iCconde 8as an innocent p'rchaser for 3al'e. The -A affir!ed. ;e cannot s'stain petitioner. Altho'gh 'nder Art. 14#0? a h'sband and 8ife cannot sell property to one another as a r'le 8hich? for policy considerations re9'ires that the prohibition apply to co!!on-la8 relationships =-ali!li! 3. 4ort'n? 12# &-6A 6%( N1#>4O:? petitioner can no longer see< recon3eyance of the property as it has already been ac9'ired by 0iCconde in good faith and for 3al'e. 5oth lo8er co'rts fo'nd that on 22 ece!ber 1#>#? 8hen 6o!y e@ec'ted the deed of sale in fa3or of 0iCconde? 6o!y 8as the registered o8ner and nothing 8as annotated in the certificate to indicate a fla8 in 6o!yEs title. 1t 8as only on 22 Fan'ary 1##0 that petitioner filed her ad3erse clai! 8ith the 6 . This is 8itho't preD'dice to any appropriate re!edy petitioner !ay ta<e against 6o!y. -i3il La8ALand Titles/ Lease 6+P75L1-? represented by the ir. of Lands 3. -A? F$&+41,A L. 2$6AT$? et al. ,o3e!ber 1##% ;ill the lease andAor !ortgage of a portion of a realty ac9'ired thro'gh free patent constit'te s'fficient gro'nd for the n'llification of the grantU &ho'ld s'ch property re3ert to the &tate once it is in3aded by the sea and th's beco!es foreshore landU 4irst. 7nder the P'blic Land Act =-.A. ,o. 141:? VV 11>? 121? 122 and 124? any enc'!brance of a parcel of land ac9'ired 'nder a free patent or ho!estead 8ithin ( years fro! s'ch grant is prohibited W cancellation of grant and re3ersion of land to p'blic do!ain. +nc'!brance has been defined as anything that i!pairs the 'se or transfer of property/ anything 8hich constit'tes a b'rden on the title/ a b'rden or charge 'pon property/ a clai! or lien 'pon property. The lease and !ortgage constit'te enc'!brances as the grantee =2orato: cannot f'lly 'se or enDoy the land d'ring the d'ration of the lease. 1n a contract of lease 8hich is consens'al? bilateral? onero's and co!!'tati3e? the o8ner te!porarily grants the 'se of his or her property to another 8ho 'nderta<es to pay rent therefor. 'ring the ter! of the lease? the grantee cannot enDoy the beneficial 'se of the land leased? this the P'blic Land Act prohibits. As regards the !ortgage? it clearly constit'es an Henc'!branceI prohibited by the la8 as foreclos're of s'ch !ortgage 8o'ld necessarily res'lt in the a'ction of the property. &econd. 6e: foreshore land re3erting to the p'blic do!ain. Petitioner correctly contends that 2orato cannot o8n foreshore land? altho'gh respondents contend that it is 'nfair if 2orato 8ill be depri3ed of the 8hole property D'st beca'se a portion thereof 8as i!!ersed in 8ater for reasons not of her o8n doing. Bere? the free patent application 8as !ade in 1#%2. Bo8e3er? the land has since beco!e foreshore land. Th's? it can no longer be s'bDect of a free patent? 8ith *o3t. 3. -abaSgis =(" Phil. 112? 11(-16 N1#2#O: e@plaining the rationale for this proscription? i.e.? 8here an o8ner has to all intents and p'rposes abandoned the land and per!itted it to be totally destroyed so as to beco!e part of the seashore? the land passes on to the p'blic do!ain b't the o8ner th's dispossessed does not retain any right to the nat'ral prod'cts res'lting fro! their ne8 nat're/ it is a de facto case of e!inent do!ain and not s'bDect to inde!nity. ;hen the sea !o3ed to8ards the estate and the tide in3aded it? the in3aded property beca!e foreshore land and passed to the real! of the p'blic do!ain. -i3il La8ALand Titles B+16& $4 2A6-1A,$ ,A*AX$ 3. -A? et al. ,o3e!ber 1##% 1t is settled that a 2T hypothetically ad!its the tr'th of the facts alleged therein. 1n their co!plaint? pri3ate respondents specifically alleged that they 8ere o8ners of a portion of the lot for ha3ing possessed it in the concept of an o8ner? openly? peacef'lly? etc.? since 1#20. This clai!

is an assertion that the lot 8as pri3ate land? or that e3en ass'!ing it 8as part of the p'blic do!ain? pri3ate respondents ahd already ac9'ired i!perfect title thereto 'nder -.A. ,o. 141? V4>? 'nder 8hich? a lot is segregated fro! the p'blic do!ain as the beneficiary is concl'si3ely pres'!ed to ha3e perfor!ed all the conditions essential to a *o3ern!ent grant. Th's? !erely on the basis of the allegations of the co!plaint? the lot in 9'estion 8as apparently beyond the D'risdiction of the irector of Lands and co'ld not be the s'bDect of a 4ree Patent. Bence? dis!issal of pri3ate respondentsK co!plaint 8as pre!at're and trial on the !erits sho'ld ha3e been cond'cted to thresh o't e3identiary !atters. 1t 8o'ld been entirely different if the action 8ere clearly for re3ersion? in 8hich case? it 8o'ld ha3e to be instit'ted by the &ol-*en? p'rs'ant to V101? -.A. ,o. 141. 1n light of the abo3e? and at this ti!e? prescription is 'na3ailing against pri3ate respondentsK action. A free patent iss'ed o3er pri3ate land is 3oid. 4'rther? pri3ate respondentsK clai! of open? p'blic? etc.? possession since 102# and its illegal incl'sion in petitionersK free patent ga3e pri3ate respondents a ca'se of action for 9'ieting of title? 8hich is i!prescriptible. Th's pri3ate respondentsK co!plaint !ay th's li<e8ise be considered an action for 9'ieting of title. 1##6 Land Titles/ Ad3erse -lai! *A651, 3. -A 4ebr'ary 1##6 oes the registration of an ad3erse clai! pre3ail o3er the title 8hich 8as registered s'bse9'ent to the ad3erse clai!U B+L : ,o. 7nder Act ,o. 4#6? V110? the p'rpose of an ad3erse clai! is to protect the interest of a person o3er a piece of real property 8here the registration of s'ch interest or right is not other8ise pro3ided for by the Land 6egistration Act? and ser3e as notice and 8arning to third parties dealing 8ith said property that so!eone is clai!ing an interest on the sa!e or a better right than the registered o8ner. 1n case at bench? 8hat 8as registered 8as !erely the ad3erse clai!? and not the eed of &ale. Therefore? there is still need to resol3e the for!erKs 3alidity in separate proceedings? as there is an absence of registration of the act'al con3eyance of the portion of land therein clai!ed by pri3ate respondents. Land Titles/ 6econstit'tion ,+; 76A;$$ 3. -A 4ebr'ary 1##6 6.A. ,o. 26? V1" applies only in cases of reconstit'tion of lost or destroyed original certificates on file 8ith the 6egister of eeds? 8hile P. . ,o. 1(2#? V10# go3erns petitions for iss'ance of ne8 o8nerKs d'plicate certificates of title 8hich are lost or stolen or destroyed. =The for!er is e@pressly pro3ided for in P. . ,o. 1(2#? V110.: 1n e!etrio' 3. -A =2"> &-6A 1(>? 162 N1##4O:? 8e r'led that if a certificate of title has not been lost b't is in fact in the possession of another person? the reconstit'ted title is 3oid and the co'rt rendering the decision has not ac9'ired D'risdiction. -onse9'ently? the decision !ay be attac<ed at any ti!e. 1n case at bench? the o8nerKs d'plicate certificates of title 8ere not Mlost or destroyed?M hence? there 8as no necessity for the petition filed in the trial co'rt for the M1ss'ance of ,e8 $8nerKs 'plicate -ertificates of Title @ @ @.M 1n fact? the said co'rt ne3er ac9'ired D'risdiction to order the iss'ance of ne8 certificates. Bence? the ne8ly iss'ed d'plicates are the!sel3es 3oid. 1t is ob3io's that this lapse happened beca'se of fail're to follo8 the proced're in P. . ,o. 1(2#: 1: ,o notice of loss or theft sent to the 6egister of eeds. 2: V10% pro3ides that in case of the ref'sal or fail're of the holder to s'rrender the o8nerKs d'plicate certificate of title? the re!edy is a petition in co'rt to co!pel s'rrender thereof to the 6egister of eeds? and not a petition for reconstit'tion. Land Titles/ 2ortgage

&TAT+ 1,0+&T2+,T B$7&+ 3. -A 2arch 1##6 PetitionerKs registered !ortgage o3er the property is inferior to that of respondents-spo'sesK 'nregistered right. The 'nrecorded sale bet8een respondents-spo'ses and &olid is preferred for the reason that if the original o8ner =&olid: had parted 8ith his o8nership of the thing sold then he no longer had o8nership and free disposal of that thing so as to be able to !ortgage it again. 6egistration of the !ortgage is of no !o!ent since it is 'nderstood to be 8itho't preD'dice to the better right of third parties. =citations o!itted: Petitioner asserts that a p'rchaser or !ortgagee of land co3ered 'nder the Torrens &yste! is not re9'ired to do !ore than rely 'pon the certificate of title. B+L : As a general r'le? 8here there is nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any clo'd or 3ice in the o8nership of the property? or any enc'!brance thereon? the p'rchaser is not re9'ired to e@plore f'rther than 8hat the Torrens Title 'pon its face indicates in 9'est for any hidden defect or inchoate right that !ay s'bse9'ently defeat his right thereto. This r'le? ho8e3er? ad!its of an e@ception as 8here the p'rchaser or !ortgagee? has <no8ledge of a defect or lac< of title in his 3endor @@@ 1n this case? petitioner 8as 8ell a8are it 8as dealing 8ith &olid? a b'siness entity engaged in the b'siness of selling s'bdi3ision lots. 1n &'nshine 3. 1A- =20" &-6A 210:? the -o'rt? noting petitioner therein to be a financing corporation? de3iated fro! the general r'le that a p'rchaser or !ortgagee of a land is not re9'ired to loo< f'rther than 8hat appears on the face of the Torrens Title. 6+P75L1- 3. -A 2arch 1##6 $nce a patent is registered 'nder Act ,o. 4#6 =no8 P. . ,o. 1(2#: and the corresponding certificate of title is iss'ed? the land ceases to be part of the p'blic do!ain and beco!es pri3ate property o3er 8hich the irector of Lands 8ill no longer ha3e either control or D'risdiction. = ir. of Lands 3. e L'na? 110 Phil. 2> N1#60O: The Torrens Title iss'ed on the basis of a free or ho!estead patent beco!es as indefeasible as one 8hich 8as D'dicially sec'red 'pon the e@piration of one year fro! date of iss'ance of patent. Bo8e3er? e3en after the lapse of one year? the &tate !ay still bring an action 'nder V101 of the P'blic Land Act for the re3ersion to the p'blic do!ain of lands 8hich ha3e been fra'd'lently granted to pri3ate indi3id'als. This has been the consistent r'ling of this -o'rt. =citations o!itted: 6+P75L1- 3. -A & B+16& $4 615A.A F'ly 1##6 The -A erred in holding that the 6ep'blic 8as barred? as the $-T 8as concl'si3e against all persons. $ne year after its transcription 8hich is the date of its effecti3ity said certificate of title beca!e incontro3ertible. 4irst? the one-year period pro3ided for in &ection "> of Act ,o. 4#6 !erely refers to a petition for re3ie8 and is rec<oned fro! the entry of decree. 1n the second place? there are other re!edies a3ailable to an aggrie3ed party after the said one-year period? e.g.? recon3eyance? co3ered by &ection (( of Act ,o. 4#6 8hich? inter alia? pro3ides that Min all cases of registration proc'red by fra'd? the o8ner !ay p'rs'e all his legal and e9'itable re!edies against the parties to s'ch fra'd? 8itho't preD'dice? ho8e3er? to the rights of any innocent holder for 3al'e of a certificate of title.M Li<e8ise? an action for da!ages is sanctioned in cases 8here the property has been transferred to an innocent p'rchaser for 3al'e? 8hich !ay be filed 8ithin fo'r years fro! disco3ery of the fra'd. 6eco'rse !ay also be had against the Ass'rance 4'nd. 4inally? prescription ne3er lies against the &tate for the re3ersion of property 8hich is part of the p'blic forest or of a forest reser3ation 8hich 8as registered in fa3or of any party. Then too? p'blic land registered 'nder the Land 6egistration Act !ay be reco3ered by the &tate at any ti!e. MP'blic land fra'd'lently incl'ded in patents or certificates of title !ay be re3erted to the state in accordance 8ith &ection 101 of the P'blic Land Act. -i3il La8ALand Titles 6+P75L1- 3. -A & B+16& $4 +2$-61T$ $. PLAGA F'ly 1##6

Petitioner arg'es that the b'rden rests on applicant to sho8 by con3incing e3idence that he has registrable title o3er the property? 8hich he failed to do. 4'rther? aside fro! !ere ta@ declarations? all of recent 3intage? pri3ate respondent has not established act'al possession of the property in the !anner re9'ired by la8 =V14? P. . 1(2#: and D'rispr'dence. Altho'gh ta@ declarations not concl'si3e? good indicia of possession in concept of o8ner. They constit'te at least proof that the holder has a clai! of title o3er the property. &'ch an act strengthens oneKs bona fide clai! of ac9'isition of o8nership. 6egistration does not 3est title. 1t is !erely e3idence of s'ch title. -i3il La8ALand TitlesAP'blic Land Act =-.A. ,o. 141: -LA6A AT$,* 0 A. + PA,AL1*A,? et al. 3. -A? 6T- &. -$T$5AT$? *A7 +,-1$ &7P+61$61 A & &$-$66$ 5A661$& F'ly 1##6 The case in3ol3es the si!ple iss'e of rede!ption as pro3ided for in V11#? -.A. ,o. 141.Petitioners contend that the -A r'ling goes against &tate 1n3est!ent Bo'se 3. -A =21( &-6A %"4 N1##2O:? that in e@ercising the right of rede!ption? tender of pay!ent of the rep'rchase price is necessary. Petitioners point o't that d'ring the hearings before the trial co'rt? pri3ate respondents co'ld not readily deposit the rep'rchase price. Petition has no !erit. &tate 1n3est!ent is not applicable beca'se it did not in3ol3e land granted 'nder a ho!estead or free patent? b't an ordinary parcel of land 8hich 8as !ortgaged and foreclosed. 6ede!ption 8as th's being e@ercised 'nder ci3il la8 pro3isions and not 'nder V11#? -.A. ,o. 141? 8hich applies here. Tender of pay!ent of the rep'rchase price is not a!ong the re9'isites of the la8 and is therefore 'nnecessary. 1n P,5 3. -A =1%# &-6A 61# N1#>#O:? 8ith reference to 2 parcels of land ac9'ired 'nder a free patent for 8hich rede!ption 8ithin ( years 8as conceded by petitioner? the -o'rt held that it 8as not e3en necessary for the preser3ation of the right of rede!ption to !a<e an offer to redee! or tender of pay!ent of p'rchase price 8ithin ( years. The filing of an action to redee! 8ithin that period is e9'i3alent to a for!al offer to redee!. There is not e3en a need for consignation of the rede!ption price. B+16& $4 L71& *$,GA*A? et al. 3. -A & &P&. F$&+ L++L1, &epte!ber 1##6 -i3il La8ALand Titles: NAfter declaring that 2;&& 3. -A? 21( &-6A %>" =1##2: is fo'r-s9'are re: o3erlapping titlesO? NtOhe present contro3ersy hinges on the 9'estion as to 8ho? bet8een petitioners and pri3ate respondents? ha3e legal and 3alid title to the t8o lots.. 1n 2;&&? 8e r'led: Altho'gh petitionerKs title 8as iss'ed in 1#40 Nearlier than pri3ate respondentsKO it 8ill be noted that petitionerKs title 8as based on the cadastral s'r3ey of Qaloocan -ity? -adastral -ase ,o. "4? 8hile pri3ate respondentsK title 8as deri3ed fro! $-T ,o. ##4 iss'ed on April 1#? 1#1%. 1n Pa!int'an 3. &an Ag'stin? this -o'rt r'led that in a cadastral case the co'rt has no D'risdiction in an earlier land registration case and a second decree for the sa!e land is n'll and 3oid. ;here t8o certificates of title p'rport to incl'de the sa!e land? the earlier in date pre3ails. @@@ 1n s'ccessi3e registrations? 8here !ore than one certificate is iss'ed in respect of a partic'lar estate in land? the person clai!ing 'nder the prior certificate is entitled to the estate @@@ Lastly? a certificate is not concl'si3e e3idence of title if it is sho8n that the sa!e land had already been registered and an earlier certificate for the sa!e is in e@istence. ;e sy!pathiCe 8ith petitioner 2ascariSas 8ho !ay be a p'rchaser for 3al'e and in good faith? b't 8hose title? 8hich is only a deri3ati3e of the 3oidAlater title? co'ld not possibly be of force and effect !ore than its parent title. -ertainly the spring cannot rise higher than its so'rce. AT$Q 51*-;+ *+ 21,1,* 3. 1A- & T7QT7QA, &A1,*A, *.6. ,o. 6"(2>? &epte!ber 1##6 -i3il La8ALand Titles: 1n the face of t8o sets of di3ergent r'lings of the &'pre!e -o'rt on the nat're of the rights of !ining clai!ants o3er the land 8here their clai! is located? the parties herein see< a definiti3e r'ling on the iss'e: ;hat is act'ally the right of a locator of a !ining clai! located and perfected 'nder the Philippine 5ill of 1#02 o3er the land 8here the clai! is fo'ndU oes he ha3e an absol'te right of o8nership or does he ha3e the !ere right to possessU

