ST. PETER MEMORIAL PARK, INC., petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR.

and/or COURT O IRST INSTANCE O RI!AL "#$e%on Cit&, RE'INO CLEO AS, and LUCIA (E LA CRU!, respondents. '.R. No. L)*++,- Mar./ 01, 1+23ANCO ILIPINO SA4IN'S 5 MORT'A'E 3ANK, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE CAMPOS, RE'INO CLEO AS, and LUCIA (E LA CRU!, respondents. Feliciano C. Tumale for petitioner St. Peter Memorial Park, Inc. Tan Law Office for petitioner Banco Filipino Savings an Mortgage Bank. !uan T. "#uino for respon ents.

appointment of a recei+er, but upon filing of a bond b. the %emorial $ar&, the recei+ership was lifted. After trial, the lower court, on %a. 7, 0435, rendered a decision in fa+or of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The %emorial $ar& and ,anco Filipino, on 8une 75, 0435, filed their *oint motion for reconsideration of the decision. 9n 8une 52, 0435, the. filed a *oint motion for new trial. 9n 8ul. 4, 0435, the %emorial $ar& filed a supplement to the motion for reconsideration with pra.er for new trial. $laintiffs opposed the motion for reconsideration and:or new trial. 9n 8anuar. 02, 043;, the plaintiffs mo+ed for issuance of writ of preliminar. in*unction and restoration of recei+ership. 9n Februar. 1, 043;, the trial court denied new trial. 9n Februar. 70, 043;, ,anco Filipino and the %emorial $ar& filed their notice of appeal from the decision of %a. 7, 0435, and filed their cash bond. )ithin the reglementar. period the. filed their *oint record on appeal. 9n Februar. 7<, 043;, the %emorial $ar& filed before this Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminar. in*unction '"/5<7<2( against the trial *udge and the plaintiff spouses, see&ing annulment of the court=s order den.ing new trial, on the ground that the same was issued in gra+e abuse of discretion. 9n %arch 3, 043;, this Court issued a restraining order as follows> t. hqw N9), T?EREF9RE, effecti+e immediatel. and until further orders from this Court, @ou 'respondent 8udge(, .our agents representati+es and:or an. person or persons acting upon .our orders or in .our place or stead are hereb. RE#TRA NED from enforcing .our decision dated %a. 7, 0435 and .our order dated Februar. 1, 043;, all issued in Ci+il Case No. -/01220, entitled ,ARegino Cleofas, et al., plaintiff +ersus #t. $eter %emorial $ar&, nc., et al., defendants,A of the Court of First nstance of Ri!al, ,ranch B at -ue!on Cit., and from stopping the business operations of petitioner herein.A n compliance with the foregoing, the lower court, on %arch 07, 043;, issued an order holding Ain abe.ance until further orders from the Appellate Court,A action on the petition for appointment of a recei+er and for eCecution of *udgment pending appeal, and on %arch 0<, 043;, li&ewise upon motion of spouses Cleofas and De la Cru!, deferred the appro+al of the 8oint Record on Appeal Auntil the #upreme Court has ruled on the petition for certiorari filed b. the defendants.A

FERNANDEZ, J.:+.wph!1 The Court decided to dispose of these two cases in a consolidated decision, considering that the facts in both are the same and the issues are intertwined. n the Court of First nstance of Ri!al, the spouses Regino Cleofas and "ucia de la Cru! filed suit against #t. $eter %emorial $ar&, nc. 'or %emorial $ar& for short(, Araceli )i*angco del Rosario, National n+estment and De+elopment Corporation 'or N DC(, ,anco Filipino #a+ings and %ortgage ,an& 'or ,anco Filipino for short(, the Register of Deeds of Ri!al, the Register of Deeds of -ue!on Cit. and the #heriff of -ue!on Cit. 'Ci+il Case No. -/01220(. n their amended complaint, the spouses pra.ed that the. be declared the rightful owners of "ot No. 304 of the $iedad Estate, that the Torrens Title to said lot be reconstituted, the title thereto of their deceased predecessor, Antonio Cleofas, ha+ing been burned in a fire in 04556 that the certificates of title o+er said lot in the name of the %emorial $ar&, and that in the name of )i*angco del Rosario, and all the certificates of title from which these certificates were deri+ed be declared null and +oid6 that the mortgages o+er said, lot constituted in fa+or of ,anco Filipino and the N DC be declared null and +oid6 and that the %emorial $ar& be ordered to pa. plaintiffs damages. The amended complaint li&ewise sought issuance of preliminar. in*unction and the appointment of a recei+er. The lower court ordered

?owe+er, on 8ul. <, 043;, the court, again upon motion of said spouses, dismissed the appeal filed b. both the %emorial $ar& and ,anco Filipino, on the ground that the same was abandoned when %emorial $ar& filed the present petition for certiorari on Februar. 7<, 043;, the dismissal order ha+ing been brought to the attention of this Court in the manifestation of the %emorial $ar& of 8ul. 50, 043;. 9n 8anuar. 5, 0431, ,anco Filipino, for its part, filed in this Court a petition for certiorari and mandamus with preliminar. in*unction '"/5<<;5(, against the trial *udge and the spouses Cleofas and Dela Cru!, to annul the trial court=s order of 8ul. <, 043; dismissing its own appeal. The main issue in these two cases is whether or not the respondent 8udge acted in gra+e abuse of discretion in dismissing the *oint appeal of the %emorial $ar& and ,anco Filipino in its order of 8ul. <, 043;. And with respect to Case No. "/5<7<2, the main issue is whether or not the respondent 8udge committed a gra+e abuse of discretion when it denied in its order of Februar. 1, 043; the motion for new trial of the %emorial $ar&. n mo+ing for dismissal of the appeal in the trial court, respondents spouses a+erred that Athe filing of the petition for certiorari and prohibition in the #upreme Court b. the principal defendant with the acDuiescence of the other defendant subseDuent to the filing of the notice of appeal, appeal bond and motion for eCtension to file the record on appeal, in effect, is abandonment of the unperfected appeal6A that Athe defendants could not pursue both remedies, appeal to the Court of Appeals and appeal b. special action to the #upreme Court of one and the same case6A and that Athe dismissal of the appeal is not co+ered b. the restraining order issued b. the #upreme Court in the aforesaid petition filed b. one of the defendants in this case.A And the trial court, Afinding the reasons for the motion to dismiss to be well ta&en, and it appearing that consideration b. this Court of the pending motion to dismiss the appeal is not one of those sought to be restrained b. the order of the #upreme Court,A dismissed the appeal in its order of 8ul. <, 043;. t must be noted that the petitioner in "/5<7<2 is onl. #t. $eter %emorial $ar&. ,anco Filipino is not a part. in that first proceeding before this Court. Thus, whate+er ma. be the effect of the filing of a petition for certiorari, on the pending appeal, cannot affect the appeal of ,anco Filipino. And the respondent 8udge clearl. committed a clear error and a gra+e abuse of discretion when it dismissed the appeal of ,anco Filipino due to the filing b. the %emorial $ar& of its petition in "/5<7<2. %oreo+er, as will now be eCplained, the dismissal of the appeal +iolated the restraining order issued b. this Court.

E+en with respect to the %emorial $ar&, we cannot sa. there was abandonment of the appeal. There would ha+e been abandonment if there is incompatibilit. between the two remedies sought b. the %emorial $ar&, that is, between said appeal and the petition for certiorari. The appeal is from the decision of %a. 7, 04356 the certiorari petition is directed against the order dated Februar. 1, 043;. Ender American "aw, a motion for new trial does not wor& as a wai+er of the appeal, unless there is a rule to the contrar. 'E.#. +. ?odge, 07 " ed ;53(. Thus, both the motion for new trial and the appeal ma. be pursued at the same time '%cCandless +. Framer, 3G daho 10G, 7<G $7d 55;6 "abbe +. C.r 000 A7d 552(. This ruling is of persuasi+e effect on us considering the source of our rules on appeal and new trial. ?ere, the certiorari petition in "/5<7<2 is in pursuance of the motion for new trial. %emorial $ar& can pursue this remed. as well as that of the appeal from the main decision. %ore important, it must be remembered that in "/5<7<2 this Court issued a restraining order en*oining respondent 8udge Afrom enforcing .our decision dated %a. 7, 0435.A This restraining order was intended to retain the status quo insofar as said decision and other circumstances surrounding it are concerned. An. court action or order that would change an. circumstance of the decision is necessaril. included in the scope of the restraining order. At the time that restraining order was issued, the trial court=s decision was a decision on appeal. The order dismissing the appeal tended to change the status quo since b. reason of the dismissal, the en*oined decision became final. For the reasons we ha+e eCpounded we find said dismissal order to ha+e been issued in gra+e abuse of discretion. "et us now ta&e up the order of Februar. 1, 043;, den.ing the motion for new trial of both the %emorial $ar& and the ,anco Filipino, challenged in "/ 5<7<2. From the decision of the trial court it appears that the parties do not dispute that "ot No. 304 of the $iedad Estate forms part of the land co+ered b. 9riginal Certificate of Title No. G0; of the Registr. of Deeds of Ri!al, in the name of the Ho+ernment of the $hilippine slands. 9n %arch 72, 0424, the Director of "ands, as administrator of the $iedad Estate, eCecuted a contract in fa+or of Antonio Cleofas '#ales Certificate No. 475(. According to the said decision, pri+ate respondents= e+idence indicated that Antonio Cleofas, their predecessor, too& possession of the lot and occupied the same until his death sometime in 04;1. ?owe+er, Antonio=s title was burned in a fire sometime in 0455. $ri+ate respondents did not ta&e an. step to reconstruct said title until the real estate boom in -ue!on Cit.. ,ut when the. filed a petition for reconstruction in the Court of First nstance of Ri!al