;hose right to the land sho'ld? therefore? pre3ail: the !ining clai!antKs or that of an applicant for land registrationU oes the !ere recording or location of a !ining clai! ipso facto and irre3ersibly con3ert the land into !ineral land? not8ithstanding the fact that the !ining clai!ant failed to co!ply 8ith the strict 8or< re9'ire!ent 'nder the Philippine 5ill of 1#02U 1: The records bear o't that pri3ate respondent has been in possession of the lot in concept of o8ner for !ore than "0 years. ;hile pri3ate respondent offered the ta@ declarations and receipts in e3idence? petitioner did not present any e3idence in reb'ttal thereof. Petitioner !erely anchored its ca'se on its alleged 3ested rights to its !ining clai!s 'nder the !andate of the Philippine 5ill of 1#02 and o'r r'lings in 2c aniel 3. Apacible =42 Phil. %4#: and the catena of cases s'bse9'ent thereto. 2: Petitioner is dee!ed to ha3e abandoned his !ining clai!s 'nder +.$. ,o. 141 and P. . ,o. 1214. All !ineral lands? as part of the co'ntryKs nat'ral reso'rces? belong to the &tate. This concept of D'ra regalia enshrined in past and present Philippine constit'tions has not al8ays been the pre3ailing principle in this D'risdiction. There 8as a ti!e in o'r history 8hen the !ining la8s 8ere co!prising of the 4ilipino peopleKs inherent rights to their nat'ral 8ealth. Against this bac<drop? 8e resol3e 8hether or not the o8nership of s'bDect land had long been 3ested on petitioner after it had allegedly located and recorded its !ining clai! in accordance 8ith the pro3isions of the Philippine 5ill of 1#02. This iss'e is not no3el? it ha3ing first r'led 'pon in 2c aniel 3. Apacible? 8here 8e stated: The !o!ent the locator disco3ered a 3al'able !ineral deposit on the lands located? and perfected his location in accordance 8ith la8? the po8er of the 7.&. *o3Kt. to depri3e hi! of the e@cl'si3e right to the possession and enDoy!ent of the located clai! 8as gone? the lands had beco!e !ineral lands and they 8ere e@e!pted fro! lands that co'ld be granted to any other person. The reser3ations of p'blic lands cannot be !ade so as to incl'de prior !ineral perfected located locations/ and ? of co'rse? if a 3alid !ining location is !ade 'pon p'blic lands after8ard incl'ded in a reser3ation? s'ch incl'sion or reser3ation does not affect the 3alidity of the for!er location. 5y s'ch location and perfection? the land located is segregated fro! the p'blic do!ain e3en as against the *o3ern!ent. ;e reiterated this r'ling in > cases =citations o!itted:. These cases not8ithstanding? ho8e3er? there ca!e abo't thereafter a catena of cases 8here 8e declared that the rights of the holder of a !ining clai! located 'nder the Philippine 5ill of 1#02? are not absol'te or are not strictly of o8nership. This 8as a ncessary pre!ise in o'r affir!ation of the constit'tionality of P. . ,o. 1214 in the 1#>% case of &anta 6osa 2ining 3. Leido =1(6 &-6A 1:? 8here 8e stated that !ere location does not !ean absol'te o8nership o3er the affected land. 1t !erely segregates the located land fro! the p'blic do!ain by barring other 8o'ld-be locators fro! locating the sa!e. To r'le other8ise 8o'ld i!ply that location is all that is needed to ac9'ire and !aintain rights o3er a located !ining clai!. And o'r r'ling there 8as 'pheld in ( cases =citations o!itted:. ;hile petitioner insists there is only one constr'ction of the pro3isions of the Philippine 5ill of 1#02? i.e.? in the nat're of o8nership? pri3ate respondent posits the 'lti!ate 9'estion of 8hich bet8een the see!ingly inconsistent r'lings is the correct interpretation of the Philippine 5ill of 1#02 in relation to +.$. ,o. 141 and P. . ,o. 1214. This is not the first ti!e either that 8e are as<ed to resol3e these post'lations of this co'rt that are percei3ed to be contradictory. 1n the 1##4 case of 7nited Paracale 2ining 3. -A =2"2 &-6A 66":? it 8o'ld ha3e been pre!at're to r'le on the iss'e? not all indispensable parties therein ha3ing been Doined. That is not the sit'ation in the present contro3ersy. The deter!ination of the rights of a !ining clai! holder 'nder the Philippine 5ill of 1#02 is best 'nderta<en on the basis of the 3ery so'rce of those rights? i.e.? the 5ill itself. Any alteration or change in the nat're of those rights !'st be conceded for as long as s'ch is stat'torily and constit'tionally sanctioned? for e3en 3ested rights !ay be ta<en a8ay by the &tate in the e@ercise of police po8er. The recording of !ining clai!s co'ld not ha3e been intended to be the operati3e act of classifying lands into !ineral lands. The recording only operates to reser3e to the registrant e@cl'si3e rights to 'nderta<e !ining acti3ities 'pon the s'bDect land. The po8er to classify lands into !ineral lands co'ld not ha3e been intended 'nder the Philippine 5ill of 1#02 to be 3ested in D'st anyone

8ho records a !ining clai!. This strengthens o'r holding that the rights of a !ining clai!ant are confined to possessing the land for p'rposes of e@traction of !inerals. Th's? if no !inerals are e@tracted? not8ithstanding the recording of the clai!? the land is not !ineral land and registration thereof is not precl'ded by s'ch recorded clai!. Th's? in case at bench? the !ining clai!ant? 8ho had failed to co!ply 8ith the ann'al !ini!'! 8or< re9'ire!ent? co'ld not? all the !ore? be e@pected to ha3e e@tracted !inerals fro! the !ining location. Th's? it can be said =1: that the rights 'nder the Philippine 5ill of 1#02 of a !ining clai! holder has been !ade s'bDect by the 5ill itself to the strict re9'ire!ent that he act'ally perfor!s 8or< or 'nderta<es i!pro3e!ents on the !ine e3ery year and does not !erely file his affida3it of ann'al assess!ent? 8hich re9'ire!ent 8as correctly identified and declared in +.$. ,o. 141/ and =2: That the sa!e rights ha3e been ter!inated by P. . ,o. 1214? a police po8er enact!ent? 'nder 8hich non-application for !ining lease a!o'nts to 8ai3er of all rights 'nder the Philippine 5ill of 1#02 and application for !ining lease a!o'nts to 8ai3er of the right 'nder the 5ill to apply for a patent. 1n light of these conditions 'pon the right of a !ining clai! holder 'nder the 5ill? there sho'ld re!ain no do'bt no8 that s'ch rights 8ere not? in the first place? absol'te or in the nat're of o8nership? and neither 8ere they intended to be so. Applying this to the facts of this case? 8e find that? not only has petitioner failed to sho8 co!pliance 8ith the act'al ann'al 8or< re9'ire!ent? b't also that no8here on the land co'ld any tangible 8or< or i!pro3e!ent be fo'nd =as noted by the trial co!!issioner d'ring an oc'lar inspection:. 7nderstandable th's is the action of the ir. of Lands not to f'rther appeal fro! respondent co'rtKs decision? the irector conceding the land to be registrable? considering petitionerKs non-perfor!ance of !ining 8or< thereon? pri3ate respondentKs ad3erse possession of the s'bDect land !ore than "0 years and its 'se thereof for as !any years solely for agric'lt'ral p'rposes. +9'ally borne o't by the records is the fact that petitioner had indeed applied for a !ining lease 'nder P. . ,o. 1214? th's? it has? in effect? 8ai3ed its rights to sec're a patent and it shall ha3e been go3erned? if pri3ate respondentKs clai! of ad3erse and open possession of the s'bDect land for !ore than "0 years 8ere not established? by P. . ,o. 46" in its acti3ities respecting its !ining lease. =Petition dis!issed.: -i3il La8ALand Titles: 6e!edial La8A&pecial ProceedingsAF'risdiction of probate co'rt -i3il La8A&'ccessionAF'risdiction of probate co'rt: 6e!edial La8A+3idenceA ifferent D'dges heard and decided the case: 3alid since f'll record a3ailable to the latter. 1,T+&TAT+ +&TAT+ $4 TB+ LAT+ $, 2A61A,$ &A, P+ 6$ y +&T+5A, 3. -A? et al ec. 1>? 1##6 A probate co'rtKs D'risdiction is not li!ited to the deter!ination of 8ho the heirs are and 8hat shares are d'e the! as regards the decedentKs estate. ,either is it confir!ed to the iss'e of the 3alidity of 8ills. ;e held in 2aniSgat 3. -astillo =%( Phil. ("2? ("( N1#4(O: that the !ain f'nction of a probate co'rt is to settle and li9'idate the estates of deceased persons either s'!!arily or thro'gh the process of ad!inistration. This f'nction necessarily incl'des the e@a!ination of the properties of the deceased so as to r'le on 8hether or not the in3etory of the estate properly incl'ded the! for p'rposes of distrib'tion. Th's in Trinidad 3. -A =202 &-6A 106? 116 N1##1O:? 8e held that 9'estions of title to any property apparently still belonging to the estate of the deceased !ay be passed 'pon in probate 8ith the consent of all parties? 8itho't preD'dice to third persons. Parenthetically? 9'estions of title pertaining to the deter!ination pri!a facie of 8hether certain properties o'ght to be incl'ded or e@cl'ded fro! in3entory and acco'nting !ay be resol3ed by the probate co'rt. =*arcia 3. *arcia? 6% Phil. "("? "(6-"(% N1#"#O: Th's? the lo8er co'rt did not co!!it re3ersible error 8hen it declared Tit'lo 41"6 as 3oid. 7nder P. . >#2 =effecti3e 16 4eb. 1#%6:? all holders of &panish titlesAgrants sho'ld ca'se their lands co3ered thereby to be registered 'nder Act ,o. 4#6 8ithin 6 !onths fro! date of effecti3ity or 'ntil 16 A'g. 1#%6. $ther8ise? non-co!pliance res'lts in a re-classification of their land. &panish titles can no longer be co'ntenanced as ind'bitable e3idence of land o8nership. =citations o!itted: 1t 8as error on the part of respondent 6T- F'dge 5agasao 8ho rendered the decision =b't re3ersed by his s'ccessor 6T- F'dge 4ernandeC: to ha3e declared the e@istence? gen'ineness

and a'thenticity of Tit'lo 41"6 despite the effecti3ity of P. . >#2. F'dge 4ernandeC e!phasiCed that Tit'lo 41"6 8as inad!issible and ineffecti3e as e3idence of pri3ate o8nership. This -o'rt can only s'r!ise that the reason for non-registration of Tit'lo 41"6 'nder the Torrens syste! is the lac< of the necessary doc'!ents to be presented in order to co!ply 8ith P. . >#2. ;e do not disco'nt the possibility that the Tit'lo in 9'estion is not gen'ine? especially since its gen'ineness and d'e e@ec'tion ha3e not been pro3en. 1n both cases? the heirs 8ere not able to present the original of Tit'lo 41"6 nor a gen'ine copy thereof? despite a s'bpoena d'ces tec'!. As an alternati3e to pro3e their clai!? petitioners referred to a doc'!ent <no8n as MhypotecaM allegedly appended to the Tit'lo. Bo8e3er? it 8as neither properly identified nor presented as e3idence. The photostat s'b!itted by petitioners had? as fo'nd by F'dge 4ernandeC? ash rings aro'nd portions 8ith alterations 8hich 8ere done to erase any trace of the alterations. $ther findings of F'dge 4ernandeC: petitioners did not e@ert serio's effort to retrie3e the original? th's leading one to concl'de that the original 8o'ld be ad3erse if prod'ced. As regards the hipoteca 8hich allegedly defined the !etes and bo'nds of the s'bDect property? petitioners did not establish the conditions re9'ired by la8 for their ad!issibility as secondary e3idence to pro3e that there e@ists a doc'!ent designated as Tit'lo 41"6. Bence? it ac9'ires no probati3e 3al'e. The pri3ate o8nership of the land !'st be pro3ed thro'gh gen'ineness of title A, clear identity of the land clai!ed. 4or &panish titles? the land !'st be concretely !eas'red per hectare of 9'inon? not in !ass =c'erpos ciertos:. = ir. of 4orestry 3. -41 F'dge 2'SoC? 2" &-6A 11>"? 8here 8e r'led that Tit'lo 41"6 8as of do'btf'l 3alidity.: 4'rther? in ;ido8s & $rphans Association 3. -A =212 &-6A "60? ">0 N1##2O:? 8e r'led that Tit'lo 41"6 had beco!e bereft of any probati3e 3al'e as e3idence of land o8nership by 3irt'e of P. . >#2. 1n *.6. ,o. 10"%2%? the Tit'lo cannot be s'perior to the Torrens Titles of pri3ate respondents 5'hain? $ca!po and ela -r'C. 7nder the Torrens syste!? the titles of pri3ate respondents beca!e indefeasible and incontro3ertible one year fro! its final decree. 2ore i!portantly? these titles? ha3ing been iss'ed 'nder the Torrens syste!? enDoy the concl'si3e pres'!ption of 3alidity. 6e: petitionersK contention that their for!er co'nsel 8as g'ilty of gross negligence for ha3ing failed to call the proper 8itnesses fro! the 5'rea' of 4orestry? s'ffice it to say that co'nselKs negligence binds the client. 4'rther? petitioners 8ere not preD'diced by the non-presentation of e3idence to pro3e that 5'hain & coKs. titles 8ere 3oid? considering that petitionersK o8nership 8as not d'ly pro3ed. 1t bears repeating that petitioners are not 8itho't reco'rse. P. . >#2 grants all holders of &panish titles the right to apply for registration of their lands 'nder Act ,o. 4#6? 8ithin 6 !onths fro! the effecti3ity of P. . >#2. Thereafter? ho8e3er? any &panish title? if 'tiliCed as e3idence of possession? cannot be 'sed as e3idence of o8nership in any land registration proceedings 'nder the Torrens syste!. All instr'!ents affecting lands originally registered 'nder the &panish 2ortgage La8 !ay be recorded 'nder &ection 1#4 of the 6e3ised Ad!inistrati3e -ode? as a!ended by Act ,o. ""44. -i3il La8ALand Titles: Political La8A-onstit'tional La8A+stoppel does not lie against *o3ern!ent/ ,at'ral 6eso'rces &P$7&+& 1*,A-1$ PAL$2$ & T61,1 A PA&-7AL? & -A62+, PAL$2$ 3. -A? 6+P75L1-? 4A7&T1,$ P+64+-T$? et al. *.6. ,o. #(60>? Fan. 21? 1##% The iss'es raised essentially boil do8n to 8hether or not the alleged $-Ts iss'ed p'rs'ant to the -41 order in 1#16-1#1% and the s'bse9'ent T-Ts iss'ed in 1#(" p'rs'ant to the petition for reconstit'tion are 3alid. Petitioners contend that the Treaty of Paris 8hich ended the &panish-A!erican ;ar recogniCed the property rights of &panish and 4ilipino citiCens and the A!erican go3ern!ent had no inherent po8er to confiscate properties of pri3ate citiCens and declare the! part of any <ind of go3ern!ent reser3ation. They allege that their predecessors-in-interest ha3e been in open? ad3erse and contit'o's possession of the s'bDect lands for 20-(0 years prior to their registration in 1#16-1#1%. Bence? the reser3ation of the land for pro3incial par< p'rposes =Ti8i Bot &pring ,ational Par<: in 1#1" by then *o3-*en 4orbes 8as tanta!o'nt to depri3ation of pri3ate property 8itho't d'e

process. 1n s'pport? petitioners presented copies of a n'!ber of decisions of the -41 of Albay? 1(th F'dicial istrict of the 7.&.A. 8hich state that the predecessors in interest of petitionersK father? 8ere in contin'o's? open and ad3erse possession of the lots fro! 20-(0 years at the ti!e of their registration in 1#16. The Philippines passed to the &panish -ro8n by disco3ery and con9'est in the 16th cent'ry. 5efore the Treaty of Paris? o'r land? 8hether agric'lt'ral? !ineral or forest? 8ere 'nder the e@cl'si3e patri!ony and do!inion of the &panish -ro8n. Bence? pri3ate o8nership of land co'ld only be ac9'ired thro'gh royal concessions 8hich 8ere doc'!ented in 3ario's for!s? e.g.? Tit'lo 6oyal or 6oyal *rant? -oncesion +special or &pecial *rant? Tit'lo de -o!pra or Title by P'rchase? and 1nfor!acion Posesoria or Possessory 1nfor!ation title obtained 'nder the &panish 2ortgage La8 or 'nder the 6oyal ecree of Fan'ary 26? 1>>#. 7nfort'nately? no proof 8as presented that petitionersK predecessors in interest der3ied title fro! an old &panish grant. Petitioners placed !'ch reliance 'pon the declarations of the -41 of Albay as afore!entioned. Bo8e3er? they 8ere not e3en signed by the D'dge b't 8ere !erely certified copies of notification to iego Palo!o =petitionersK predecessor in interest: bearing the signat're of the cler< of co'rt. 2oreo3er? despite clai!s by petitioners that their predecessors in interest 8ere in open? contin'o's and ad3erse possession for 20 to (0 years prior to their registration in 1#16-1#1%? the lots 8ere only s'r3eyed in ece!ber 1#1"? the sa!e year they 8ere ac9'ired by iego Palo!o. -'rio'sly? in 4ebr'ary 1#1" or 10 !onths before the lots 8ere s'r3eyed for iego? the go3ern!ent had already s'r3eyed the area in preparation for its reser3ation for pro3incial par< p'rposes. 1f petitionersK predecessors in interest 8ere indeed in possession of the lots for a n'!ber of years prior to their registration in 1#16-1#1%? they 8o'ld ha3e 'ndo'btedly <no8n abo't the incl'sion of these properties in the reser3ation in 1#1". 1t is certainly a trifle late at this point to arg'e that the that the -41 decrees 8ere really iss'e? the lands are still not capable of appropriation. The ad3erse possession 8hich !ay be the basis of a grant of title in confir!ation of i!perfect title cases applies only to alienable lands of the p'blic do!ain. There is no 9'estion that the lots here 8ere not alienable lands of the p'blic do!ain. As testified by the istrict 4orester? records in the 5'rea' of 4orestry sho8 that the s'bDect lots 8ere ne3er declared as inalienable and disposal prior to 1#1" 'p to the present. 2oreo3er? as part of the pro3incial par< reser3ation? they for! part of the forest Cone. 1t is ele!entary in the la8 go3erning nat'ral reso'rces that forest land cannot be o8ned by pri3ate persons. 1t is not registrable and possession thereof? no !atter ho8 lengthy? cannot con3ert it into pri3ate property? 'nless s'ch lands are reclassified and considered disposable and alienable. ,either do the ta@ receipts preented by petitioners pro3e o8nership since they are not concl'si3e proof of o8nership in land registration cases. ;e no8 disc'ss the !atter regarding the forfeit're of i!pro3e!ents introd'ced on the s'bDect lots. 1t bears e!phasis that +.$. ,o. 40 =reser3ing the lots for pro3incial par< p'rposes: 8as already in force at the ti!e the lots 8ere s'r3eyed for iego Palo!o. Petitioners also apparently <ne8 that the s'bDect lands 8ere co3ered 'nder the reser3ation 8hen they filed a petition for reconstit'tion of the lost original certificates of title inas!'ch as the bl'e print of the s'r3ey done for the reconstit'tion states: Min conflict 8ith pro3incial reser3ation.M 1n any case? petitioners are pres'!ed to <no8 that the la8 and the fail're of go3ern!ent to oppose the registration of the lots in 9'estion is no D'stification for petitioners to plead good faith in introd'cing i!pro3e!ents on the lots. 1##( -i3il La8ALand Titles L1*$, 3. -A 244 &-6A 6#" ,o 3ol'ntary instr'!ent shall be registered by the 6 'nless the o8nerKs d'plicate certificate is presented together 8ith s'ch instr'!ent? e@cept in so!e cases or 'pon co'rt order. =&ee