'-ue!on Cit.(, the. disco+ered that the lot was alread. co+ered b. TCT No. 70<45 in the name of Trino Narciso and Aniceto %artin, predecessors of the %emorial $ar&. n support of their allegation that a certificate of title to "ot No. 304 was issued in fa+or of Antonio Cleofas, respondents presented ECh. A, which is #heet 01 of 9.C.T No. G0;, mother title of the $iedad Estate. This title contained man. sheets to record transactions because the estate was large. 9n the other hand, the decision states, that the %emorial $ar& and ,anco Filipino presented e+idence to the following effect> 9n 8ul. 01, 0470, Antonio Cleofas eCecuted a Deed of Assignment of #ales Certificate No. 475 'o+er "ot 304( in fa+or of Aniceto %artin 'ECh. 0(, before the Friar "ands Di+ision of the ,ureau of "ands, which deed was appro+ed on 8ul. 77, 0470. 9n %a. 7, 0457, the ,ureau of "ands issued Deed of Con+e.ance No. 71<3; o+er "ot No. 304 'ECh. 7(, in fa+or of Aniceto %artin and Trino Narciso, upon the latter=s pa.ment of the full price of the lot. 9n the basis of this deed, there issued to Aniceto %artin and Trino Narciso, on 8une 03, 0457, TCT No. 70<45 'ECh. 5(. %artin and Narciso declared the lot in their name, for purposes of taCation 'ECh. ;, dated %arch 07, 0451(. 9n %a. 0, 0453, the. sold tile lot to Na!ario RoDue 'ECh. 1(, in +iew of which, TCT No. 5771< 'ECh. G( was issued to RoDue. Epon his death, TCT No. 075G2 was issued to his heirs, ,asilisa and Carmen RoDue. n 04G3 #t. $eter %emorial $ar&, nc. purchased "ot No. 304, for +alue and in good faith, from Carmen and ,asilisa RoDue. 9n the basis of ECh. A, respondent 8udge made the finding that Aon $age 01 of 9.C.T. No. G0;, b. +irtue of #ale Certificate No. 475 issued b. the ,ureau of "ands to Antonio Cleofas eCecuted on %arch 72, 0424, an entr. was made in the name of Antonio Cleofas on 8ul., 0474 showing the award and final sale of "ot No. 304 to him b. the go+ernment, owner of "ot No. 304 of the $iedad Estate.A ECh. A '#heet 01 of 9.C.T No. G0;(, howe+er, is torn, and the onl. data appearing thereon are as follows>t.hqw Document Number / ;513/2/G0; Find I #ale I ECecuted in fa+or of Antonio Cleofas et als. I Conditions I hereb. certif.................. herein described .............. certificate of sale.............. "ands, for the sum........... as certificate of T .............

T/G5 at the ,oo& of........... deed of sale ratified ......... tar. Bicente Harcia .......... and filed in T/No. 01G...... The motion for new trial is based on newl. disco+ered e+idence. t alleges that>t.hqw Full. con+inced of the +alidit. of its title, ha+ing disco+ered no flaw in spite of eCtraordinar. diligence and eCtensi+e search into record connected with "ot No. 304 of the $iedad Estate, defendant #t. $eter assessed and anal.!ed the situation after receipt of a cop. of the Decision sought to be reconsidered. Defendant #t. $eter was certain of one thing> that a certificate of title o+er "ot No. 304( of the $iedad Estate could not ha+e been issued in fa+or of Cleofas because all rights thereto had been assigned to %artin predecessor/in/ interest of defendant #t. $eter 'ECh. A0A(, pursuant to which ECh. A7A 'Deed of Con+e.ance from bureau of "ands to %artin( and ECh. A5A 'TCT No, 70<45( were issued, also all in fa+or of %artin. #o, defendant #t. $eter started on the premise now that the entr. in fa+or of Antonio Cleofas, et als. on #heet 01 of 9CT No. G0; 'the ma*or portion of which appear to ha+e been torn off and lost( must refer to another lot of the $iedad Estate and not to lot No. 304. Defendant #t. $eter too& another hard loo& at the said incomplete entr. concerning Antonio Cleofas, et als on sheet 01 of 9CT G0;. t pro+ided onl. three +aluable clues to start on, namel.> 0( AT/G5 at the ,oo& of //////A 7( Atar. Bicente Harcia //////A 5( Aand filed in T/No. 01G ///A Fnowing that during the particular period in Duestion, TCTs had onl. 1 digits, defendant #t. $eter surmised that AT/No 01G IA refers to TCT No. 01G with 7 digits missing. The said defendant then thought it onl. had to loo& at 022 TCTs or

from TCT No. 01G22 up to TCT No. 01G44 to disco+er the remaining two digits and finall., the missing lin&. AT/G5 at the boo& of IA was a +ital clue. t turned out to be a +olume in the Register of Deeds of Ri!al containing 722 TCTs 'from No. 01120 to 01G44(, and as con*ectured, included the 01G22 series. And defendant #t. $eter disco+ered TCT No. 01G4;> 0( in the name of Antonio Cleofas, et als. 7( co+ering "ot No. G;2 'not 304( of the $iedad Estate. 5( transferred from 9CT No. G0;. ;( and referring to #heet 01 of 9CT No. G0;. 1( issued on 8ul. 01, 0474. The hunch of defendant #t. $eter became a realit.. The entr. on sheet or page 01 of 9CT no. G0; refers to another lot 'not 304( and another title 'TCT No. 01G4; co+ering "ot No. G;2 of the $iedad Estate(. t is important to state as the Register of Deeds of Ri!al will testif., that there is no otherTCT in the series from No. 01G20 to 01G44 'eCcept for No. 01G4;( in the name of Antonio Cleofas, alleged processor of plaintiff. Defendant #t. $eter still had another clue> ABicente HarciaA, the notar. whose name &ept cropping up in the +arious documents in+ol+ed in the case at bar. Another search was conducted in the must. record of the and files of Notar. $ublic Bicente Harcia were found to be intact The. disclosed>t.hqw 0( Entr. No. 0433 in the Notar.=s boo& referring to Deed No. 0<1G7 in fa+or of AAntonio Cleofas . hermanosA referring to lot No. G;2 of the $iedad Estate.

7( Deed No. 0<1G7 con+e.ing "ot No. G;2 of the $iedad Estate from the ,ureau of "ands to Antonio Cleofas, et als. t is, therefore, now a certaint. that the certificate of title to on sheet or page 01 of 9CT no. G0; in the name of Antonio Cleofas et als is another certificate of title co+ering a different lot 'TCT N; 01G4; of "ot G;2 of the $iedad Estate(, and not a certificate of title co+ering "ot No. 304. The foregoing are newl. disco+ered e+idence within the meaning of paragraph 'b(, #ec. 0, Rule 053 of the Rules of Court and:or not presented due to mista&e or eCcusable negligence within the pur+iew of paragraph 'a( supra. Certified copies of these are attached hereto as> 0( AnneC AaA I TCT no. 01G4;. 7( AnneC AbA I Entr. No. 0433 of Notar. $ublic Bicente Harcia. 5( AnneC AcA I Deed No. 0<1G7A As heretofore stated, the trial court refused to grant new trial. The Duestions presented in "/5<7<2 are > '0( s certiorari the proper remed., ordinar. appeal being a+ailable to petitioner #t. $eter %emorial $ar&, nc. '7( Did respondent 8udge commit gra+e abuse of discretion and:or eCcess of *urisdiction when he denied the motion for new trialJ As contended b. herein respondents, the general rule is that the eCtraordinar. writ of certiorari is not proper when ordinar. appeal is a+ailable. ?owe+er, we ha+e granted the writ in cases where it is shown that appeal would be inadeDuate, slow, insufficient and will not promptl. relie+e petitioner from the in*urious effects of the order complained of '8ose +s. Zulueta, 7 #CRA 13<6 13 $hil. <456 ,otelho #hipping Corporation +s. "euterio, < #CRA 0736 $eople +s. Zulueta, <4 $hil. 31G(. n fact, in AAlfonso +s. @atco,A <2 $hil. ;23, to a+oid future litigations, we passed upon a petition for certiorari though the proper remed. was appeal. ndeed, as we held in ARamos +s. Central ,an&,A ;0 #CRA 1<;>t.hqw Nor would it ser+e the interest of *ustice to dismiss the case at this stage and let a new petition be filed in another court. n ,a. Biew +s. %anila ?otel )or&er=s Enion '"/70<25, 03 December 04GG(, this Court, through %r. 8ustice Conrado B.