disc'ssion re: an order iss'ed by the 6T- in e@ercise of its general D'risdiction? not as a land registration co'rt.: -i3il La8/ Land Titles? Pacto de 6etro &ales & +9'itable 2ortgage 1*,A-1$ 3. -$76T $4 APP+AL& 246 &-6A 242 =1##( F'ly: 1: An action for consolidation of o8nership !'st be filed as an ordinary ci3il action? not as a land registration case. 2: ;hether a partic'lar iss'e sho'ld be resol3ed by the 6T- in its li!ited D'risdiction as a land registration co'rt is not a D'risdictional 9'estion b't a proced'ral 9'estion. ": The distinction bet8een the general D'risdiction 3ested in the 6T- and its li!ited D'risdiction 8hen acting as a land registration co'rt has been eli!inated by P. . ,o. 1(2#? to a3oid !'ltiplicity of s'its. The 6T-s no8 ha3e the a'thority to act not only on applications for original registration b't also o3er all petitions filed after the original registration of title? 8ith po8er to hear and deter!ine all 9'estions arising fro! s'ch applications or petitions. The land registration co'rt can no8 hear and decide contro3ersial and contentio's cases and those in3ol3ing s'bstantial iss'es. &ale of LandALand Titles P1LAP1L 3. -A *.6. ,o. ((1"4? ec. 4? 1##( To affect the land sold? the presentation of the deed of sale and its entry in the day boo< !'st be done 8ith the s'rrender of the o8nerKs d'plicate of the certificate of title. Prod'ction of the o8nerKs d'plicate of the certificate of title is re9'ired by &ection (( of Act ,o. 4#6 =not &ection (" of P. . ,o. 1(2#:? and only after co!pliance 8ith this and other re9'ire!ents shall act'al registration retroact to the date of entry in the day boo<. Bo8e3er? nonprod'ction of the o8nerKs d'plicate of the certificate of title !ay not in3alidate petitionersK clai! of o8nership o3er the lot in3ol3ed considering the fact'al circ'!stances of this case? i.e.? constr'cti3e <no8ledge of the prior sale. T$6T& & A2A*+& 2000 Torts/ 0icario's Liability of +!ployers/ a!ages 22T- 3. -A 2ay 2000 22T- is the operator of a fleet of passenger b'ses 8ithin the 2anila Area. &po'ses 6osales s'ed the b's co!pany for the death of their da'ghter 8ho 8as hit by one of the b'ses o8ned by 22T-. The 6T- fo'nd 22T- & their dri3er g'ilty of negligence & 8ho ordered to pay act'al? !oral & e@e!plary da!ages? incl'ding attyKs. fees & costs of la8s'it. 67L1,*&: Art. 21>0 of -- pro3ides that Me!ployers shall be liable for the da!ages ca'sed by their e!ployees and ho'sehold helpers acting 8ithin the scope of their assigned tas<s? e3en tho'gh the for!er are not engaged in any b'siness or ind'stry.M The responsibility of e!ployers for the negligence of their e!ployees in the perfor!ance of their d'ties is pri!ary? that is? the inD'red party !ay reco3er fro! the e!ployers directly? regardless of the sol3ency of their e!ployees. +!ployers !ay be relie3ed of responsibility for the negligent acts of their e!ployees 8ithin the scope of their assigned tas<s only if they can sho8 that Mthey obser3ed all the diligence of a god father of a fa!ily to pre3ent da!age.M 4or this p'rpose? they ha3e the b'rden of pro3ing that they ha3e indeed e@ercised s'ch diligence? both in the selection of the e!ployee 8ho co!!itted the 9'asi-delict and in the s'per3ision of the perfor!ance of his d'ties. 1n the selection of prospecti3e e!ployees? e!ployers are re9'ired to e@a!ine the! as to their 9'alifications? e@perience? and ser3ice records. $n the other hand? 8ith respect to the

s'per3ision of e!ployees? e!ployers sho'ld for!'late standard operating proced'res? !onitor their i!ple!entation? and i!pose disciplinary !eas'res for breaches thereof. To establish these factors in a trial in3ol3ing the iss'e of 3icario's liability? e!ployers !'st s'b!it concrete proof? incl'ding doc'!entary e3idence. 2oral da!ages. - 7nder Art. 2206? the Mspo'se? legiti!ate and illegiti!ate descendants and ascendants of the deceased !ay de!and !oral da!ages for !ental ang'ish by reason of the death of the deceased.M The reason for the grant of !oral da!ages has been e@plained th's: Pthe a8ard of !oral da!ages is ai!ed at a restoration? 8ithin the li!its of the possible? of the spirit'al stat's 9'o ante/ and therefore? it !'st be proportionate to the s'ffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain e@perienced by the relati3es of the 3icti! is proportionate to the intensity of affection for hi! and bears no relation 8hatsoe3er 8ith the 8ealth or !eans of the offender. 1n the instant case? the spo'ses 6osales presented e3idence of the intense !oral s'ffering they had gone thro'gh as a res'lt of the loss of LiCa 6osalie 8ho 8as their yo'ngest child. The spo'ses 6osales clai! !oral da!ages in the a!o'nt of P(?000?000.00. 1n People 3. Teehan<ee? Fr.? N24# &-6A (4? 116 =1##(:O this -o'rt a8arded P 1 !illion as !oral da!ages to the heirs of a se3enteen-year-old girl 8ho 8as !'rdered. This a!o'nt see!s reasonable to 's as !oral da!ages for the loss of a !inor child? 8hether he or she 8as a 3icti! of a cri!e or a 9'asi-delict. Bence? 8e hold that the 22T- and 2'sa are solidarily liable to the spo'ses 6osales in the a!o'nt of P1?000?000.00 as !oral da!ages for the death of LiCa 6osalie. -o!pensation for loss of earning capacity - Art. 2206 of the -i3il -ode pro3ides that in addition to the inde!nity for death ca'sed by a cri!e or 9'asi-delict? the Mdefendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased? and the inde!nity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter/P.M -o!pensation of this nat're is a8arded not for loss of earnings b't for loss of capacity to earn !oney. +3idence !'st be presented that the 3icti!? if not yet e!ployed at the ti!e of death? 8as reasonably certain to co!plete training for a specific profession. 1n People 3. Teehan<ee? N24# &-6A (4? 11> =1##(:O no a8ard of co!pensation 8as granted to the heirs of a college fresh!an beca'se there 8as no s'fficient e3idence on record to sho8 that the 3icti! 8o'ld e3ent'ally beco!e a professional pilot. 5't co!pensation sho'ld be allo8ed for loss of earning capacity res'lting fro! the death of a !inor 8ho has not yet co!!enced e!ploy!ent or training for a specific profession if s'fficient e3idence is presented to establish the a!o'nt thereof. The arg'!ent for allo8ing co!pensation for loss of earning capacity of a !inor is e3en stronger if he or she 8as a st'dent? 8hether already training for a specific profession or still engaged in general st'dies. 1n Qhro!er 3. ahl? 402 P. 2d #%#?#>2 =1#6(:? the co'rt? in affir!ing the a8ard by the D'ry of Y>(?000.00 to the heirs of an eighteen-year-old college fresh!an 8ho died of carbon !ono@ide poisoning? stated as follo8s: There are n'!ero's cases that ha3e held ad!issible e3idence of prospecti3e earnings of a st'dent of a st'dent or traineePThe appellants contend that s'ch e3idence is not ad!issible 'nless the co'rse 'nder st'dy relates to a gi3en occ'pation or profession and it is sho8n that the st'dent is reasonably certain to follo8 that occ'pation or profession. 1t is tr'e that the !aDority of these decisions deal 8ith st'dents 8ho are st'dying for a specific occ'pation or profession. Bo8e3er? not one of these cases indicate that e3idence of oneKs ed'cation as a g'ide to f't're earnings is not ad!issible 8here the st'dent is engaged in general st'dies or 8hose ed'cation does not relate to a specific occ'pation. Torts/ ,egligence 4$$ T+621,AL 1,-. 3s. -A *.6. ,o. 10>"#%? F'ne 21? 2000. The basic iss'e raised is 8hether or not the Ppetitioner 8as negligent in the care and c'stody of respondentKs goods d'ring storagePpetitioner practically ad!itted that it failed to !aintain the agreed te!perat're of the cold storage area at 2 to 4 degrees centigrade at all ti!es? and this ca'sed the deterioration of the yeast stored therein. ,onetheless? petitioner clai!ed that te!perat're 8as not the sole ca'se for the deterioration of respondentKs goods. &ince negligence has been established? petitionerKs liability for da!ages is inescapable. 1###

a!ages A6T76$ 5$6FAL and 2AZ &$L10+, 3s -A and ;+,-+&LA$ Fan. 14? 1### ;enceslao filed a ci3il action for da!ages based on libel against petitioners for an article referring to H a conference organiCer associated 8ith shady deals 8ho has lot of trash t'c<ed inside his closet? HThic<-facedI?Iself-proclai!ed heroI and Ha person 8ith d'bio's 8ays.I The article did not na!e or identify ;enceslao of the conference he 8as organiCing. 67L1,*: -o!plaint for da!ages dis!issed. -o'nterclai! also dis!issed a!ages cannot be a8arded in the absence of ill-!oti3e in the filing of the co!plaint. $n petitionerEs co'nterclai! for da!ages? 8e find the e3idence !eager to s'stain any a8ard. Pri3ate respondent canEt be said to ha3e instit'ted the present s'it in ab'se of the legal processes and 8ith hostility to the press/ or that he acted !alicio'sly? 8antonly oppressi3ely? fra'd'lently and for the sole p'rpose of harassing petitioners? thereby entitling the latter to da!ages. $n the contrary? pri3ate respondent acted 8ith his right to protect his honor fro! 8hat he percei3ed to be !alicio's i!p'tations against hi!. Proof and !oti3e that the instit'tion of the action 8as pro!pted be a sinister design to 3e@ and h'!iliate a person !'st be clearly and preponderantly established to entitle the 3icti! to da!ages. The la8 co'ld not ha3e !eant to i!pose a penalty on the right to litigate? nor sho'ld co'nselEs fees be a8arded e3ery ti!e a party 8ins a s'it. 1##> -i3il La8/ 2oral a!ages/ Ter!s and -onditions of -redit -ard and ,e8 Agree!ent/ Ab'se of 6ight/ a!ages and 1nD'ry disting'ished 5P1 +ZP6+&& -A6 -$6P$6AT1$, 3. -A? +T AL. This is a case 8here pri3ate respondent? 2arasigan? 8on an a8ard in the trial co'rt and in the -A for da!ages allegedly s'stained 8hen his 5P1 credit card 8as reDected by a resta'rant 8here he 8as entertaining so!e g'ests on ece!ber >? 1#>#. The &- re3ersed the -A and held that there 8as no inD'ry s'ffered by 2arasigan as it 8as sho8n that he 8as at fa'lt 8hy his credit card 8as dishonored. Be 8as sent a letter by 5P1 infor!ing hi! that he 8as indebted to the! and ordering hi! to pay his obligation. 2arasigan did pay 'sing a postdated chec<? dated ece!ber 1(? 1#>#. 5y 'sing the postdated chec< as pay!ent? 2arasigan failed to co!ply 8ith his agree!ent 8ith the ban< to settle his acco'nt in order that his credit card 8o'ld not be s'spended. &ettled is the doctrine that a chec< is only a s'bstit'te for !oney and not !oney? the deli3ery of s'ch an instr'!ent does not? by itself operate as pay!ent. Th's? the 5P1 8as D'stified in s'spending his credit card. As s'ch? 5P1 did not ab'se its right 'nder the ter!s and conditions of the contract. The follo8ing are the ele!ents for an ab'se of right to e@ist: =1: there is a legal right or d'ty/ =2: 8hich is e@ercised in bad faith/ =": for the sole intent of preD'dicing or inD'ring another. Lastly? there is a !aterial distinction bet8een da!ages and inD'ry. 1nD'ry is the illegal in3asion of a legal right/ da!age is the loss? h'rt or har! 8hich res'lts fro! the inD'ry/ and da!ages are the reco!pense or co!pensation a8arded for the da!ages s'ffered. Th's? in cases 8here there is da!age 8itho't inD'ry? in those instances in 8hich the har! or loss 8as not the res'lt of the 3iolation of a legal d'ty? the inD'red party bears the conse9'ences alone. The a8ard for tort da!ages is based on the pre!ise that an indi3id'al 8as inD'red in conte!plation of la8. There !'st be a breach of a d'ty? 8hich breach !'st pri!arily ca'se the inD'ry. -i3il La8ALand TitlesA-ertificate of Title not s'bDect to collateral attac< BAL1L1 3. -16 & 610+6& and -$, 7-T$6& 7,1$, 2ay 1##6 The fact that the s'bDect real property 8as registered 'nder the Torrens &yste! !a<es the instant petition all the !ore dis!issible? considering that the best proof of o8nership of a piece of land is the -ertificate of Title. V4> of P. . ,o. 1(2# pro3ides: a certificate of title shall not be s'bDect to collateral attac<.

A certificate of title acc'!'lates in one doc'!ent a precise and correct state!ent of the e@act stat's of the fee held by its o8ner. The certificate? in the absence of fra'd? is the e3idence of title and sho8s e@actly the real interest of its o8ner. The title once registered? 8ith 3ery fe8 e@ceptions? sho'ld not thereafter be i!p'gned? altered e@cept in so!e direct proceeding per!itted by la8. $ther8ise? all sec'rity in registered titles 8o'ld be lost. The iss'e on the 3alidity of title? i.e.? 8hether or not it 8as fra'd'lently iss'ed? can only be raised in an action e@pressly instit'ted for that p'rpose. Bence? 8hether or not petitioners ha3e the right to clai! o8nership of the land in 9'estion is beyond the pro3ince of the instant proceeding. -i3il La8ALand TitlesA1nnocent p'rchasers for 3al'e: All portions of said land? no8 <no8n as Boly -ross 2e!orial Par<? ha3e already been sold o't to indi3id'al lot b'yers? 8ho are innocent p'rchasers for 3al'e. ;here innocent third persons? relying on the correctness of the -ertificate of Title th's iss'ed? ac9'ire rights o3er the property? the -o'rt cannot disregard s'ch rights and order the total cancellation of the certificate. -i3il La8A&alesA-apacity to sell: As ad3erted to earlier? o8nership of the lot had already been 3ested in the 7nion 'pon sale to it by the Beirs of Balili. -onsidering this? the 7nion had e3ery right to dispose of the property. After the ter!ination of the abo3e-entitled cases? D'dg!ent therefor ha3ing beco!e final and e@ec'tory? e3en as of 1#>2? neither the ,L6- nor this -o'rt 8ill ha3e any a'thority to loo< into the 3alidity of the disposal by the 7nion of the property. 7nder the circ'!stances? therefore? it is to be ass'!ed that the sale by the 7nion? as 3irt'al o8ner of the property? to 22P-1 8o'ld not need any a'thority to sell fro! the ,L6- or fro! this -o'rt and 8e hereby 8rite finis to these cases. 1##% -i3il La8 & -o!!ercial La8A a!ages & Transportation La8 PB1L1PP1,+ A16L1,+& =PAL: 3. -A & L+$01*1L $ A. PA,T+F$ F'ly 1##% PanteDo boarded a PAL plane in 2anila and dise!bar<ed in -eb' -ity 8here he 8as s'pposed to ta<e his connecting flight to &'rigao -ity. 'e to a typhoon? the connecting flight 8as cancelled. PAL ga3e each passenger a total of P"00.00 cash assistance for the 2-day stay in -eb'. PanteDo re9'ested that he be billeted at PALKs e@pense as he did not ha3e cash 8ith hi!? b't PAL ref'sed. PanteDo learned that the hotel e@penses of 2 other passengers 8ere rei!b'rsed by PAL. PanteDo told PALKs !anager that he 8as going to s'e for discri!ination. 1t 8as only then that PAL offered to pay PanteDo? b't d'e to his ordeal and ang'ish? PanteDo ref'sed. ;hat !a<es PAL liable for da!ages here is its blatant ref'sal to accord the a!enities e9'ally to all its stranded passengers. ,o co!pelling reason 8as ad3anced to e@plain this discri!inatory cond'ct. 2oral da!ages are not intended to enrich plaintiff? !erely to obtain !eans? di3ersion or a!'se!ents that 8ill ser3e to alle3iate the !oral s'ffering he 'nder8ent d'e to defendantKs c'lpable action and !'st? perforce? be proportional to the s'ffering inflicted. Bo8e3er? s'bstantial da!ages do not translate into e@cessi3e da!ages. The interest of 6[ i!posed by the -A sho'ld be co!p'ted fro! the date of rendition of D'dg!ent and not fro! the filing of the co!plaint. This is beca'se at the ti!e of the filing the co!plaint? the a!o'nt of da!ages to 8hich plaintiff !ay be entitled re!ains 'nli9'idated and not <no8n 'ntil definitely ascertained? assessed and deter!ined by the co'rts? and only after presentation of proof. -i3il La8ATortsA2edical 2alpractice -ases L+$,1LA *A6-1A-67+ A 3. ;1L46+ $ L. PA&-A&1$? et al. &epte!ber 1##% There are 4 ele!ents in3ol3ed in !edical negligence cases: d'ty? breach? inD'ry and pro@i!ate ca'sation. ;hen the 3icti! e!ployed the ser3ices of the doctors? a physician-patient relationship 8as created. 1n accepting the case? the doctors in effect represented that? ha3ing the needed training and s<ill possessed by physicians and s'rgeons practicing in the sa!e filed? they 8ill

e!ploy s'ch training? care and s<ill in the treat!ent of their patients. They ha3e a d'ty to 'se at least the sa!e le3el of care that any other reasonably co!petent doctor 8o'ld 'se to treat a condition 'nder the sa!e circ'!stances. The breach of these professional d'ties of s<ill and care? or their i!proper perfor!ance? by a physician s'rgeon 8hereby the patient is inD'red in body or in health? constit'tes actionable !alpractice. Th's? in the e3ent that any inD'ry res'lts to the patient fro! 8ant of d'e care or s<ill d'ring the operation? the s'rgeons !ay be held ans8erable in da!ages for negligence. 2oreo3er? in !alpractice or negligence cases in3ol3ing the ad!inistration of anaesthesia? the necessity of e@pert testi!ony and the a3ailability of the charge of res ipsa to the plaintiff? ha3e been applied in actions against anaesthesiologists to hold the defendant liable for the death or inD'ry of a patient 'nder e@cessi3e or i!proper anaesthesia. +ssentially? it re9'ires 2-pronged e3idence: e3idence as to the recogniCed standards of the !edical co!!'nity in the partic'lar <ind of case? and a sho8ing that the physician in 9'estion negligently departed fro! this standard in his treat!ent. Another ele!ent in !edical negligence cases is ca'sation 8hich is di3ided into 2 in9'iries: 8hether the doctorKs actions in fact cas'ed the har! to the patient and 8hether these 8ere the pro@i!ate ca'se of the patientKs inD'ry. -o!!ercial La8ATransportation La8/ 1ns'ranceA-i3il La8ATorts and a!ages ,+*6$& ,A01*AT1$, 3. -A? et al ,o3e!ber 1##% The 3essel on F'an =o8ned by petitioner: collided 8ith the Tacloban -ity? an oil tan<er o8ned by P,$-. As the on F'an san<? se3eral of her passengers perished/ b't the 4 !e!bers of pri3ate respondentsK fa!ilies 8ere ne3er fo'nd. Petitioner ad!itted that pri3ate respondents p'rchased 4 tic<ets and that the tic<ets 8ere listed in the passenger !anifest. Bo8e3er? petitioner denied that the 4 relati3es of pri3ate respondents act'ally boarded the 3essel as their bodies 8ere ne3er reco3ered. 4'rther? petitioner contended that the 3essel 8as sea8orthy? had a f'll and co!petent cre8/ !oreo3er? that the collision 8as entirely d'e to the fa'lt of the Tacloban -ity. 1ss'es: =1: 8hether !e!bers of pri3ate respondentsK fa!ilies 8ere act'ally passengers/ =2: 8hether 2ecenas 3. -A =1>0 &-6A >" N1#>#O: finding petitionerKs cre8 !e!bers grossly negligent 8as binding here/ =": 8hether the total loss of the on F'an e@ting'ished petitionerKs liability/ and =4: 8hether the da!ages a8arded 8ere e@cessi3e? 'n8arranted? etc. 4irst. Petitioner contends that pri3ate respondents sho'ld ha3e pro3en presence of 3icti!s on ship as it is co!!on <no8lege that passengers p'rchase tic<ets in ad3ance b't do not act'ally 'se the!. ,o !erit. $ne pri3ate respondent testified that he bro'ght his fa!ily to the 3essel and stayed 8ith the! 'ntil it 8as ti!e to depart. There is no reason he sho'ld clai! !e!bers of his fa!ily perished !erely to s'e. People do not nor!ally lie abo't so gra3e a !atter as the loss of dear ones. 1t 8o'ld be !ore diffic'lt to conceal relati3es if they 8ere ali3e than it is for petitioner to sho8 the contrary. &econd. The trial co'rt and -A both relied on 2ecenas in finding that petitioner breached its d'ty to e@ercise e@traordinary diligence. 1t 8as fo'nd there that altho'gh pro@i!atde ca'se 8as negligence of Tacloban -ityKs cre8? on F'anKs cre8 8as e9'ally negligent as its !aster 8as playing !ahDong at the ti!e of collision and the officer on 8atch ad!itted that he failed to call the attention of the !aster to the i!!inent danger/ f'rther? the on F'an 8as o3erloaded and not sea8orthy as it san< 8ithin 10 to 1( !in'tes of i!pact. ;hile petitionerKs contention that the decision here sho'ld be based on the records of this case !ay be tr'e as regards the !erits of the indi3id'al clai!s against petitioner? it cannot be tr'e re: ca'se of the sin<ing of its ship. Adherence to 2ecenas dictated by stare decisis. 4'rther? the trial co'rt !ade its o8n independent findings on the basis of the testi!onies before it. Third. 1t is settled that a shipo8ner is liable not8ithstanding total loss of the ship if fa'lt can be attrib'ted to the shipo8ner. 4o'rth. Petitioner contends that pri3ate respondents sho'ld be allo8ed to clai! only P4"?>(%.14 each as !oral da!ages since in 2ecenas? the a!o'nt of P"0%?(00.00 8as a8arded to the % children of the 2ecenas co'ple.