#anche!, pointed out the e+ils attending split *urisdictions, sa.ing>t.hqw ATo draw a tenuous *urisdictional line is to undermine stabilit. in... litigations. A piece meal resort to one Court and another gi+es rise to multiplicit. of suits... The time to be lost, effort wasted, anCiet. augmented, additional eCpense incurred...these are considerations which weigh hea+il. against split *urisdiction. ndeed, it is more in &eeping with orderl. administration of *ustice that all the causes of action here be cogni!able and heard b. onl. one court ... 'Cas. cit., 0< #CRA 415(.A The grounds cited b. petitioners for the allowance of the writ of certiorari, *ustif. the gi+ing of due course to the petitions in these two cases, for ordinar. appeal will not be adeDuate. As man. memorial lot bu.ers are affected, and the +er. integrit. of the torrens s.stem is at sta&e, public interest is in+ol+ed. )e now address oursel+es to the issue of whether respondent 8udge committed gra+e abuse of discretion and:or eCcess of *urisdiction when he denied petitioner=s motion for new trial, based on the e+idence attached to the said motion and which we recited earlier in this decision. Ender paragraph 'b(, #ec. 0, Rule 53 of the Rules of Court, the reDuisites for the grant of new trial based on>t.hqw Newl. disco+ered e+idence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, ha+e disco+ered, and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probabl. alter the result, are> '0( that such e+idence has been disco+ered after the trial6 '7( that e+en with the eCercise of reasonable diligence, it could not ha+e been disco+ered and produced at that trial6 and '5( that such e+idence is of such a nature as to alter the result of the case if admitted '$eople +s. Bentura, 1 #CRA 3;0(. This rule for the granting of a motion for new trial, as all other rules of procedure, should be liberall. construed to assist the parties in obtaining a *ust and speed. determination of their rights. Court litigations are primaril. for the search of truth, and a liberal interpretation of the rules b. which both parties are gi+en the fullest opportunit. to adduce proofs is the best wa. to find out such truth. The dispensation of *ustice and +indication of legitimate

grie+ances should not be barred b. technicalities '#ec. 0, Rule 0, Re+ised Rules of Court6 Tala+era +s. %angoba, "/0<535, August 50, 04G5, < #CRA <53(. Hauged b. these standards, we find the e+idence proposed to be presented b. petitioner in a new trial are newl. disco+ered e+idence within the contemplation of the Rules of Court. The said e+idence could not ha+e been produced during the trial because the sub*ect/matter of the trial was "ot No. 304. $etitioner correctl. searched, disco+ered and presented during that trial, all documents pertaining to "ot No. 304 onl.. The e+idence sought to be presented in a new trial b. petitioner became pertinent and important onl. after trial, when *udgment was rendered b. respondent 8udge that pri+ate respondents ha+e a +alid and subsisting title to "ot No. 304 on the basis of sheet 01 of 9CT No. G0; 'ECh. AAA( which on its fact does not mention "ot No. 304. ,ased on the incomplete data appearing on ECh. AAA, petitioner conducted a new search and disco+ered the e+idence it now see&s to present in a new trial, indubitabl. showing that sheet 01 of 9CT No. G0; refers to a title to "ot No. G;2, and not to "ot No. 304 in the name of petitioner. f admitted in a new trial, these newl. disco+ered e+idence will probabl. alter the *udgment of the trial court. n ma&ing the foregoing conclusions, we do not b. an. means intend to pre*udge the effect of such e+idence on the outcome of the case. )e are confining oursel+es to the conclusion that the e+idence intended to be submitted, Awould probabl. alter the result.A )e hold that respondent 8udge committed gra+e abuse of discretion in den.ing the motion for new trial, ha+ing disregarded in a capricious and arbitrar. manner, the newl. disco+ered e+idence '$A" +s. #alcedo, "/77002, #ept. 74, 04G36 $eople +s. ?alasa, "/70;41, 8ul. 70, 04G36 $alma +s. - K #, nc., 03 #CRA 022, $eople +s. Hutierre!, 7G #CRA 0;5(. )e rule, therefore, in fa+or of new trial. The grant of new trial necessaril. +acates the *udgment '#ee. 1, Rule 53, Re+ised Rules of Court6 Fnowles +s. Thompson, G1 $ ;G<6 E+ans+ille +s. Coo&se., 007 NE 1;0( sub*ect of the appeal which, conseDuentl., becomes moot. )?EREF9RE, $RE% #E# C9N# DERED, the petitions in "/5<7<2 and "/ 54421 are granted, the orders of Februar. 1, 043; and 8ul. <, 043; are hereb. declared null and +oid and set aside, and both cases are remanded to the trial court for new trial pursuant to the motion to that effect of both ,anco Filipino and %emorial $ar&, dated 8une 52, 0435, which is hereb. granted. Costs against pri+ate respondents.

Makalintal !.J. an" #ntonio J. concur.1$wph%1.&t #quino J. is on lea'e.

Estate, so as to entitle them to both "ots G;2 and 304. The accident that caused the loss of their title, TCT 01G4; is no reason at all for courts to un*ustl. enrich them b. ad*udicating to them "ot 304, when all the. ha+e to do is assert their right o+er "ot G;2 which is the one that appears recorded in their name in the official records which up to now stand unchallenged, much less impugned. (ernan"o J. concurs.