PetitionerKs content<ion that the e@penses for the erection of a !on'!ent and other e@penses for !e!orial ser3ices for the 3icti! sho'ld be considered incl'ded in the death inde!nity W 8itho't !erit. eath inde!nity is gi3en to co!pensate for 3iolation of the rights to life and physical integrity of thedeceased. $n the other hand? da!ages incidental to or arising o't of s'ch death are for pec'niary losses of the beneficiaries of the deceased. -i3il La8ATorts/ 2edical 2alpractice &'it 6. ,1,+0+T-B -67G 3. -A & L. 1A 72AL1 ,o3e!ber 1##% efine a !edical !alpractice s'it: the type of clai! 8hich a 3icti! has a3ailable to hi! or her to redress a 8rong co!!itted by a !edical professional 8hich has ca'sed bodily har!. =*arcia-6'eda 3. Pascasio? *.6. ,o. 11>141? ( &epte!ber 1##%: 1n this D'risdiction? these clai!s are !ost often bro'ght as a ci3il action for da!ages 'nder Art. 21%6? ,--? and in so!e instances? as a cri!inal case 'nder Art. "6(? 6P-? 8ith 8hich the ci3il action for da!ages is i!pliedly instit'ted. 1t is 3ia this latter type of action that the heirs of the deceased here so'ght redress for petitionerKs alleged i!pr'dence and negligence. The infor!ation against petitioner =s'rgeon: and one r. Lina +rcillo =anaesthesiologist d'ring deceasedKs operation: charged the! 8ith negligently failing to s'pply or store s'fficient pro3isions and facilities necessary to !eet any and all e@igencies apr to arise before? d'ring andAor after a s'rgical operation? thereby ca'sing the 'nti!ely death of Lydia 7!ali on the day follo8ing the operation. The 2T-- ac9'itted +rcillo b't con3icted -r'C. The 6T- and -A affir!ed. Prior to 22 2arch 1##1? petitioner? 'pon e@a!ination? fo'nd a !yo!a in LydiaKs =the deceased: 'ter's. Petitioner th's sched'led a hysterecto!y for 1:00 p.!.? 2" 2arch 1##1. Lydia and 6o8ena =da'ghter: arri3ed at the hospital =Perpet'al Belp -linic and *eneral Bospital on 5alagtas &treet? &an Pablo -ity? Lag'na: on 22 2arch 1##1? at aro'nd 4:"0 p.!. As 6o8ena noticed that the clinic 8as 'ntidyA3ery d'sty? she tried to diss'ade her !other fro! proceeding 8ith the operation. $n 2" 2arch 1##1? before Lydia 8as 8heeled into the operating roo!? 6o8ena as<ed petitioner if the operation co'ld be postponed. After petitioner and Lydia con3ersed in petitionerKs office? Lydia infor!ed 6o8ena that petitioner told Lydia that she had to be operated on as sched'led. 'ring the proced're? 6o8ena and her other relati3es =6o8enaKs h'sband? sister and 2 a'nts: 8aited o'tside the operaing roo! =$6:. r. +rcillo then 8ent o't of the $6 and instr'cted the! to b'y taga!et a!p'les? 8hich 6o8enaKs sister bo'ght i!!ediately. After an ho'r? r. +rcillo ca!e o't again and as<ed the! to b'y blood for Lydia. They bo'ght type MAM blood fro! a blood ban< =&t. *erald 5lood 5an<: ? 8hich the attendant bro'ght into the $6. After a fe8 ho'rs? petitioner infor!ed the! that the operation 8as finished. The operating staff then 8ent inside petitionerKs clinic to eat. &o!e "0 !in'tes later? Lydia 8as bro'ght o't of the $6 on a stretcher? and petitioner as<ed 6o8ena? et al.? to b'y additional blood. 7nfort'nately? there 8as no !ore type MAM blood a3ailable at the blood ban<. Thereafter? a person arri3ed to donate blood 8hich 8as later transf'sed into Lydia. 6o8ena then noticed her !other? 8ho 8as attached to an o@ygen tan<? gasping for breath. Apparently? the o@ygen s'pply had r'n o't and 6o8enaKs h'sband? together 8ith petitionerKs dri3er? had to go to another hospital to get o@ygen. Lydia 8as gi3en the fresh s'pply of o@ygen as soon as it arri3ed. 5't at aro'nd 10 p.!.? Lydia 8ent into shoc< and her 5P dropped to 60A(0. LydiaKs 'nstable condition th's necessitated her transfer to another hospital =&an Pablo istrict Bospital N&P BO: for f'rther e@a!ination and so that she co'ld be connected to a respirator. The transfer? ho8e3er? 8as 8itho't the prior consent of 6o8ena nor of the other relati3es present? 8ho only fo'nd o't abo't the intended transfer 8hen an a!b'lance arri3ed to ta<e Lydia to this other hospital. 6o8ena? et al.? then boarded a tricycle and follo8ed the a!b'lance. 7pon LydiaKs arri3al at &P B? she 8as 8heeled into the $6 and petitioner and r. +rcillo re-operated on Lydia as there 8as blood ooCing fro! the abdo!inal incision. The attending physicians s'!!oned r. 5artolo!e Angeles? the head of the $bstetrics and *ynecology ept. of &P B. Bo8e3er? by the ti!e r. Angeles arri3ed? Lydia 8as already in shoc< and possibly dead as her blood press're 8as already 0A0. r. Angeles then infor!ed petitioner and r. +rcillo that there 8as notheing he co'ld do to sa3e the patient. ;hile petitioner 8as closing the abdo!inal 8all? Lydia died. Lydia 8as prono'nced dead on 24 2arch 1##1? " a.!.? 8ith the

death certificate indicating Mshoc<M as the i!!ediate ca'se of death and Mdisse!inated intra3asc'lar coag'lation = 1-:M as the antecedent ca'se. 1n con3icting petitioner? the 2T-- fo'nd that =1: the clinic 8as 'ntidy/ =2: there 8as lac< of pro3isions li<e blood and o@ygen to prepare for any contingencies/ =": the !anner and fact that Lydia 8as bro'ght to &P B indicated there 8as so!ething 8rong in the !anner by 8hich petitioner cond'cted the operation/ and =4: no sho8ing that prior to the operation? petitioner cond'cted a cardio p'l!onary clearance or any blood typing. The 6T- reiterated these findings? 8hile the -A obser3ed that: =1: 8hile the 'ntidiness and filthiness of the clinic did not? by the!sel3es? indicate negligence? s'ch ne3ertheless sho8ed petitionerKs absence of d'e care and s'per3ision o3er her s'bordinates =th's leading to the 9'estions of 8hether these 'nsanitary conditions per!eated the $6/ 8hether the s'rgical instr'!ents 8ere properly steriliCed/ 8hether these conditions contrib'ted to LydiaKs infection -8hile only petitioner co'ld ans8er these? she opted not to testify? gi3ing rise to the pres'!ption that she had nothing good to testify in her defense:/ =2: the need to b'y Taga!et and blood? and the e!pty o@ygen tan<? sho8ed that petitioner had not prepared for any 'nforeseen circ'!stances prior to going into s'rgery/ =": no sho8ing that petitioner cond'cted any cardiop'l!onary clearance? or at least proc'red a clearance fro!Aby an internist? 8hich are standard re9'ire!ents before a patient is s'bDected to s'rgery/ =4: no sho8ing that petitioner deter!ined? as part of the pre-operati3e e3al'ation? the patientKs bleeding para!eters? s'ch as bleeding and clotting ti!e/ =(: ob3io'sly? petitioner did not prepare the patient/ did not get the fa!ilyKs consent to the operation/ did not prepare a !edical chart 8ith instr'ctions for the patientKs care -- no proof of these offered. &-? ho8e3er? holds differently and finds the foregoing circ'!stances ins'fficient to s'stain petitionerKs con3iction for rec<less i!pr'dence res'lting in ho!icide. +le!ents of rec<less i!pr'dence: =1: offender does or fails to do an act/ =2: the doing or fail're to do that act is 3ol'ntary/ =": that it be 8itho't !alice/ =4: that !aterial da!age res'lts fro! the rec<less i!pr'dence/ and =(: that there is ine@c'sable lac< of preca'tion on the part of the offender? considering his e!ploy!ent or occ'pation? degree of intelligence? physical condition? and other circ'!stances regarding person? ti!e and place. ;hether or not a physician has co!!itted an Mine@c'sable lac< of preca'tionM in the treat!ent of his patient is to be deter!ined according to the standard of care obser3ed by other !e!bers of the profession in good standing 'nder si!ilar circ'!stances bearing in !ind the ad3anced state of the profession at the ti!e of treat!ent or the present state of !edical science. 1n the recent case of *arcia-6'eda 3. Pascasio? this -o'rt stated that in accepting a case? a doctor in effect represents that? ha3ing the needed training and s<ill possessed by physicians and s'rgeons practicing in the sa!e field? he 8ill e!ploy s'ch training? care and s<ill in the treat!ent of his patients. Be theerefore has a d'ty to 'se at least the sa!e le3el of care that any other reasonably co!petent doctor 8o'ld 'se to treat a condition 'nder the sa!e circ'!stances. 1t is in this aspect of !edical !alpractice that e@pert testi!ony is essential to establish not only the standard of care of the profession b't also that the physicanKs cond'ct in the treat!ent and care falls belo8 s'ch standard. 4'rther? inas!'ch as the ca'ses of the inD'ries in3ol3ed in !alpractice actions are deter!inable only in light of scientific <no8ledge? it has been recogniCed that e@pert testi!ony is 's'ally necessary to s'pport the concl'sion as to ca'sation. 1!!ediately apparent fro! a re3ie8 of the records of this case is the absence of any e@pert testi!ony on the !atter of the standard of care e!ployed by other physicians of good standing in the cond'ct of si!ilar operations. The prosec'tionKs e@pert 8itnesses in the persons of 2 ,51 doctors only testified as to the possible ca'se of death b't did not 3ent're to ill'!inate the co'rt on the !atter of the standard of care that petitioner sho'ld ha3e e@ercised. All " co'rts belo8 be8ailed the inade9'acy of the facilitiesAs'ppliesApro3isions and 'ntidiness of petitionerKs clinic/ the fail're to s'bDect the patient to a cardio-p'l!onary test prior to the operation/ the o!ission of any for! of blood typing before the transf'sion/ and e3en the s'bse9'ent transfer of Lydia to the &P B and the reoperation perfor!ed on her by petitioner. 5't 8hile it !ay be tr'e that the circ'!stances pointed o't by the co'rts belo8 see!ed beyond ca3il to constit'te rec<less i!pr'dence on the part of the s'rgeon? this concl'sion is still best arri3ed at not thro'gh the ed'cated s'r!ises nor conDect'res of lay!en? incl'ding D'dges? b't by the 'n9'estionable <no8ledge of e@pert 8itnesses. 4or 8hether a physician or s'rgeon has

e@ercised the re9'isite degree of s<ill and care in the treat!ent of his patients is? in the generality of cases? a !atter of e@pert opinion. The deference of co'rts to the e@pert opinion of 9'alified physicians ste!s fro! its realiCation that the latter possess 'n's'al technical s<ills 8hich lay!ent in !ost instances are incapable of intelligently e3al'ating. +@pert testi!ony sho'ld ha3e been offered to pro3e that the circ'!stances cited by the co'rts belo8 constit'ted cond'ct falling belo8 the standard of care e!ployed by other physicians in good standing 8hen perfor!ing the sa!e operation. =e!phasis s'pplied: 1t !'st be re!e!bered that 8hen the 9'alifications of a physicial are ad!itted? as here? there is an ine3itable pres'!ption that in proper cases he ta<es the necessary preca'tion and e!ploys the best of his <no8ledge and s<ill in attending to his clients? 'nless the contrary is s'fficiently established. This pres'!ption is reb'ttable by e@pert opinion 8hich is so sadly lac<ing in case at bench. +3en granting arg'endo that the inade9'acy of the facilitiesAs'ppliesApro3isions and 'ntidiness of petitionerKs clinic/ the fail're of petitioner to cond'ct pre-operation tests on the patient/ and the s'bse9'ent transfer of Lydia to the &P B and the reoperation perfor!ed on her by petitioner do indicate? e3en 8itho't e@pert testi!ony? that petitioner 8as rec<lessly i!pr'dent in the e@ercise of her d'ties as a s'rgeon? no cogent proof e@ists that any of these circ'!stances ca'sed petitionerKs death. Th's? the absence of the fo'rth ele!ent of rec<less i!pr'dence: that the inD'ry to the person or property 8as a conse9'ence of the rec<less i!pr'dence. 1n litigations in3ol3ing !edical negligence? the plaintiff has th b'rden of establishing appellantKs negligence and for a reasonable concl'sion of negligence? there !'st be proof of breach of d'ty on the part of the s'rgeon as 8ell as a ca'sal connection of s'ch breach and the res'lting death of his patient. 1n -han L'gay 3. &t. L'<eKs Bospital =10 -A 6eports 41(? 42%-2> N1#66O:? 8here the attending physicial 8as absol3ed of liability for the death of co!plainantKs 8ife and ne8born baby? the -o'rt of Appeals held that the negligence !'st be the pro@i!ate ca'se of the inD'ry/ negligence? no !atter in 8hat it consists? cannot create a right of action 'nless it is the pro@i!ate ca'se of the inD'ry co!plained of. This -o'rt has no reco'rse b't to rely on the e@pert testi!onies rendered by the prosec'tion and defense 8itnesses that s'bstantiate rather than contradict petitionerKs allegation that the ca'se of LydiaKs death 8as 1- 8hich? as attested to by an e@pert 8itness? cannot be attrib'ted to petitionerKs fa'lt or negligence. The probability that LydiaKs death 8as ca'sed by 18as 'nreb'tted d'ring trial and has engendered in the !ind of this -o'rt a reasonable do'bt as to petitionerKs g'ilt. Th's? her ac9'ittal of the cri!e charged. ;hile 8e condole 8ith the fa!ily of Lydia? o'r hands are bo'nd by la8. ,e3ertheless? this -o'rt finds petitioner ci3illy liable for the death of Lydia? for 8hile a con3iction re9'ires proof beyond reasonable do'bt? only a preponderance of e3idence is re9'ired to establish ci3il liability. -i3il La8A a!agesA2oral & +@e!plary da!ages =see te@t of decision: P,5 3. -A & -A62+L$ B. 4L$6+& *.6. ,o. 1161>1? Fan. 6? 1##% 1t is not disp'ted that petitioner is entitled to pay!ent for the constr'ction it !ade? 8hich arose fro! a 9'asi-contract'al relation created bet8een the for!er and pri3ate respondent. 5't sho'ld petitioner be paid based on 9'ant'! !er'itU The iss'e 8as ans8ered in the affir!ati3e in +slao? and 8e find no reason to depart therefro! as: 4irst? the instant 9'asi-contract is neither fra'd'lent nor !ala in se. &econd? the proDect 8as already co3ered by a specific appropriation. Third? as in pri3ate contracts? the facts sho8 that an i!plied obligation to pay 8o'ld be i!posed 'pon the go3ern!ent. 4o'rth? the property or benefit is not 'ltra 3ires? i.e.? can be the proper s'bDect of an e@press contract and are 8ithin the contract'al po8ers of the p'blic body. 4ifth? the case falls 8ithin the e@e!ption fro! the !andatory proced're of p'blic bidding 8hich is dispensed 8ith on the gro'nd of p'blic necessity or 8hen ti!e is of the essence? and considering that the s'bDect proDect 8as contig'o's to an ongoing proDect perfor!ed by petitioner and there is no proof of any 'nsatisfactory perfor!ance of negati3e slippage. &i@th? the contractor s'bstantially co!plied =#([ co!plete: in good faith 8ith its obligation and no intentional depart're fro! the specifications 8ere alleged. &e3enth? petitionerKs clai! is clearly s'pported by e9'ity. Pri3ate respondent is reaping benefits fro! the scallop fence and 8ire placed by petitioner. +ight? there is no proof of any coll'sion a!ong the parties. 4inally? pay!ent is li!ited to the act'al costs chargeable against f'nds a'thoriCed and

certified for the p'rpose. All these circ'!stances? ta<en together? negate fra'd and coll'sion. =6i3era 3. 2alolos? 102 Phil. 2>(? 2#1 N1#(%O: The &ol-*en? on behalf of pri3ate respondent? arg'es that the !atter sho'ld be referred to the -$A? citing +slao. &'ch arg'!ent is 8itho't !erit. L'ant'! !er'it allo8s reco3ery of the reasonable 3al'e regardless of any agree!ent as to 3al'e. 1t entitles the party to as !'ch as he reasonably deser3es? as disting'ished fro! 9'ant'! 3alebant? ot ro as 8hat is reasonably 8orth. 7nli9'idated clai!s present a D'sticiable 9'estion ripe for D'dicial deter!ination 8hich is beyond the po8ers of -$A to adD'dicate. =&ee Phil. $perations 3. A'ditor-*eneral? #4 Phil. >6> N1#(4O: 6eco3ery based on 9'ant'! !er'it is in the nat're of s'ch clai! beca'se its settle!ent re9'ires the application of D'dg!ent and discretion and cannot be adD'sted by si!ple arith!etical processes. 1n +slao? the -o'rt fo'nd it necessary to refer to the -$A the tas< of deter!ining the total co!pensation d'e to the clai!ants considering that the !atter on the e@act a!ont 8as not in iss'e and the deter!inatin thereof in3ol3es a re3ie8 of the fact'al findings and e3idence in s'pport thereof. $n the other hand? the lo8er co'rt here? had already !ade a fact'al finding on the a!o'nt reasonably d'e to petitioner and scr'tiniCed the e3idence to s'stain the clai!. 5esides? there is nothing in the cited cases 8hich 8o'ld i!ply that only the -$A can deter!ine the specific a!o'nt d' to a contractor g'ided by the established principle of 9'ant'! !er'it. As o'r co'rts are both co'rts of la8 and e9'ity? they are not po8erless to deter!ine a fact'al !atter in accordance 8ith both standards. =-A decision set aside and 6T- decision reinstated.: 1##6 Torts & a!ages: -ontrib'tory negligence/ 3icario's liability 0AL+,G7+LA 3. -A 4+567A6. 1##6 ;as 0 g'ilty of contrib'tory negligence in par<ing her car alongside A'rora 5l3d.? 8hich? L points o't? is a no par<ing ConeU ,o. ;hen 0 disco3ered she had a flat tire? she stopped at a lighted place 8here she par<ed the car 3ery close to the side8al<. 7nder these circ'!stances? 0 e@ercised the standard reasonably dictated by the e!ergency and co'ld not be considered to ha3e contrib'ted to the 'nfort'nate circ'!stances. The e!ergency 8hich lead her to par< her car on a side8al< in A'rora 5l3d. 8as not of her o8n !a<ing? and it 8as e3idence that she had ta<en all reasonable preca'tions. 6e: the 3icario's liability of LKs e!ployer? this is not based on the principle of respondeat s'perior? 8hich holds the !aster liable for acts of the ser3ant? b't that of pater fa!ilias? in 8hich the liability 'lti!ately falls 'pon the e!ployer? for his fail're to e@ercise good father diligence in the selection and s'per3ision of his e!ployees. $rdinarily? e3idence de!onstrating the e!ployerKs diligent s'per3ision of its e!ployee d'ring the perfor!ance of the latterKs assigned tas<s 8o'ld be eno'gh to relie3e hi! of the liability i!posed by Arts. 21>0 and 21%6. The e!ployer is not e@pected to e@ercise s'per3ision o3er either the e!ployeeKs pri3ate acti3ities or d'ring the perfor!ance of tas<s either 'nsanctioned by the for!er or 'nrelated to the e!ployeeKs tas<s. ;hen a co!pany gi3es f'll 'se and enDoy!ent of a co!pany car to its e!ployee? it in effect g'arantees that it is? li<e e3ery good father? satisfied that its e!ployee 8ill 'se the pri3ilege reasonably and responsi3ely. As s'ch? in pro3iding for a co!pany car? the co!pany o8es a responsibility to the p'blic to see to it that the !anagerial or other e!ployees to 8ho! it entr'sts 3irt'ally 'nli!ited 'se of a co!pany iss'ed car are able to 'se the co!pany car capably and responsibly. NThere !'st be e3idenceO as to 8hether or not the co!pany too< the steps necessary to deter!ine or ascertain the dri3ing proficiency and history of L? to 8ho! it ga3e f'll and 'nli!ited 'se of a co!pany car. ,ot ha3ing been able to o3erco!e the b'rden of de!onstrating that it sho'ld be absol3ed of liability for entr'sting its co!pany car to L? said co!pany? based on the principal of bon's pater fa!ilias? o'ght to be Dointly and se3erally liable 8ith the for!er for the inD'ries s'stained by 0 d'ring the accident. Torts & a!ages/ a!n'! Abs9'e 1nD'ria &P$7&+& -7&T$ 1$ 3. -A

4+567A6. 1##6 There is a !aterial inD'ry bet8een da!ages and inD'ry. 1nD'ry is the illegal in3asion of a legal right/ da!age is the loss? h'rt? or har! 8hich res'lts fro! the inD'ry/ and da!ages are the reco!pense or co!pensation a8arded for the da!age s'ffered. Th's? there can be da!age 8itho't inD'ry 8hen the loss or har! 8as not the res'lt of a 3iolation of a legal d'ty =da!n'! abs9'e inD'ria:. 1n order that a plaintiff !ay !aintain an action for inD'ries of 8hich he co!plains? he !'st establish that s'ch inD'ries res'lted fro! a breach of Na legal d'tyO 8hich the defendant o8ed to the plaintiff -- a conc'rrence of inD'ry to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person ca'sing it. 1n order that the la8 8ill gi3e redress for an act ca'sing da!age? that act !'st be not only h'rtf'l? b't 8rongf'l. There !'st be da!n'! et inD'ria. 1n case at bar? altho'gh there 8as da!age? there 8as no inD'ry. -ontrary to clai! of pri3ate respondents? petitioners co'ld not be said to ha3e 3iolated the principle of ab'se of right. 1n order that said principle can be applied? the follo8ing re9'isites !'st conc'r: 1: The defendant acted in a !anner that is contrary to !orals? good c'sto!s or p'blic policy/ 2: The acts sho'ld be 8illf'l/ and ": There 8as da!age or inD'ry to the plaintiff. =Art. 21? -i3il -ode: PetitionersK act in constr'cting a fence 8ithin their lot is a 3alid e@ercise of their right as o8ners? hence not contrary to !orals? etc. =see Art. 4"0? -i3il -ode:. At the ti!e the fence 8as constr'cted? the lot 8as not s'bDect to any ser3it'des. There 8as no ease!ent of 8ay e@isting in fa3or of pri3ate respondents? either by la8 or contract. The proper e@ercise of a la8f'l right cannot constit'te a legal 8rong for 8hich an action 8ill lie? altho'gh the act !ay res'lt in da!age to another? for no legal right has been in3aded. $ne !ay 'se any la8f'l !eans to acco!plish a la8f'l p'rpose and tho'gh the !eans adopted !ay ca'se da!age another? no ca'se of action arises in the latterKs fa3or. The co'rts can gi3e no redress for hardship to an indi3id'al res'lting fro! action reasonably calc'lated to achie3e a la8f'l end by la8f'l !eans. Torts & a!ages/ 6'le 111 2A,1A*$ 3. -A The right to bring an action for da!ages 'nder the -i3il -ode !'st be reser3ed as re9'ired by 6'le 111? V1? other8ise it sho'ld be dis!issed. The right of the inD'red party to s'e separately for the reco3ery of the ci3il liability 8hether arising fro! cri!es or 9'asi-delicts !'st be reser3ed other8ise? they 8ill be dee!ed instit'ted 8ith the cri!inal action. = 'lay 3. -A? 24" &-6A 220 N1##(O/ .a<'lt 3. -A? 1#0 &-6A "4% N1##0O: Torts & a!ages/ Act'al & 2oral da!ages T6A,&-A&1A &B1PP1,* 3. -A 2arch 1##6 PetitionerKs ship 8as 'nsea8orthy e3en before it e!bar<ed on a 3oyage? th's ca'sing pri3ate respondent to be late for 8or< by half a day. Art. 6#>? -ode of -o!!erce !'st be read in relation 8ith Arts. 21## - 2201? 220> and 21? -i3il -ode. As s'ch? petitioner is liable for any pec'niary loss or loss of profits 8hich the pri3ate respondent !ay ha3e s'ffered by reason of petitionerKs fail're to obser3e e@traordinary diligence. Bo8e3er? in case at bench? pri3ate respondentKs delay 8as d'e to his insistence on dise!bar<ing? 8hich forced the 3essel to ret'rn to its port of origin. Bad he re!ained on the 3essel? it 8o'ld ha3e reached it destination? albeit? half a day late. 2oreo3er? pri3ate respondent failed to pro3e that he did not recei3e his salary? nor that his absence 8as not e@c'sed. Th's? no act'al da!ages can be a8arded. 5't !oral and e@e!plary da!ages !'st be a8arded as petitioner allo8ed its 3essel to lea3e the port of origin 8ith f'll a8areness that it 8as 'nsea8orthy? hence? it acted 8ith bad faith and in a 8anton and rec<less !anner. Torts & a!ages/ Act'al da!ages

2ALAL7A, 3. -$2+L+2arch 1##6 -$2+L+- declared pri3ate respondent +3angelista the 8inner in an election contest and a8arded act'al da!ages? not8ithstanding the fact that the contro3ersy had beco!e !oot and acade!ic on acco'nt of the e@piration of the ter! of office. 1n case at bench? the 9'estion as to da!ages re!ains ripe for adD'dication. Petitioner contends that the da!ages =attorneyKs fees? @ero@ e@penses? 'nearned salary and e!ol'!ents: 8ere not alleged nor pro3ed d'ring trial. 1n light of Arts. 21## and 2201? -i3il -ode? act'al da!ages are appropriate only in breaches of obligations in cases of contracts and 9'asi-contracts? and on the occasion of cri!es and 9'asidelicts. Th's? the of a party in an election case for act'al da!ages !'st hinge 'pon these. 1n their absence? the clai!ant !'st be able to point o't a specific pro3ision of la8 a'thoriCing a !oney clai! for election protest e@penses against the losing party. =AtienCa? 2"# &-6A 2#>: 4or instance? the clai!ant !ay cite Arts. 1#? 20 and "2=(:? -i3il -ode? 8hich create obligations not by contract? cri!e or negligence? b't directly by la8. ;e r'le that no breach of contract or 9'asi-contract nor tortio's act nor cri!e !ay !a<e petitioner liable for act'al da!ages. 4'rther? pri3ate respondent has not been able to point o't to a specific pro3ision of la8 a'thoriCing a !oney clai! for election protest e@penses against the losing party. 1nsofar as the a8ard of protest e@penses and attorneyKs fees are concerned? ;e find the! to ha3e been a8arded 8itho't basis? the election protest not ha3ing been clearly 'nfo'nded. Torts & a!ages: +@e!plary da!ages P+$PL+ 3. PAT6$LLA F6. . 0+*A 2arch 1##6 ,o fact'al basis for the a8ard of !oral da!ages. +@e!plary da!ages !ay be a8arded in cri!inal cases 8here the cri!e 8as co!!itted 8ith one or !ore aggra3ating circ'!stances. ,o aggra3ating circ'!stance is present? other than treachery? 8hich 9'alified the <illing to !'rder and ab'se of s'perior strength 8hich 8as ho8e3er absorbed in treachery? to 8arrant an a8ard of thereof. Torts & a!ages/ Loss of l'ggage &A5+,A 3. -A 2arch 1##6 Petitioner contends that the alleged negligence of pri3ate respondent sho'ld be considered the pri!ary ca'se of the loss of her l'ggage? as despite her a8areness that the flight tic<et had been confir!ed only for -asablanca and 5r'ssels? and that her flight fro! 5r'ssels to 2anila had yet to be confir!ed? she did not retrie3e the l'ggage 'pon arri3al at 5r'ssels. 1t re!ained 'ndisp'ted that pri3ate respondentKs l'ggage 8as lost 8hile in the c'stody of petitioner. ;hen she disco3ered her bag 8as !issing? she pro!ptly acco!plished and filed a Property 1rreg'larity report? follo8ed 'p her clai!? and e3en filed a for!al letter-co!plaint. &he felt relie3ed 8hen she 8as ad3ised that her l'ggage had been fo'nd? 8ith its contents intact 8hen e@a!ined? and that she co'ld e@pect it to arri3e 4 days later. The then 8aited an@io'sly only to be told later that her l'ggage had been lost for the second ti!e. Th's? it 8as clear that petitioner 8as g'ilty of gross negligence. 1n Alitalia 3. 1A- =1#2 &-6A #? 16-1>:? the -o'rt held: MThe ;arsa8 -on3ention ho8e3er denies to the carrier a3ail!ent of the pro3isions 8hich e@cl'de or li!it his liability? if the da!age is ca'sed by his 8ilf'l !iscond'ct or by s'ch defa'lt on his part as? in accordance 8ith the la8 of the co'rt seiCed of the case? is considered to be e9'i3alent to 8ilf'l !iscond'ct @@@ The Bag'e Protocol a!ended the ;arsa8 -on3ention by re!o3ing the pro3ision that if the airline too< all necessary steps to a3oid the da!age? it co'ld e@c'lpate itself co!pletely? and declared the stated li!its of liability not applicable Kif it is pro3ed that the da!age res'lted fro! an act or o!ission of the carrier @@@K The -on3ention does not th's operate as an e@cl'si3e en'!eration of the instances of an airlineKs liability? or as an absol'te li!it of the e@tent of that liability. @@@ N1Ot sho'ld be dee!ed a li!it of liability only in those cases 8here the ca'se of death or inD'ry to person? or destr'ction?

loss or da!age to property or delay in its transport is not attrib'table to or attended by any 8illf'l !iscond'ct? etc. P,5 3. -A and 4L$6+& April 1##6 2oral da!ages a8arded !'st be co!!ens'rate 8ith the loss or inD'ry s'ffered. 2oral da!ages tho'gh incapable of pec'niary esti!ations? are in the category of an a8ard designed to co!pensate the clai!ant for act'al inD'ry s'ffered and not to i!pose a penalty on the 8rongdoer. 2oral da!ages are e!phatically not intended to enrich a co!plainant at the e@pense of the defendant. They are a8arded only to enable the inD'red party to obtain !eans? di3ersion or a!'se!ents that 8ill ser3e to ob3iate the !oral s'ffering he has 'ndergone? by reason of the defendantKs c'lpable action. 1ts a8ard is ai!ed at the restoration? 8ithin the li!its of the possible? of the spirit'al stat's 9'o ante? and it !'st be proportional to the s'ffering inflicted. +@e!plary da!ages are i!posed not to enrich one party or i!po3erish another b't to ser3e as a deterrent against or as a negati3e incenti3e to c'rb socially deleterio's actions. 5AL1;A* T6A,&1T 3. -A 2ay 1##6 -o!!ercial La8 & -i3il La8ATransportation & TortsA-o!!on -arriers & ,egligence: The 'se of a <erosene la!p s'bstantially co!plies 8ith &ection "4 =g: of the Land Transportation -ode. The afore9'oted la8 clearly allo8s the 'se not only of an +; of the triang'lar reflectoriCed plates 3ariety b't also par<ing lights or flares 3isible one h'ndred !eters a8ay. ,o negligence? therefore? !ay be i!p'ted to A & F Trading and its dri3er. To pro3e act'al da!ages? the best e3idence a3ailable to the inD'red party !'st be presented. The co'rt cannot rely on 'ncorroborated testi!ony 8hose tr'th is s'spect? b't !'st depend 'pon co!petent proof that da!ages ha3e been act'ally s'ffered. &econd? as regards lost earnings? Leticia earned P(?000 a !onth? b't 8as forced to stop 8or<ing d'e to her inD'ries. -onsidering the nat're and e@tent of her inD'ries and the length of ti!e it 8o'ld ta<e her to reco3er? 8e find it proper that 5ali8ag sho'ld co!pensate her lost inco!e for fi3e =(: years. Third? the a8ard of !oral da!ages is in accord 8ith la8. 1n a breach of contract of carriage? !oral da!ages are reco3erable if the carrier? thro'gh its agent? acted fra'd'lently or in bad faith. The e3idence sho8s the gross negligence of the dri3er of 5ali8ag b's 8hich a!o'nted to bad faith. 4inally? 8e find the a8ard of attorneyKs fees D'stified. The co!plaint for da!ages 8as instit'ted on ece!ber 1(? 1#>2? follo8ing the 'nD'stified ref'sal of 5ali8ag to settle their clai!. The ecision 8as pro!'lgated by the trial co'rt only abo't nine years later. ,'!ero's pleadings 8ere filed. *i3en the co!ple@ity of the case and the a!o'nt of da!ages in3ol3ed? the a8ard of P10?000.00 is D'st and reasonable. PB1L1PP1,+ A16L1,+& 3. -A & 6. & 26&. 216A, A 1t is no8 fir!ly settled that !oral da!ages are reco3erable in s'its predicated on breach of a contract of carriage 8here it is pro3ed that the carrier 8as g'ilty of fra'd or bad faith. 1nattention to and lac< of care for the interests of its passengers a!o'nt to bad faith. ;hat the la8 considers as bad faith 8hich !ay f'rnish the gro'nd for an a8ard of !oral da!ages 8o'ld be bad faith in sec'ring the contract and in the e@ec'tion thereof? as 8ell as in the enforce!ent of its ter!s? or any other <ind of deceit. &'ch 'nprofessional and proscribed cond'ct is attrib'table to petitioner airline. 1t !'st? of co'rse? be borne in !ind that !oral da!ages are not a8arded to penaliCe the defendant b't to co!pensate the plaintiff. 1n a contract'al or 9'asi-contract'al relationship? e@e!plary da!ages? on the other hand? !ay be a8arded only if the defendant had acted in a 8anton? fra'd'lent? rec<less? oppressi3e or !ale3olent !anner. AttorneyKs fees in the concept of da!ages !ay be a8arded 8here there is a finding of bad faith. The e3idence on record a!ply s'stains that the a8ards assessed against petitioner are D'stified and reasonable. -i3il La8A a!ages

26. & 26&. +,*6A-1$ 4A56+ & P$64161$ -A51L 3. -A? TB+ ;$6 4$6 TB+ ;$6L -B61&T1A, 4+LL$;&B1P? et al. F'ly 1##6 The -A erred in increasing the a!o'nt of co!pensatory da!ages beca'se pri3ate respondents did not 9'estion this a8ard as inade9'ate. To the contrary? the a8ard of P(00?000 by the 6T- as act'al da!ages is reasonable considering the contingent nat're of her inco!e as a cas'al e!ployee of a co!pany and as distrib'tor of bea'ty prod'cts and the fact that the possibility that she !ight be able to 8or< again has not been foreclosed. ;ith respect to the other a8ards: 2oral da!ages are granted since the dri3erKs gross negligence a!o'nted to bad faith. +@e!plary da!ages and attorneyKs fees proper. +rror for -A to increase a8ard of !oral da!ages and red'ce attorneyKs fees? for sa!e reason as co!pensatory da!ages. 5's dri3er and o8ners Dointly and se3erally liable. 5AL1;A* T6A,&1T 3. -A? 101,A 0 A. + 1$,1&1$? et al. *.6. ,o. 116624? &epte!er 1##6 -i3il La8ATorts and a!ages/ +!ployerKs 3icario's liability: 1: -irc'!stances sho8ing negligence of dri3er: he boarded the b's? sat on the dri3erKs seat and 8as at the steering 8heel 8hen the b's !o3ed pinning do8n the deceased 8ho 8as reparing the defecti3e bra<e syste! belo8. The dri3er sho'ld ha3e <no8n that his bra<e syste! 8as being repaired as he 8as the one 8ho told the deceased to do so. The dri3er sho'ld ha3e part<ed the b's properly and safely. After alighting fro! the b's to tell the gas!an to fill the tan<? he sho'ld ha3e placed a stopper or any hard obDect against a tire or t8o of the b's. 5't 8itho't ta<ing the necessary preca'tions? he boarded the b's? ca'sing it to !o3e? 8hich lead to the accident. 2: Pres'!ption of negligence on e!ployerKs part re: selection of or s'per3ision o3er e!ployee? reb'ttable by clear sho8ing of good father diligence. Bence? to escape solidary liability for 9'asi-delict co!!itted by an e!ployee? the e!ployer !'st add'ce s'fficient proof that it e@ercised s'ch degree of care. =citations o!itted: ": Act'al da!ages: life e@pectancy and loss of earning capacity/ pec'niary loss? loss of s'pport and ser3ice/ and !oral and !ental s'ffering. The loss of earning capacity is based on 2 factors: n'!ber of years on the basis of 8hich the da!ages shall be co!p'ted? and the rate at 8hich the loss s'stained by the heirs sho'ld be fi@ed. =citations o!itted: N*i3es 0illa 6ey for!'la.O 4$$ T+621,AL? 1,-. =4T1: 3. -A & TA$ +0T.? 1,-. &epte!ber 1##6 Petitioner arg'es that the -A erred in affir!ing the rate of interest i!posed by the trial co'rt. This contention is 8ell-ta<en. The -A incorrectly applied the pro3isions of -5 -irc'lar ,o. 416 referring to legal interest in a loan or forbearance of !oney? or to cases 8here !oney is transferred fro! one person to another and the obligation to ret'rn the sa!e or a portion thereof is adD'dged. Any other !onetary D'dg!ent does not fall 8ithin its co3erage for s'ch i!position is not 8ithin the a!bit of a'thority granted to the -5. ;hen an obligation not constit'ting a loan or forbearance of !oney is breached then an interest on the a!o'nt of da!ages a8arded !ay be i!posed at the co'rtKs discretion at the rate of 6[ p.a. in accordance 8ith Art. 220#? ,--. 1ndeed? the !onetary D'dg!ent in fa3or of Tao does not in3ol3e a loan or forbearance of !oney? hence? the proper i!posable rate of interest is 6[. Bo8e3er? as declared in +astern &hipping 3. -A =2"4 &-6A %>:? the interi! period fro! the finality of the D'dg!ent a8arding a !onetary clai! and 'ntil pay!ent thereof? is dee!ed to be e9'i3alent to a forbearance of credit. Th's? fro! the ti!e the D'dg!ent beco!es final 'ntil its f'll satisfaction? the applicable rate of legal interest shall be 12[. The a8ards of the trial co'rt shall earn interest at the rate of 6[ p.a. fro! 1( 2ay 1#>4 =the date fi@ed by the trial co'rt: 'ntil f'lly satisfied? b't before D'dg!ent beco!es final. 4ro! date of finality of D'dg!ent 'ntil the obligation is totally paid? a rate of 12[ is i!posed. P+$PL+ 3. +62+L1,$ &+L71X$? et al.