#eparate 9pinions

,ARRED9, J. concurring> would li&e to ma&e clear that m. reason for concurring in the holding in the main opinion thatcertiorari is the proper remed. in relation to the trial court=s denial of petitioners= motion for new trial notwithstanding that the. had alread. filed their respecti+e notices of appeal, appeal bonds and motions for eCtension to file their records on appeal is that such special ci+il action ma. be resorted to when it is patent from the nature of the purported newl. disco+ered e+idence that mo+ant can more or less conclusi+el. show that the factual issue to which such e+idence relates would ha+e to be decided differentl. if the same were to be admitted b. the court. n such a situation, it is ob+ious to me that to gi+e due course to the appeal and merel. allow the denial of the motion for new trial to be assigned as an error in appellant=s brief would onl. result in unnecessar. dela. of the final disposition of the contro+ers. between the parties. #ince it is more li&el. that the decision would ha+e to be changed or modified after the new e+idence is presented, see no sense in lea+ing the Duestion of its admission for resolution in the appeal, when after all the alread. e+ident ultimate result would be to return the case to the trial court for its reception. The other aspect of respondents= contention that the e+idence in+ol+ed in these cases is not newl. disco+ered is to m. mind secondar.. Assuming there is some plausibilit. in respondents= pose in this respect, am persuaded ne+ertheless that substantial *ustice would be better attained b. admitting the preferred e+idence, which as alread. obser+ed, appears to be indubitable. The main opinion prefers to reser+e *udgment on this point, but feel it is more honest to sa. that if new trial must be granted in these in spite of the fact that petitioners ha+e alread. ta&en their appeal within the reglementar. period, it is onl. because the facts an.one can infer or deduce from the e+idence being offered, which is documentar. and official, are apparentl. more proCimate to the truth, in the light of common eCperience. As see it, the net result of 9ur decision cannot pre*udice the respondents. t is Duite ob+ious that it is "ot G;2 and not "ot 304 that belongs to them, and the. do not pretend that the. ha+e acDuired more than one lot in $iedad

#eparate 9pinions ,ARRED9, J. concurring> would li&e to ma&e clear that m. reason for concurring in the holding in the main opinion thatcertiorari is the proper remed. in relation to the trial court=s denial of petitioners= motion for new trial notwithstanding that the. had alread. filed their respecti+e notices of appeal, appeal bonds and motions for eCtension to file their records on appeal is that such special ci+il action ma. be resorted to when it is patent from the nature of the purported newl. disco+ered e+idence that mo+ant can more or less conclusi+el. show that the factual issue to which such e+idence relates would ha+e to be decided differentl. if the same were to be admitted b. the court. n such a situation, it is ob+ious to me that to gi+e due course to the appeal and merel. allow the denial of the motion for new trial to be assigned as an error in appellant=s brief would onl. result in unnecessar. dela. of the final disposition of the contro+ers. between the parties. #ince it is more li&el. that the decision would ha+e to be changed or modified after the new e+idence is presented, see no sense in lea+ing the Duestion of its admission for resolution in the appeal, when after all the alread. e+ident ultimate result would be to return the case to the trial court for its reception. The other aspect of respondents= contention that the e+idence in+ol+ed in these cases is not newl. disco+ered is to m. mind secondar.. Assuming there is some plausibilit. in respondents= pose in this respect, am persuaded ne+ertheless that substantial *ustice would be better attained b. admitting the preferred e+idence, which as alread. obser+ed, appears to be indubitable. The main opinion prefers to reser+e *udgment on this point, but feel it is more honest to sa. that if new trial must be granted in these in spite of the fact that petitioners ha+e alread. ta&en their appeal within the reglementar. period, it is onl. because the facts an.one can infer or deduce from the e+idence being offered, which is documentar. and official, are apparentl. more proCimate to the truth, in the light of common eCperience.

As see it, the net result of 9ur decision cannot pre*udice the respondents. t is Duite ob+ious that it is "ot G;2 and not "ot 304 that belongs to them, and the. do not pretend that the. ha+e acDuired more than one lot in $iedad Estate, so as to entitle them to both "ots G;2 and 304. The accident that caused the loss of their title, TCT 01G4; is no reason at all for courts to un*ustl. enrich them b. ad*udicating to them "ot 304, when all the. ha+e to do is assert their right o+er "ot G;2 which is the one that appears recorded in their name in the official records which up to now stand unchallenged, much less impugned. (ernan"o J. concurs.