*.6. ,o. 11%"#%? ,o3e!ber 1##6 ;e do not agree 8ith the a8ards of !oral and e@e!plary da!ages. There is no fact'al basis therefore insofar as 2 of the pri3ate co!plainants are concerned since they did not as< for and testify thereon. $nly 1 pri3ate co!plainant as<ed for !oral da!ages of P(0?000.00 for her 8orries d'e to the death of her h'sband. As to e@e!plary da!ages? the la8 is clear that they are reco3erable in cri!inal cases only 8hen the cri!e 8as co!!itted 8ith one or !ore aggra3ating circ'!stances? none of 8hich are pro3en here. 016*1L1$ 2. +L 6$&A61$ & -$6AG$, PA6+ +&- +L 6$&A61$ 3. -A & 2+TAL 4$621,* -$6P$6AT1$, =24-: *.6. ,o. 11>"2(? Fan. 2#? 1##% There is !erit in the petition. The iss'e is 8hether or not 24- is ans8erable to petitioners for the da!age ca'sed to petitionersK residence 8hen its roof? !ade of shingles p'rchased fro! and installed by the for!er? 8as blo8n a8ay by a typhoon. The -o'rt r'les that it is. ;hat !atters here is that 24-Ks e!ployees deli3ered and installed the shingles. Th's? all the 9'ibbling abo't 8hether P'no acted as agent of 24- or the spo'ses? is pointless. The !atter is not a factor in deter!ining 24-Ks liability for its 8or<ersK 'se of inferior !aterials and their defecti3e installation of the shingles. ;hat li<e8ise !atters is that 24-Ks e!ployees? in installing the shingles? 'sed inferior !aterials and asse!bled the! in a !anner contrary to specifications? in bad faith and 8ith gross negligence. Bence? 24- infringed and is liable on its 8arranties. 7nfort'nately? no e3identiary fo'ndation for act'al da!ages? hence !'st be str'c< do8n. 5't grant of !oral da!ages 'pheld since 8ith ade9'ate proof and 24- acted in bad faith =Art. 2220? ,--:/ li<e8ise 8ith e@e!plary da!ages. 5't both a8ards !'st be red'ced. *rant of attorneyKs fees str'c< do8n since dealt 8ith only in dispositi3e portion of the 6T- decision. 1##( -i3il La8ATorts & a!ages 4A6 +A&T 5A,Q 3. -A 241 &-6A 6%1=1##( 4eb: A 9'asi-delict can be the ca'se for breaching a contract that !ight thereby per!it the application of applicable tort principles e3en 8here there is a pre-e@isting contract bet8een plaintiff and defendant. -i3il La8ATorts & a!ages -B7A 3. -A 242 &-6A "41=1##( 2ar: 2alicio's prosec'tion has been e@panded to incl'de baseless ci3il s'its 8hich are !eant to harass or h'!iliate a defendant? b't both !alice and lac< of probable ca'se !'st be clearly sho8n to D'stify an a8ard of da!ages. $5L1*AT1$,& A, -$,T6A-T& 2000 -ontracts/ &ales/ $8nership Archipelago 2g!t & 2<tng -orp 3. -A 2ay 2000 This is a land disp'te bet8een 6osalina 2orales & Archipelago 2g!t & 2<tg -orp. The land 8as originally o8ned by 6osalina. The corp. clai!s o8nership by 3irt'e of a deed of absol'te sale allegedly e@ec'ted bet8een 6osalina & the corp. 6osalina denies the contract & contends that the signat're 8as obtained by fra'd thro'gh the !achinations of her h'sband +!etero 2orales.

67L1,*&: =1: There is fra'd 8hen one party is ind'ced by the other to enter into a contract thro'gh and solely beca'se of the latterKs insidio's 8ords or !achinations. 1t 8as clearly de!onstrated that fra'd attended the e@ec'tion of the deed of sale. =2: 1rreg'larities also i!pair the notariCation of the deed of sale. =": Acts of o8nership 8ere e@ercised by 6osalina e3en after the alleged e@ec'tion of the deed of sale. &he contin'ed to possess the disp'ted property? pay the real estate ta@es and collected rentals fro! the lessees. - $8nership of a property !eans? a!ong others? the right to enDoy and dispose of it? s'bDect to li!itations established by la8. The la8 MrecogniCes in the o8ner the right to enDoy and dispose of the thing o8ned. The right to enDoy incl'des: the D's 'tendi or the right to recei3e fro! the thing 8hat it prod'ces? and the D's ab'tendi or the right to cons'!e the thing by its 'se.M 4'rther? MNtOhe right to dispose or the D's disponedi? ids the po8er of the o8ner to alienate? enc'!ber? transfor!? and e3en destroy the thing o8ned.M 1n the present case? e3en after 6osalina allegedly sold her paraphernal property to herein petitioner? she still perfor!ed acts of o8nership o3er the sa!e. &i@teen days after the alleged e@ec'tion of the eed of &ale? she entered into a contract of lease 8ith &iblings 6odolfo and ,y!pha as lessees. 4'rther!ore? 6osalina =and her heirs: contin'ed to possess the disp'ted property e3en after the alleged sale. &he also paid the real estate ta@es and collected rentals fro! the lessees. 1n fact? after the alleged e@ec'tion of the 9'estioned eed of &ale? she e3en e@ec'ted a holographic 8ill be9'eathing the property to her h'sband +!eterio? her careta<er 5aong'is and her children by her first h'sband. 1n star< contrast? petitioner ne3er e@ercised acts of o8nership o3er the property. 1ndeed? aside fro! the alleged eed of &ale? it presented no other e3idence of its o8nership s'ch as boo<s? records or financial state!ents. 2oreo3er? it did not pay the real estate ta@es e3en after a ne8 T-T eed? 1t !'st also be 'nderscored that Atty. ,arciso 2orales? president of the petitioner corporation? <ne8 of the s'bse9'ent acts of 6osalina? b't offered no obDection thereto. -ontracts/ &ales *olden6od 1nc 3. -A 2ay 2000 4A-T&: Land disp'te again bet8een 5arreto 6ealty & *olden6od. 5arreto 6ealty e@ec'ted an agree!ent 8A *olden6od 8herein 5arreto accepted *olden6odKs offer to b'y the properties of *olden6od 8hich 8as s'bDect to i!!inent foreclos're. Later on? *olden6od infor!ed 5arreto then its President that it 8o'ld not go thro'gh 8A the sale beca'se of the denial of 7-P5 of its re9'est for an e@tension of ti!e to pay the obligation. Be also de!anded the ref'nd of the earnest !oney of P12 8hich it ga3e to 5arreto. 67L1,*&: =1: An earnest !oney is part of the p'rchase price. - ;e s'stain petitioner. 7nder Article 14>2 of the -i3il -ode? 8hene3er earnest !oney is gi3en in a contract of sale? it shall be considered as part of the p'rchase price and as proof of the perfection of the contract. Petitioner clearly stated 8itho't any obDection fro! pri3ate respondents that the earnest !oney 8as intended to for! part of the p'rchase price. 1t 8as an ad3ance pay!ent 8hich !'st be ded'cted fro! the total price? especially in the absence of a clear and e@press agree!ent thereon. =2:4ail're by one party to oppose the other partyKs declaration of rescission of a contract a!o'nts to an ad!ission of the 3alidity of the rescinding partyKs clai!. =":6escission of a contract creates the obligation to ret'rn the things 8hich 8ere the obDect of the contract? together 8ith their fr'its and interest. - Article 1">( of the -i3il -ode pro3ides that rescission creates the obligation to ret'rn the things 8hich 8ere the obDect of the contract together 8ith their fr'its and interest. The 3endor is therefore obliged to ret'rn the p'rchase price paid to hi! by the b'yer if the latter rescinds the sale? or 8hen the transaction 8as called off and the s'bDect property had already been sold to a third person? as 8hat obtained in this case. Therefore? by 3irt'e of the e@traD'dicial rescission of the contract to sell by petitioner 8itho't opposition fro! pri3ate respondents 8ho? in t'rn? sold the property to other persons? pri3ate respondent 5A66+T$ 6+ALT.? as the 3endor? had the obligation to ret'rn the earnest !oney of P1?000?000.00 pl's legal interest fro! the date it recei3ed notice of rescission fro! petitioner? i.e.?

"0 A'g'st 1##>? 'p to the date of the ret'rn of pay!ent. 1t 8o'ld be !ost ine9'itable if respondent 5A66+T$ 6+ALT. 8o'ld be allo8ed to retain petitionerKs pay!ent of P1?000?000.00 and at the sa!e ti!e appropriate the proceeds of the second sale !ade to another. $blicon/ +stoppel 2+T6$5A,Q 3. -A *.6. ,o. 122>##? F'ne >? 2000. Petitioner 2+T6$5A,Q is estopped fro! ref'sing the discharge of the real estate !ortgage on the clai! that the s'bDect property still sec'res Mother 'nli9'idated past d'e loans.M 1n 2aneclang 3s. 5a'n? 14 this -o'rt en'!erated the re9'isites for estoppel by cond'ct to operate? to 8it: there !'st ha3e been a representation or conceal!ent of !aterial facts/ the representation !'st ha3e been 8ith <no8ledge of the facts/ the party to 8ho! it 8as !ade !'st ha3e been ignorant of the tr'th of the !atter/ and it !'st ha3e been 8ith the intention that the other party 8o'ld act 'pon it. Petitioner 2+T6$5A,Q is th's barred fro! ta<ing a stand inconsistent 8ith its representation 'pon 8hich respondent *TP? as an innocent third person to the real !ortgage agree!ent? placed e@cl'si3e reliance. 6espondent *TP had the reasonable right to rely 'pon s'ch representations as tr'e? considering that it had no participation 8hatsoe3er in the !ortgage agree!ent and the preparation of the state!ent of acco'nt? co'pled 8ith the e@pectation that a rep'table ban<ing instit'tion s'ch as petitioner 2+T6$5A,Q do cond'ct their b'siness concerns in the highest standards of efficiency and professionalis!. 4or an ad!ission or representation is rendered concl'si3e 'pon the person !a<ing it? and cannot be denied or dispro3ed as against a person relying thereon. A party !ay not go bac< on his o8n acts and representations to the preD'dice of the other party 8ho relied 'pon the!. 1n the la8 of e3idence? 8hene3er a party has? by his o8n declaration? act or o!ission? intentionally and deliberately led another to belie3e a partic'lar thing tr'e? and to act 'pon s'ch belief? he cannot? in any litigation arising o't of s'ch declaration act? or o!ission? be per!itted to falsify it. $blicon/ -ontractsl &ales 6$2A*$ +L+-T61- -$. 3. -A *.6. ,o. 12(#4%? F'ne >? 2000. A contract is defined as a !eeting of !inds bet8een t8o persons 8hereby one binds hi!self 8ith respect to the other? to gi3e so!ething or to render so!e ser3ice. *enerally? contracts need not be in 8riting in order to be 3alid. -ontracts are obligatory in 8hate3er for! they !ay ha3e been entered into pro3ided all essential re9'isites for their 3alidity are present. ;e are not con3inced that there 8as a !eeting of the !inds bet8een 6o!ago and T&1 regarding the 9'estion of sharing of pay!ent of rentals and 'tilities charges? pending the cons'!!ation of the &toc< P'rchase Agree!ent. There is no ade9'ate sho8ing that T&1 consented to any s'ch 3erbal agree!ent. $n the contrary? T&1 thro'gh its *eneral 2anager &e3erino Li! and irector Forge &alaCar denied the e@istence of s'ch 3erbal agree!ent or 'nderstanding. &ales J Pthe 'nderstanding of the parties 8as that? 'nless and 'ntil co!plete and s'bstantial pay!ent on the 2oto8n transaction shall ha3e been !ade? T&1Es occ'pancy is allo8ed as a concession or as Mco!e-onM or incenti3e for the sale beca'se they co'ld i!!ediately enter into the pre!ises and begin reno3ation 8or<. Apparently? as a res'lt of this 'nderstanding? no !ention 8as !ade by the parties in the 2oto8n Agree!ent regarding T&1 ta<ing i!!ediate possession of portions of the pre!ises and of any interi! sharing of pay!ent of rentals and 'tilities charges. Psince both 6o!ago and T&1 paid e9'ally t8o !onths rents and 'tilities charges for the fo'r !onths period Pthey shared the 'se and occ'pancy of the s'bDect leased pre!ises? the parties act'ally paid their respecti3e share =of rentals and 'tilities charges: o't of e9'ity and !'t'al consideration and not p'rs'ant to any 3erbal agree!ent e@isting bet8een the!. $blicon/ Tr'st/ -onstr'cti3e Tr'st .7-B+,*-$ 3. 6+P75L1*.6. ,o. 1"112%? F'ne >? 2000

-onsidering that petitioner see<s to reco3er properties? the o8nership and possession of 8hich he 8as allegedly depri3ed thro'gh fra'd? d'ress andAor coercion? 8e hold that? ass'!ing hypothetically these a3er!ents to be tr'e? the legal relationship of constr'cti3e tr'st 8as present a!ong the parties concerned in the said transactions. -onstr'cti3e tr'st is that created by reason of e9'ity to ans8er the de!ands of D'stice and pre3ent 'nD'st enrich!ent. 1t arises against one? 8ho? by fra'd? d'ress or ab'se of confidence? obtains or holds the legal right to property 8hich he o'ght not? in e9'ity and good conscience? hold. -orrespondingly? actions thereon prescribe after ten =10: years as pro3ided by Article 1144 of the -i3il -ode: The follo8ing actions !'st be bro'ght 8ithin ten =10: years fro! the ti!e the right of action accr'es: 1. 7pon a 8ritten contract/ 2. 7pon an obligation created by la8/ ". 7pon a D'dg!ent. Article 11(4 of the -i3il -ode is applicable by parallelis!? to 8it: The period d'ring 8hich the obligee 8as pre3ented by fort'ito's e3ent fro! enforcing his right is not rec<oned against hi!. -ontracts/ Perfection FA6 1,+ A01+& 1,-. 3. -A *.6. ,o. 12>066 ? F'ne 1#? 2000. A contract is defined as Ma D'ridical con3ention !anifested in legal for!? by 3irt'e of 8hich one or !ore persons bind the!sel3es in fa3or of another for others? or reciprocally? to the f'lfill!ent of a prestation to gi3e? to do? or not to do.M There can be no contract 'nless the follo8ing re9'isites conc'r: =a: consent of the contracting parties/ =b: obDect certain 8hich is the s'bDect !atter of the contract/ and? =c: ca'se of the obligation 8hich is established. A contract binds both contracting parties and has the force of la8 bet8een the!. -ontracts are perfected by !ere consent? 'pon the acceptance by the offeree of the offer !ade by the offeror. 4ro! that !o!ent? the parties are bo'nd not only to the f'lfill!ent of 8hat has been e@pressly stip'lated b't also to all the conse9'ences 8hich? according to their nat're? !ay be in <eeping 8ith good faith? 'sage and la8. To prod'ce a contract? the acceptance !'st not 9'alify the ter!s of the offer. Bo8e3er? the acceptance !ay be e@press or i!plied. 4or a contract to arise? the acceptance !'st be !ade <no8n to the offeror. Accordingly? the acceptance can be 8ithdra8n or re3o<ed before it is !ade <no8n to the offeror. -ited case: 8e disting'ished bet8een a condition i!posed on the perfection of a contract and a condition i!posed !erely on the perfor!ance of an obligation. ;hile fail're to co!ply 8ith the first condition res'lts in the fail're of a contract? fail're to co!ply 8ith the second !erely gi3es the other party options andAor re!edies to protect his interests. Pby the 'nilateral cancellation of the contract? the defendant has acted 8ith bad faith and this 8as f'rther aggra3ated by the s'bse9'ent in<ing of a contract bet8een defendant and codefendant. 1t is 3ery e3ident that =the defendant: tho'ght that by the e@pedient !eans of !erely 8riting a letter 8o'ld a'to!atically cancel or n'llify the e@isting contract entered into by both parties after a process of bidding. This? to the -o'rtKs !ind? is a flagrant 3iolation of the e@press pro3isions of the la8 and is contrary to fair and D'st dealings to 8hich e3ery !an is d'e. $blicon/ ,o3ation +&P1,A 3. -A *.6. ,o. 116>0(? F'ne 22? 2000. The no3ation !'st be clearly pro3ed since its e@istence is not pres'!ed. 1n this light? no3ation is ne3er pres'!ed/ it !'st be pro3en as a fact either by e@press stip'lation of the parties or by i!plication deri3ed fro! an irreconcilable inco!patibility bet8een old and ne8 obligations or contracts. ,o3ation ta<es place only if the parties e@pressly so pro3ide? other8ise? the original contract re!ains in force. 1n other 8ords? the parties to a contract !'st e@pressly agree that they are abrogating their old contract in fa3or of a ne8 one. ;here there is no clear agree!ent to create a ne8 contract in place of the e@isting one? no3ation cannot be pres'!ed to ta<e place? 'nless the ter!s of the ne8 contract are f'lly inco!patible

8ith the for!er agree!ent on e3ery point. Th's? a deed of cession of the right to rep'rchase a piece of land does not s'persede a contract of lease o3er the sa!e property. $n 4ebr'ary 1"? 1##"? petitioner ga3e respondent a notice to 3acate the pre!ises and to pay his bac< rentals. 4ailing to do so? respondentKs possession beca!e 'nla8f'l and his e3iction 8as proper. ,o8 respondent contends that the petitionerKs s'bse9'ent acceptance of s'ch pay!ent effecti3ely 8ithdre8 the cancellation of the pro3isional sale. ;e do not agree. 7nless the application of pay!ent is e@pressly indicated? the pay!ent shall be applied to the obligation !ost onero's to the debtor. 1n this case? the 'npaid rentals constit'ted the !ore onero's obligation of the respondent to petitioner. As the pay!ent did not f'lly settle the 'npaid rentals? petitionerKs ca'se of action for eDect!ent s'r3i3es. -ontracts/ &tat'te of 4ra'ds/ 1!plied Tr'sts/ &ales 01+;2A&T+6 -$,&T67-T1$, -$6P 3s. 6$ZA&? et al? *.6. ,o. 1""(%6? F'ly 1"? 2000 Petitioner 0ie8!aster agreed to act as the g'arantor of Allen 6o@as for the loan that the latter needs fro! 421- if herein respondent Allen 6o@as shall sell fifty percent =(0[: of his shareholdings in &tate 1n3est!ent and shall 'nderta<e a Doint 3ent're proDect 8ith Plaintiff 0ie8!aster to co-de3elop the t8o real estate properties in L'eCon -ity and Las PiSas? and if 6o@as shall sell and petitioner 0ie8!aster shall p'rchase fifty percent =(0[: of the latterEs total e3ent'al ac9'isitions of shares of stoc< in &tate 1n3est!ent. These 8ere not p't into 8riting. The co'rt a 9'o did not err in finding that the &tat'te of 4ra'ds co3ers the foregoing agree!ents. The 3erbal agree!ent entered into bet8een petitioner 0ie8!aster and respondent Allen 6o@as 8as an agree!ent that by its ter!s is not to be perfor!ed 8ithin a year fro! the !a<ing thereof. To be ta<en o't of the operation of the &tat'te of 4ra'ds? the agree!ent !'st be f'lly perfor!ed on one side 8ithin one year fro! the !a<ing thereof. M-ontracts 8hich by their ter!s are not to be perfor!ed 8ithin one year !ay be ta<en o't of the &tat'te of 4ra'ds thro'gh perfor!ance by one party thereto. 1n order? ho8e3er? that a partial perfor!ance of the contract !ay ta<e the case o't of the operation of the stat'te? it !'st appear clear that the f'll perfor!ance has been !ade by one party 8ithin one year? as other8ise the stat'te 8o'ld apply.M N5abao 3s. PereC? 102 Phil%(6.O 1n the case at bar? since neither of the parties has f'lly perfor!ed their obligations 8ithin the oneyear period? then it behoo3es this -o'rt to declare that the case falls 8ithin the co3erage of the &tat'te of 4ra'ds. 1t 8ill not ta<e a !athe!atical geni's to fig're o't that the sale of fifty percent =(0[: of Allen 6o@asEs shareholdings in &tate 1n3est!ent 8o'ld a!o'nt to !ore than fi3e h'ndred pesos =P(00.00:. Th's? to be enforceable? the contract !'st be in 8riting. 1t is contended that an i!plied tr'st e@ists bet8een petitioner and Allen 6o@as. The i!plied tr'st 8as allegedly created by operation of la8 in accordance 8ith Article 144> of the ,e8 -i3il -ode. L'oted belo8 is the pro3ision referred to: MArt. 144>. There is an i!plied tr'st 8hen property is sold? and the legal estate is granted to one party b't the price is paid by another for the p'rpose of ha3ing the beneficial interest of the property. The for!er is the tr'stee? 8hile the latter is the beneficiary. Bo8e3er? if the person to 8ho! the title is con3eyed is a child? legiti!ate or illegiti!ate? of the one paying the price of the sale? no tr'st is i!plied by la8? it being disp'tably pres'!ed that there is a gift in fa3or of the child.M =+!phasis $'rs: 4ro! the abo3e? it is 9'ite clear that in order for the pro3isions of Article 144> to apply in the case at bar Mthe price is paid by another for the p'rpose of ha3ing the beneficial interest of the property.M 1t bears stressing that respondent Allen 6o@as obtained a loan fro! 4irst 2etro 1n3est!ents? 1nc. not fro! petitioner 0ie8!aster. 1t 8as 421- that pro3ided the f'nds 8ith 8hich Allen 6o@as ac9'ired the controlling interest in &tate 1n3est!ent Tr'st? 1nc. 421- lent the !oney to 6o@as beca'se the latter needed the !oney and not to obtain any beneficial interest in the shares of stoc< in &tate 1n3est!ent. 0ie8!aster !erely facilitated the loan by acting as g'arantor of the loan and nothing !ore. -ontracts/ 4ra'd

A661$LA 3s. +2+T61$ The la8? ho8e3er? re9'ires that in case one of the parties to a contract is 'nable to read and fra'd is alleged? the person enforcing the contract !'st sho8 that the ter!s thereof ha3e been f'lly e@plained to the for!er. -onsent? ha3ing been obtained by fra'd? the deed entered into co'ld be ann'lled. $bligations and -ontracts/ &ales P1L1P1,A& B1,$ 3s. -A 1t is? of co'rse? a basic r'le in e3idence that a party !'st pro3e his o8n affir!ati3e allegations. 1n ci3il cases? the b'rden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by a preponderance of e3idence. 1n affir!ati3e a3er!ent the on's probandi falls on pleaderEs sho'lder. $bligation arising fro! contracts ha3e the force of la8 bet8een the contracting parties and sho'ld be co!plied 8ith in good faith. Agree!ent bet8een the parties? not being contrary to la8? !orals? good c'sto!s? p'blic policy? or p'blic order has therefore the force of la8 bet8een the parties. +9'ity is applied only in the absence of? and ne3er against? stat'tory la8 or D'dicial r'les of proced're. &ales: ;hile this -o'rt recogniCes that in contracts to sell e3en if the contract is ter!inated the seller can retain the s'!s already recei3ed or paid? s'ch can be done only if it is e@pressly pro3ided for in the contract. A-+ BA7L+6& -$6P. 3s. -A -i3il liability coe@ists 8ith cri!inal responsibility. 1n negligence cases? the offended party =or his heirs: has the option bet8een an action for enforce!ent of ci3il liability based on c'lpa cri!inal 'nder Article 100 of the 6e3ised Penal -ode and an action for reco3ery of da!ages based on c'lpa a9'iliana 'nder Article 21%6 of the -i3il -ode. Article 21%% of the -i3il -ode? ho8e3er? precl'des reco3ery of da!ages t8ice for the sa!e negligent act or o!ission. -onse9'ently? a separate ci3il action for da!ages lies against the offender in a cri!inal act? 8hether or not he is cri!inally prosec'ted and fo'nd g'ilty or ac9'itted? pro3ided that the offended party is not allo8ed? if he is act'ally charged also cri!inally? to reco3er da!ages on both scores? and 8o'ld be entitled in s'ch e3ent'ality only to the bigger a8ard of the t8o? ass'!ing the a8ards !ade in the t8o cases 3ary. $blicon P6$ 7-+6& 5A,Q $4 TB+ PB1L1PP1,+&? et al 3s. 5P1 & -A *.6. ,o. 12(16%? &epte!ber >? 2000 The nat're of an action is deter!ined by the allegations of the co!plaint. 1n this case? petitionersK co!plaint alleges facts constit'ting its ca'se of action based on a 8ritten contract? the deed of pledge. Bence? the prescripti3e period is ten =10: years. The pledge 8as e@ec'ted in A'g'st 1#>0 and petitioners ref'sed to register the shares pledged after respondent ac9'ired the sa!e. 6espondent co!!enced s'it in 1#>#? before the ten-year prescripti3e period e@pired. $blcion/ 6escission &52A 3s. 7,10+6&AL 1,T+6,AT1$,AL *6$7P $4 TA1;A, *.6. ,o. 1"16>0? &epte!ber 14? 2000 A stip'lation a'thoriCing a party to e@traD'dicially rescind a contract and to reco3er possession of the property in case of contract'al breach is la8f'l. 5't 8hen a 3alid obDection is raised? a D'dicial deter!ination of the iss'e is still necessary before a ta<eo3er !ay be allo8ed. 1n the present case? ho8e3er? respondents do not deny that there 8as s'ch a breach of the Agree!ent/ they !erely arg'e that the stip'lation allo8ing a rescission and a reco3ery of possession is 3oid. Bence? the other party !ay 3alidly enforce s'ch stip'lation. $blicon/ 1nterpretation of contracts P1L1P1,A& 5A,Q 3s. -$76T $4 APP+AL&? B$,. +L$. 6. 5+LL$? 1n his capacity as Presiding F'dge? 6T-\2anila? 5ranch 1(? And 2+61 1A, A&&76A,-+ -$6P$6AT1$,

*.6. ,o. 141060? &epte!ber 2#? 2000 Petitioners -o!plaint !erely alleged that 'nder the pro3isions of the Policy? it 8as entitled to reco3er fro! pri3ate respondent the a!o'nt it lost d'ring the heist. 1t did not allege therein that the Policys ter!s 8ere a!big'o's or failed to e@press the tr'e agree!ent bet8een itself and pri3ate respondent. &'ch being the case? petitioner has no right to insist that it be allo8ed to present T'bianosas testi!ony to shed light on the alleged tr'e agree!ent of the parties? not8ithstanding its state!ent in its Pre\Trial 5rief that it 8as presenting said 8itness for that p'rpose. &ection #? 6'le 1"0 of the 6e3ised 6'les of -o'rt e@pressly re9'ires that for parol e3idence to be ad!issible to 3ary the ter!s of the 8ritten agree!ent? the !ista<e or i!perfection thereof or its fail're to e@press the tr'e agree!ent of the parties sho'ld be p't in iss'e by the pleadings. As correctly noted by the appellate co'rt? petitioner failed to raise the iss'e of an intrinsic a!big'ity? !ista<e or i!perfection in the ter!s of the Policy? or of the fail're of said contract to e@press the tr'e intent and agree!ent of the parties thereto in its -o!plaint. There 8as therefore no error on the part of the appellate co'rt 8hen it affir!ed the 6T-s $rder disallo8ing the recall of T'bianosa to the 8itness stand? for s'ch disallo8ance is in accord 8ith the r'le that 8hen the ter!s of an agree!ent ha3e been red'ced to 8riting? it is considered as containing all the ter!s agreed 'pon and there can be? bet8een the parties and their s'ccessors\in\interest? no e3idence of s'ch other ter!s other than the contents of the 8ritten agree!ent. -ontracts/ +9'itable 2ortgage T7AG$, 3s. -A? et al *.6. ,o. 11#%#4. $ctober "? 2000 Article 1602 of the -i3il -ode pro3ides that a contact shall be pres'!ed to be an e9'itable !ortgage by the presence of any of the follo8ing: K=1: ;hen the price of a sale 8ith right to rep'rchase is 'n's'ally inade9'ate/ =2: ;hen the 3endor re!ains in possession as lessee or other8ise/ =": ;hen 'pon or after the e@piration of the right to rep'rchase another instr'!ent e@tending the period of rede!ption or granting a ne8 period is e@ec'ted/ =4: ;hen the p'rchaser retains for hi!self a part of the p'rchase price/ =(: ;hen the 3endor binds hi!self to pay the ta@es on the thing sold/ =6: 1n any other case 8here it !ay be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall sec're the pay!ent of a debt or the perfor!ance of any other obligation.KM 7nder Article 1604 of the ,e8 -i3il -ode? the pro3isions of Article 1602 shall also apply to a contract p'rporting to be an absol'te sale. And for these pro3isions of la8 to apply? t8o re9'isites !'st conc'r: that the parties entered into a contract deno!inated as a contract of sale and that their intention 8as to sec're an e@isting debt by 8ay of !ortgage. The present case is entirely different. 6ecords on hand and the doc'!entary e3idence introd'ced by the parties ind'bitably sho8 no roo! for constr'ction? Article 1"6( of the ,e8 -i3il -ode on refor!ation of contracts applies only if there is e3idence? clear and con3incing? that the parties did agree 'pon a !ortgage of s'bDect property. Bere? e3erything appears to be clear and 'na!big'o's and nothing is do'btf'l? 8ithin the conte!plation of Article 1602. ;hen the 8ords of the contract are clear and readily 'nderstandable? there is no roo! for constr'ction. The contract is the la8 bet8een the parties. &aid this -o'rt: -ontracts/ +@traordinary inflation &1,*&$, 3s. -ALT+Z =PB1L1PP1,+&:. *.6. ,o. 1"%%#>. $ctober 4? 2000 The only iss'e cr'cial to the present appeal is 8hether there e@isted an e@traordinary inflation d'ring the period 1#6> to 1#>" that 8o'ld call for the application of Article 12(0 of the -i3il -ode and D'stify an adD'st!ent or increase of the rentals bet8een the parties. Article 12(0 of the -i3il -ode states: 1n case an e@traordinary inflation or deflation of the c'rrency stip'lated sho'ld s'per3ene? the 3al'e of the c'rrency at the ti!e of the establish!ent of the obligation shall be the basis of pay!ent? 'nless there is an agree!ent to the contrary.

Article 12(0 8as inserted in the -i3il -ode of 1#(0 to abate the 'ncertainty and conf'sion that affected contracts entered into or pay!ents !ade d'ring ;orld ;ar 11? and to help pro3ide a D'st sol'tion to f't're cases. The -o'rt has held e@traordinary inflation to e@ist 8hen there is a decrease or increase in the p'rchasing po8er of the Philippine c'rrency 8hich is 'n's'al or beyond the co!!on fl'ct'ation in the 3al'e of said c'rrency? and s'ch increase or decrease co'ld not ha3e been reasonably foreseen or 8as !anifestly beyond the conte!plation of the parties at the ti!e of the establish!ent of the obligation. H+rosionI is indeed an acc'rate description of the trend of decline in the 3al'e of the peso in the past three to fo'r decades. 7nfort'nate as this trend !ay be? it is certainly distinct fro! the pheno!enon conte!plated by Article 12(0. 2oreo3er? this -o'rt has held that the effects of e@traordinary inflation are not to be applied 8itho't an official declaration thereof by co!petent a'thorities. -ontracts/ &ales &A,T$& 3s. B+16& $4 2A61A,$? et al. *.6. ,o. 14""2(. $ctober 24? 2000 ;hat deter!ines the 3alidity of a contract? in general? is the presence of the ele!ents constit'ting the sa!e? na!ely? =1: consent of the contracting parties/ =2: obDect certain 8hich is the s'bDect !atter of the contract/ and =": ca'se of the obligation 8hich is established =Article 1"1>? -i3il -ode:. MThe contract of sale is perfected at the !o!ent there is a !eeting of !inds 'pon the thing 8hich is the obDect of the contract and 'pon the price. 4ro! that !o!ent? the parties !ay reciprocally de!and perfor!ance? s'bDect to the pro3isions of the la8 go3erning the for! of contractsM =Article 14%(? -i3il -ode:. +3en 8ith a d'ly e@ec'ted 8ritten doc'!ent p'rporting to be a contract of sale? the -o'rt cannot r'le that the s'bDect contracts of sale are 3alid? 8hen the e3idence presented in the co'rts belo8 sho8 that there had been no !eeting of the !inds bet8een the s'pposed seller and corresponding b'yers of the parcels of land in this case. The case is replete 8ith e3idence tending to sho8 that there 8as really no intention to sell the s'bDect properties? and 8e need not del3e into these !atters ane8 beca'se s'ch fact'al iss'es are beyond the scope of o'r re3ie8. &'ffice it to note that d'e e@ec'tion of doc'!ents representing a contract is one thing? b't perfection of the contract is definitely another. -ontracts/ 5reach/ &ales 5P 0. -A? et al. *.6. ,o. 1"%((%. $ctober "0? 2000 The interest and penalty charges to be paid in case of delay in pay!ents 8ere e@pressly stip'lated in the -onditional -ontract of &ale. 7nder the -i3il -ode? parties to a contract can !a<e stip'lations therein pro3ided they are not contrary to la8? !orals? good c'sto!s? p'blic order or p'blic policy. There being no 9'estion as to the 3alidity of the -onditional -ontract of &ale? the 5P correctly applied the pro3ision on interests and penalty charges 8hen pri3ate respondents failed to pay on the dates agreed 'pon. ,o f'rther notice to pri3ate respondents had to be gi3en to the!. Article 1"%4 of the -i3il -ode pro3ides that Mthe 3ario's stip'lations of a contract shall be interpreted together? attrib'ting to the do'btf'l ones that sense 8hich !ay res'lt fro! all of the! ta<en Dointly.M N,Oeither the la8 nor the co'rts 8ill e@tricate a party fro! an 'n8ise or 'ndesirable contract he or she entered into 8ith all the re9'ired for!alities and 8ith f'll a8areness of its conse9'ences.M Article 122# of the -i3il -ode states that M+3en if there has been no perfor!ance? the penalty !ay also be red'ced by the co'rts if it is ini9'ito's or 'nconscionable.M 1n the instant case? pri3ate respondents !ade reg'lar pay!ents to petitioner 5P in co!pliance 8ith their principal obligation. They failed only to pay on the dates stip'lated in the contract. This indicates the absence of bad faith on the part of pri3ate respondents and their 8illingness to co!ply 8ith the ter!s of the contract. There 8as no s'bstantial breach in the perfor!ance of pri3ate respondentsK obligation. Article 11#1 of the -i3il -ode pro3ides that MThe po8er to rescind obligations is i!plied in reciprocal ones? in case one of the obligors sho'ld not co!ply 8ith 8hat is inc'!bent 'pon hi!. The inD'red

party !ay choose bet8een the f'lfill!ent and the rescission of the obligation? 8ith the pay!ent of da!ages in either case. Be !ay also see< rescission? e3en after he has chosen f'lfill!ent? if the latter sho'ld beco!e i!possible . . .M 6escission of a contract 8ill not be per!itted for a slight or cas'al breach? b't only s'ch s'bstantial and f'nda!ental breach as 8o'ld defeat the 3ery obDect of the parties in !a<ing the agree!ent. ,ot8ithstanding pri3ate respondentsK delay in paying the a!ortiCations? petitioner 5P 'n9'alifiedly accepted the pay!ents !ade by the!. Bence? petitioner lost its right to rescind the sale on the basis of s'ch late pay!ents. -ontracts/ Application of Pay!ents PA-7L $ 3s. 6+*ALA $ *.6. ,o. 12">((. ,o3e!ber 20? 2000 The right to specify 8hich a!ong his 3ario's obligations to the sa!e creditor is to be satisfied first rests 8ith the debtor? as pro3ided by la8? to 8it: HArticle 12(2. Be 8ho has 3ario's debts of the sa!e <ind in fa3or of one and the sa!e creditor? !ay declare at the ti!e of !a<ing the pay!ent? to 8hich of the! the sa!e !'st be applied. 7nless the parties so stip'late? or 8hen the application of pay!ent is !ade by the party for 8hose benefit the ter! has been constit'ted? application shall not be !ade as to debts 8hich are not yet d'e. 1f the debtor accepts fro! the creditor a receipt in 8hich an application of the pay!ent is !ade? the for!er cannot co!plain of the sa!e? 'nless there is a ca'se for in3alidating the contract. There 8as no clear assent by petitioner to the change in the !anner of application of pay!ent. The petitionerEs silence as regards the application of pay!ent by respondent cannot !ean that he consented thereto. There 8as no !eeting of the !inds. Tho'gh an offer !ay be !ade? the acceptance of s'ch offer !'st be 'nconditional and 'nbo'nded in order that conc'rrence can gi3e rise to a perfected contract. Bence? petitioner co'ld not be in estoppel. Ass'!ing arg'endo that? as alleged by respondent? petitioner did not? at the ti!e the pay!ents 8ere !ade? choose the obligation to be satisfied first? respondent !ay e@ercise the right to apply the pay!ents to the other obligations of petitioner. 5't this is s'bDect to the condition that the petitioner !'st gi3e his consent. PetitionerEs silence is not tanta!o'nt to consent. The consent !'st be clear and definite. 7nder the la8? if the debtor did not declare at the ti!e he !ade the pay!ent to 8hich of his debts 8ith the creditor the pay!ent is to be applied? the la8 pro3ided the g'ideline--no pay!ent is to be !ade to a debt that is not yet d'e and the pay!ent has to be applied first to the debt !ost onero's to the debtor. -ontracts/ &ales P7A? 3s. -A? et al. *.6. ,o. 1"4##2. ,o3e!ber 20? 2000 The appellate co'rt correctly fo'nd that since said Fohnny P. 7y 8as not e3en concei3ed yet at the ti!e of the alleged sale? he therefore had no legal personality to be na!ed as a b'yer in the said deed of sale. ,either co'ld he ha3e gi3en his consent thereto. Article 1"1> of the ,e8 -i3il -ode pro3ides: There is no contract 'nless the follo8ing re9'isites conc'r: =1: -onsent of the contracting parties/ =2: $bDect certain 8hich is the s'bDect !atter of the contract/ =": -a'se of the obligation 8hich is established. The contract of sale is perfected at the !o!ent there is a !eeting of the !inds 'pon the thing 8hich is the obDect of the contract and 'pon the price. -onsent is !anifested by the !eeting of the offer and the acceptance 'pon the thing and the ca'se 8hich are to constit'te the contract. 7ne!ancipated !inors? insane or de!ented persons? and deaf-!'tes 8ho do not <no8 ho8 to 8rite can not 3alidly gi3e consent to contracts. 1n the instant case? Fohnny P. 7y co'ld not ha3e 3alidly gi3en his consent to the contract of sale? as he 8as not e3en concei3ed yet at the ti!e of its alleged perfection. The appellate co'rt? therefore? correctly r'led that for lac< of consent of one of the contracting parties? the deed of sale is n'll and 3oid