a good, substantial and meritorious defense or cause of action. f the petition is granted, the court shall proceed to hear and determine the case as if a timel. motion for new trial had been granted therein. 5. D.6 D.6 D.6 N9T CE# #ENT T9 C9EN#E" 9F REC9RD, , ND NH E$9N T?E C" ENT. M The failure of petitionerNs counsel to notif. him on time of the ad+erse *udgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence which is not eCcusable. Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an ad+erse *udgment resulting in the loss of this right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a *udgment +alid and regular on its face. ;. D.6 D.6 D.6 C9EN#E" RE-E RED T9 NF9R% T?E TR A" C9ERT T?E REA#9N F9R ? # C" ENTN# N9N/A$$EARANCE AT T?E #C?EDE"ED ?EAR NH#. / #imilarl. ineCcusable was the failure of his former counsel to inform the trial court of petitionerNs confinement and medical treatment as the reason for his non/appearance at the scheduled hearings. $etitioner has not gi+en an. reason wh. his former counsel, intentionall. or unintentionall., did not inform the court of this fact. This led the trial court to order the case deemed submitted for decision on the basis of the e+idence presented b. the pri+ate respondent alone. To compound the negligence of petitionerNs counsel, the order of the trial court was ne+er assailed +ia a motion for reconsideration. 1. D.6 EB DENCE6 CRED , " T@ 9F ) TNE##E#6 FACTEA" F ND NH# 9F T?E TR A" C9ERT E$?E"D A,#ENT $R99F T?AT T?E ) TNE##E#N TE#T %9N E# ARE C"EAR"@ AND %AN FE#T"@ ERR9NE9E#. / #uffice it to state that the finding of the trial court as to the eCistence or non/eCistence of petitionerNs ps.chological incapacit. at the time of the marriage is final and binding on us. $etitioner has not sufficientl. shown that the trial courtNs factual findings and e+aluation of the testimonies of pri+ate respondentNs witnesses 'is)a)'ispetitionerNs defenses are clearl. and manifestl. erroneous. G. C9N#T TET 9NA" "A)6 , "" 9F R H?T#6 $R9CEDERA" DEE $R9CE##6 N9T B 9"ATED F $ET T 9NER )A# H BEN 9$$9RTEN T@ T9 ,E ?EARD. / $etitioner cannot now claim that he was depri+ed of due process. ?e ma. ha+e lost his right to present e+idence but he was not denied his da. in court. As the records show, petitioner, through counsel, acti+el. participated in the proceedings below. ?e filed his answer to the petition, cross/eCamined pri+ate respondentNs witnesses and e+en submitted

EMILIO TUASON, petitioner, vs. COURT O APPEALS and MARIA 4ICTORIA L. TUASON, respon ents. #@""A,E# 0. RE%ED A" "A)6 C B " $R9CEDERE6 RE" EF FR9% 8EDH%ENT6 A""9)ED 9N"@ N ELCE$T 9NA" CA#E# )?ERE T?ERE # N9 9T?ER ABA "A,"E 9R ADE-EATE RE%ED@. / A petition for relief from *udgment is an eDuitable remed.6 it is allowed onl. in eCceptional cases where there is no other a+ailable or adeDuate remed.. )hen a part. has another remed. a+ailable to him, which ma. be either a motion for new trial or appeal from an ad+erse decision of the trial court, and he was not pre+ented b. fraud, accident, mista&e or eCcusable negligence from filing such motion or ta&ing such appeal, he cannot a+ail himself of this petition. ndeed, relief will not be granted to a part. who see&s a+oidance from the effects of the *udgment when the loss of the remed. at law was due to his own negligence6 otherwise the petition for relief can be used to re+i+e the right to appeal which ha+e been lost thru ineCcusable negligence. 7. D.6 D.6 D.6 )?EN ABA "ED %E#T ,E ,A#ED 9N T?E HR9END 9F FRAED, ACC DENT, % #TAFE 9R ELCE#A,"E NEH" HENCE AND T?AT T # #?9)N T?AT $ET T 9NER ?A# A H99D, #E,#TANT A" AND %ER T9R 9E# DEFEN#E 9R CAE#E 9F ACT 9N. / A petition for relief from *udgment is go+erned b. Rule 5<, #ection 7 of the Re+ised Rules of Court. A final and eCecutor. *udgment or order of the Regional Trial Court ma. be set aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mista&e or eCcusable negligence. n addition, the petitioner must assert facts showing that he has