-olo!a co'ld not ha3e acted as representati3e of Fohnny P. 7y. 1n the first place? she did not ha3e the right to represent Fohnny P. 7y for lac< of legal a'thority to act for and in behalf of said !inor. 1t is 8ell-settled that 8itho't a'thority fro! the -o'rt? no person can !a<e a 3alid contract for or on behalf of a !inor. 5esides? petitioners the!sel3es insist that -olo!a 8as not acting in a representati3e capacity 8hen she p'rchased the s'bDect? b't rather? that she 8as acting in her o8n behalf as the act'al b'yer of said land. An absol'tely si!'lated contract is not s'sceptible of ratification. $bligations/ Pay!ent &P$7&+& 57+,A4L$6? 3s. -A? et al *.6. ,o. 142021. ,o3e!ber 2#? 2000 1n the ci3il la8 sense? it !eans not only the deli3ery of !oney b't also the perfor!ance? in any other !anner? of the obligation. The -i3il -ode en'nciates a co'nterpart principle to the r'le on liberal constr'ction 'nder &ection 6? 6'le 1 of the 1##% 6'les of -i3il Proced're. Article 12"4 of the -i3il -ode allo8s s'bstantial perfor!ance in the pay!ent of obligations. 1n order that there !ay be s'bstantial perfor!ance of an obligation? there !'st ha3e been an atte!pt in good faith to perfor!? 8itho't any 8illf'l or intentional depart're therefro!. This concept of s'bstantial perfor!ance !ay be applied by analogy in the deter!ination of 9'estion on the proper pay!ent of the appellate doc<et fees. 1n this case? there is good faith atte!pt to co!ply 8ith the re9'ire!ents of the 6'les regarding the !anner of appeal fro! the decision of the 6egional Trial -o'rt? 8itho't any 8illf'l or intentional depart're therefro!. The postal !oney orders 8hich 8ere intended for the pay!ent of the appellate doc<et fees 8ere act'ally sent to the trial co'rt. They 8ere filed 8ithin the regle!entary period and recei3ed by the trial co'rt. The petitioners clearly intended to file an appeal. -ontracts $6T1*A& & -$. LT . 0s -A? et. al *.6. ,o. 126102. ece!ber 4? 2000 The contract'al stip'lations annotated on the Torrens Title? on 8hich $rtigas relies? !'st yield to the ordinance. ;hen that stretch of $rtigas A3en'e fro! 6oose3elt &treet to 2adison &treet 8as reclassified as a co!!ercial Cone by the 2etropolitan 2anila -o!!ission in 2arch 1#>1? the restrictions in the contract of sale bet8een $rtigas and Ber!oso? li!iting all constr'ction on the disp'ted lot to single-fa!ily residential b'ildings? 8ere dee!ed e@ting'ished by the retroacti3e operation of the Coning ordinance and co'ld no longer be enforced. ;hile o'r legal syste! 'pholds the sanctity of contract so that a contract is dee!ed la8 bet8een the contracting parties? nonetheless? stip'lations in a contract cannot contra3ene Mla8? !orals? good c'sto!s? p'blic order? or p'blic policy.M $ther8ise s'ch stip'lations 8o'ld be dee!ed n'll and 3oid. -ontracts/ -haracteristics A.ALA -$6P$6AT1$,? 3s. 6$&A- 1A,A 6+ALT. A, +0+L$P2+,T -$6P$6AT1$, *.6. ,o. 1"42>4. ece!ber 1? 2000 -ontract'al obligations bet8een parties ha3e the force of la8 bet8een the! and absent any allegation that the sa!e are contrary to la8? !orals? good c'sto!s? p'blic order or p'blic policy? they !'st be co!plied 8ith in good faith. Bence? Article 11(# of the ,e8 -i3il -ode pro3ides M$bligations arising fro! contracts ha3e the force of la8 bet8een the contracting parties and sho'ld be co!plied 8ith in good faith.M The party g'ilty of 3iolating the deed restrictions !ay only be held alternati3ely liable for s'bstit'te perfor!ance of its obligation? that is? for the pay!ent of da!ages. -ontracts/ lease LB71LL1+6? 3s. -A? et al. *.6. ,o. 12>0(>. ece!ber 1#? 2000 A co3enant to rene8 a lease? 8hich !a<es no pro3ision on its ter!s? i!plies an e@tension or rene8al s'bDect to the sa!e ter!s in the original lease contract. &ince the parties did not !a<e a ne8 one? the ter!s and conditions of the original e@cept the pro3ision on the rate and period of

lease are dee!ed e@tended. -orollarily? Art. 16%> of the -i3il -ode did not apply. # The parties agreed that all i!pro3e!ents introd'ced by the lessee 8o'ld accr'e to the benefit of the o8ner at the end of the lease? 8itho't rei!b'rse!ent. 10 This stip'lation? not being contrary to la8? !orals? p'blic order or p'blic policy? binds the parties and is the la8 bet8een the!. -i3il La8A -ontractsA -o!pro!ise P+T+6 -B7A LA$ 3. 2A-AP7*A. et al. A'g'st 1### 1n pri3ate respondentEs -o!!ent to the petition? they bring to the -o'rtEs attention a -o!pro!ise Agree!ent e@ec'ted by petitioner and pri3ate respondents 8hereby they !'t'ally agreed to settle a!icably their disp'te and to ca'se the dis!issal of all pending cases filed by 1 party against the other by filing a Doint !otion to dis!iss. A co!pro!ise is a bilateral act or transaction that is e@pressly ac<no8ledged as a D'ridical agree!ent by the --. Art 202 pro3ides that Ha co!pro!ise is a contract 8hereby the parties by !a<ing reciprocal concessions? a3oid a litigation or p't an end to one already co!!enced. The -- does not only defines and a'thoriCes co!pro!ises? it in fact enco'rages the! in ci3il actions. They are generally to be fa3ored and cannot be set aside if the parties acted in good faith and !ade reciprocal concessions to each other in order to ter!inate a case. Bo8e3er? the la8 abhors settle!ent of cri!inal liability so that the co!pro!ise agree!ent cannot affect charges of 3iolation of 6A "01#? sec "=e: and =D: and &ec 4 and 6P- Art 1%1? 1%2 par 2? Arts. 206 and 20%. 1### -ontracts/ Lease/ +Dect!ent/ -o'rt ;itho't Po8er to +@tend Leases 8ith +@pired -ontract -B7A 3. -A? 15A66A Fan. 21? 1### =1: Petitioners are not entitled to an e@tension of the ti!e to occ'py the pre!ises in 3ie8 of the ter!ination of the lease agree!ent on Fan'ary 1? 1##0/ co'rt ha3e no po8er to e@tend lease 8ith a ter!.-As there 8as no longer any lease to spea< of 8hich co'ld be e@tended? the 2T- 8as in effect !a<ing a contract for the parties 8hich it ob3io'sly did not ha3e the po8er to do. The potestati3e a'thority of the co'rts to fi@ a longer ter! for a lease 'nder Art. 16>% of the -applies only to cases 8here there is ,$ period fi@ed by the parties. =2: 1!pro3e!ents !ade by lessees on the leased pre!ises are not 3alid reasons for their retention thereof/ other8ise? a lessee 8o'ld Hi!pro3eI his landlord o't of his property. J The fact that petitioners allegedly !ade repairs on the pre!ises in 9'estion is not a reason for the! to retain the possession of the pre!ises. There is no pro3ision of la8 8hich grants the lessees a right of retention o3er the leased pre!ises on that gro'nd. Art. 44> of the --? in relation to Art. (46? 8hich pro3ides for f'll rei!b'rse!ent of 'sef'l i!pro3e!ents and retention of the pre!ises 'ntil rei!b'rse!ents 's !ade? applies only to a possessor in good faith? i.e.? one 8ho b'ilds on a land in the belief that he is the o8ner thereof. 1n a n'!ber of cases? the -o'rt has held that this right does not apply to a !ere lessee? other8ise? it 8o'ld al8ays be in his po8er to Hi!pro3eI his landlord o'r of the latterEs property. Art. 16%> !erely grants to s'ch a lessee !a<ing in good faith 'sef'l i!pro3e!ents the right to be rei!b'rsed ] of the 3al'e of the i!pro3e!ents 'pon the ter!ination of the lease? or? in the alternati3e? to re!o3e the i!pro3e!ents if the lessor ref'ses to !a<e rei!b'rse!ent. 6e9'isites for a 0alid -ontract/ 5asis for the A8ard of a!ages A5&--5, 3. -A? et al.? Fan. 21? 1### =1: Qey iss'e for consideration in 8hether there 8as a perfected contract bet8een 010A and A5&--5,. J 6esol3ed against A5&--5,. A contract is a !eeting of the !inds bet8een t8o persons 8hereby one binds hi!self to gi3e so!ething or render so!e ser3ice to another for a consideration. -ontracts that are consens'al in nat're are perfected 'pon !ere !eeting of the !inds. $nce there is conc'rrence bet8een the offer and the acceptance 'pon the s'bDect !atter? consideration? and ter!s of pay!ent a contract is prod'ced. ;hen 2r. el 6osario of

0i3a !et 2r. LopeC of A5&--5, at the Ta!arind *rill on 2 April 1##2 to disc'ss the pac<age of fil!s? said pac<age of 104 010A fil! 8as 010AEs offer to A5&--5, to enter into a ne8 4il! +@hibition Agree!ent. 5't A5&--5,? sent thr' 2&. -oncio? co'nter-proposal in the for! of a graft contract proposing e@hibition of (" fil!s for consideration of P"(2. This co'nter-proposal co'ld be nothing less than the co'nter-offer of 2r.LopeC d'ring his conference 8ith 2r. el 6osario. -learly? there 8as no acceptance of 010AEs offer for it 8as !et by a co'nter-offer 8hich s'bstantially 3aried the ter!s of the offer. A5&--5, !ade no 'n9'alified acceptance of 010AEs offer hence? they 'nder8ent a period of bargaining. =2: $n the clai! of 65& -orp for da!ages. J The a8ard of !oral da!ages cannot be granted in fa3or of a corporation beca'se being an artificial person and ha3ing e@istence only in legal conte!plation? it has no feelings? no e!otions? no senses. +@e!plary da!ages are i!posed by 8ay of correction for the p'blic good? in addition to !oral? te!perate? li9'idated? or co!pensatory da!ages. They are reco3erable in cri!inal cases as part of the ci3il liability 8hen the cri!e 8as co!!itted 8ith one or !ore aggra3ating circ'!stances/ in 9'asi-delicts. 1t !ay be reiterated that the clai!s of 65& against A5&--5, is not based on contract? 9'asi-contract? delict? or 9'asi-delict. Bence? the clai!s of !oral and e@e!plary da!ages can only be based on Articles 1#? 20? and 21 of the --. 0erily then? !alice or bad faith is at the core of Articles 1#? 20? 21. 2alice or bad faith i!plies a conscio's and intentional design to do a 8rongf'l act for a dishonest p'rpose or !oral obli9'ity. &'ch !'st be s'bstantiated by e3idence. There is no ade9'ate proof that A5&--5, 8as inspired by !alice or bad faith. 1t 8as honestly con3inced of the !erits of its ca'se after it had 'ndergone serio's negotiations c'l!inating in its for!al s'b!ission of a draft contract. &ettled is the r'le that the ad3erse res'lt of an action does not ha3e !eant to i!pose a penalty on the right to litigate. 1f da!ages res'lt fro! a personEs e@ercise of a right? it is da!n'! abs9'e inD'ria. -ontracts/ Lease 8ith $ption to P'rchase/ +@ception of Period to +@ercise $ption 1G$,? +T AL. 3. -A Fan. 2>? 1### Pri3ate respondentEs right to e@ercise the option to p'rchase e@pired 8ith the ter!ination of the original contract of lease for one year. Bence? there 8as an i!plicit rene8al of the contract of lease on a !onthly basis. The other ter!s of the original contract of lease 8hich are re3i3ed in the i!plied ne8 lease 'nder 7nder Article 16%0 of the -- are only those ter!s 8hich are ger!ane to the lesseeEs right of contin'ed enDoy!ent of the property leased. Therefore? an i!plied ne8 lease does not ipso facto carry 8ith it any i!plied re3i3al of pri3ate respondentEs option to p'rchase =as lessee thereof: the leased pre!ises. The pro3ision entitling the lessee the option to p'rchase the leased pre!ises is not dee!ed incorporated in the i!pliedly rene8ed contract beca'se it is alien to the possession of the lessee. Pri3ate respondentEs right to e@ercise the option to p'rchase e@pired 8ith the ter!ination of the original contract of lease for one year. Principle of 6elati3ity of -ontracts/ Prescription or Ad3erse Possession 6A2$& 3. -A? 5A7T1&TA? +T AL. 4eb. "? 1### =1: Ass'!ing arg'endo that the e@istence of the doc'!ents 8as properly established? still? the s'pposed agree!ent e!bodied in the 2 doc'!ents bo'nd only the parties thereto? na!ely Tolentino and the petitioners? beca'se the latter failed t pro3e that these 8ere later registered as to operate against the 8hole 8orld. They co'ld not ha3e bo'nd "rd person li<e pri3ate respondent beca'se of the basic ci3il la8 principle of relati3ity of contracts. This basic principle applies e3en if the sales 8ere s'pposedly concl'ded at a ti!e prior to the operation of the Torrens syste! of land registration o3er the properties in3ol3ed. =2: ,o title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered o8ner shall be ac9'ired by prescription or ad3erse possession. J 5a'tistaEs cali! to the properties appears incontro3ertible. 7nder the -adastral Act? the $-Ts iss'ed to the original registrant? shall ha3e the sa!e effect as -Ts granted to an application for registration of land 'nder the Land 6egistration Act? beca'se

Hno title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered o8ner shall be ac9'ired by prescription or ad3erse possession.I $blicon/ $ption/ -ontracts -arceller 3. -A? &1B1 4eb. 10? 1### Petitioner as lessee and &1B1 as lessor entered into a lease contract 8ith option to p'rchase for a period of 1> !onths to e@pire on Fan'ary "0? 1#>6. $n Fan. %? 1#>6? &1B1 notified -arceller of its desire to sell the property. 1n a letter fated Fan. 1(? #>6? recEd by &1B1 on Fan. 2#? 1#>6? petitioner re9'ested for a 6-!onth e@tension of the lease contract alleging he needs ti!e to raise !oney in order to e@ercise the option. &1B1 disappro3ed the re9'est and offered to l8ase the sa!e property to petitioner at P"0?000A!onth for one year. $n 4eb. 1>? 1#>6? petitioner notified &1B1 of its decision o e@ercise the option? b't this 8as again disappro3ed? &1B1 stressing that the option had already lapsed. Petitioner filed an action for specific perfor!ance. =1: $ption defined. J 1T is a preparatory contract in 8hich one party grants to the other? for a fi@ed period and 'nder specified conditions? the po8er to decide? ;$, to enter into a principal contract. 1t binds the party 8ho has gi3en the option? not to enter into the principal contract 8ith the one to 8ho? the option 8as granted? if the latter sho'ld decide to 'se the option. 1T is a separate agree!ent distinct fro! the contract 8hich the parties !ay enter 'pon the cons'!!ation of the option. =4: -ontracts/ the la8 allo8s the parties lee8ay in the ter!s of their agree!ent. J 1n the contract'al relations? the la8 allo8s the parties lee8ay in the ter!s of their agree!ent? 8hich is the la8 bet8een the!. ,ote that by contract &1B1 had gi3en petitioner 4 periods: =a: the option to p'rchase for P1.>2 8ithin the lease period/ =b: the option to be e@ercised 8Ain the option period by 8ritten notice anyti!e/ =c: the Hdoc'!ent of salePto be cons'!!ated 8Ain the !onth i!!ediately follo8ing the !onthI 8hen petitioner e@ercises the option/ and =d: the pay!ent in e9'al install!ents of the p'rchase price o3er a period of 60 !onths. 1n o'r 3ie8? petitionerEs leter of Fan. (? 1#>6 and his for!al e@ercise of the option on 4eb. 1>? 1#>6 8ere 8ithin a reasonable ti!e-fra!e consistent 8ith periods gi3en and the <no8n intent of the parties to the agree!ent dated Fan. 10? 1#>(. A contrary 3ie8 8o'ld be harsh and ini9'ito's. &ale of 6eal Property/ ;hen Pres'!ed an +9'itable 2ortgage 1nstead 21&+,A 3. 6$,*A01LLA 4eb. 2(? 1### =1:1nstances 8hen a contract regardless of its no!enclat're !ay be pres'!ed an e9'itable !ortgage/ case of . J Art. 1602 of the -- en'!erates 1nstances 8hen a contract regardless of its no!enclat're !ay be pres'!ed an e9'itable !ortgage. 1t also applies to a contract p'rporting to be an absol'te sale? and the presence of any of the circ'!stances in 1602 gi3e rise to the pres'!ption in fa3or of an e9'itable !ortgage. Bere? the -A confir!ed that " circ'!stances 8ere present and pro3en? to 8it: =1: the inade9'acy of the consideration/ =2: the respondent re!ained in possession of the land and =": the s'bDect property 8as charged as sec'rity for the loan. -i3il La8A-ontracts FA12+ $,* 3. -A & &P$7&+& 6$5L+& F'ly 1##% Petitioner and 6espondent e@ec'ted an Agree!ent of P'rchase and &ale o3er a parcel of land. Petitioner failed to co!pletely pay the p'rchase price so the respondents filed a co!plaint for rescission of contract and reco3ery of their property 8i