his opposition to pri+ate respondentNs motion for dissolution of the con*ugal partnership of gains. 3. C B " "A)6 FA% "@ C9DE6 ANNE"%ENT, DEC"ARAT 9N 9F NE"" T@ AND "EHA" #E$ARAT 9N6 $R9#ECET NH ATT9RNE@ 9R F #CA" %A@ ,E 9RDERED ,@ T?E C9ERT T9 NTERBENE 9N ,E?A"F 9F T?E #TATE T9 $REBENT C9""E# 9N ,ET)EEN T?E $ART E#. / A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation b. default is fraught with the danger of collusion. ?ence, in all cases for annulment, declaration of nullit. of marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting attorne. or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of the state for the purpose of pre+enting an. collusion between the parties and to ta&e care that their e+idence is not fabricated or suppressed. f the defendant spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court cannot declare him or her in default but instead, should order the prosecuting attorne. to determine if collusion eCists between the parties. The prosecuting attorne. or fiscal ma. oppose the application for legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his own e+idence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated. <. D.6 D.6 D.6 N9N/ NTERFERENCE 9F A $R9#ECET NH ATT9RNE@ # N9T FATA" T9 T?E BA" D T@ 9F T?E $R9CEED NH# N T?E TR A" C9ERT F $ET T 9NER BE?E%ENT"@ 9$$9#ED T?E ANNE"%ENT 9F T?E R %ARR AHE N T?E #A D C9ERT. / The role of the prosecuting attorne. or fiscal in annulment of marriage and legal separation proceedings is to determine whether collusion eCists between the parties and to ta&e care that the e+idence is not suppressed or fabricated. $etitionerNs +ehement opposition to the annulment proceedings negates the conclusion that collusion eCisted between the parties. There is no allegation b. the petitioner that e+idence was suppressed or fabricated b. an. of the parties. Ender these circumstances, we are con+inced that the non/inter+ention of a prosecuting attorne. to assure lac& of collusion between the contending parties is not fatal to the +alidit. of the proceedings in the trial court. A$$EARANCE# 9F C9EN#E" *e+uion ,e-na Montecillo . /n+siako for petitioner. *alon+a 0ernan"e1 . #lla"o for pri+ate respondent. DEC # 9N $EN9, J.>

This petition for re+iew on certiorari see&s to annul and set aside the decision dated 8ul. 74, 044; of the Court of Appeals in CA/H.R. CB No. 53471 den.ing petitionerNs appeal from an order of the Regional Trial Court, ,ranch 0;4, %a&ati in Ci+il Case No. 53G4. This case arose from the following facts> n 04<4, pri+ate respondent %aria Bictoria "ope! Tuason filed with the Regional Trial Court, ,ranch 0;4, %a&ati a petition for annulment or declaration of nullit. of her marriage to petitioner Emilio R. Tuason. n her complaint, pri+ate respondent alleged that she and petitioner were married on 8une 5, 0437 and from this union, begot two children6 that at the time of the marriage, petitioner was alread. ps.chologicall. incapacitated to compl. with his essential marital obligations which became manifest afterward and resulted in +iolent fights between husband and wife6 that in one of their fights, petitioner inflicted ph.sical in*uries on pri+ate respondent which impelled her to file a criminal case for ph.sical in*uries against him6 that petitioner used prohibited drugs, was apprehended b. the authorities and sentenced to a one/.ear suspended penalt. and has not been rehabilitated6 that petitioner was a womani!er, and in 04<;, he left the con*ugal home and cohabited with three women in succession, one of whom he presented to the public as his wife6 that after he left the con*ugal dwelling, petitioner ga+e minimal support to the famil. and e+en refused to pa. for the tuition fees of their children compelling pri+ate respondent to accept donations and dole/outs from her famil. and friends6 that petitioner li&ewise became a spendthrift and abused his administration of the con*ugal partnership b. alienating some of their assets and incurring large obligations with ban&s, credit card companies and other financial institutions, without pri+ate respondentNs consent6 that attempts at reconciliation were made but the. all failed because of petitionerNs refusal to reform. n addition to her pra.er for annulment of marriage, pri+ate respondent pra.ed for powers of administration to sa+e the con*ugal properties from further dissipation.O0P $etitioner answered den.ing the imputations against him. As affirmati+e defense, he claimed that he and pri+ate respondent were a normal married couple during the first ten .ears of their marriage and actuall. begot two children during this period6 that it was onl. in 04<7 that the. began to ha+e serious personal differences when his wife did not accord the respect and dignit. due him as a husband but treated him li&e a persona non +rata2 that due to the QeCtreme animositiesR between them, he temporaril. left the con*ugal home for a Qcooling/off periodR in 04<;6 that it is pri+ate respondent

who had been ta&ing prohibited drugs and had a serious affair with another man6 that petitionerNs wor& as owner and operator of a radio and tele+ision station eCposed him to malicious gossip lin&ing him to +arious women in media and the entertainment world6 and that since 04<;, he eCperienced financial re+erses in his business and was compelled, with the &nowledge of his wife, to dispose of some of the con*ugal shares in eCclusi+e golf and countr. clubs. $etitioner petitioned the court to allow him to return to the con*ugal home and continue his administration of the con*ugal partnership. After the issues were *oined, trial commenced on %arch 52, 0442. $ri+ate respondent presented four witnesses, namel., herself6 Dr. #amuel )ile., a Canon "aw eCpert and marriage counselor of both pri+ate respondent and petitioner6 %s. Adelita $rieto, a close friend of the spouses, and An.. 8ose F. Racela B, pri+ate respondentNs counsel. $ri+ate respondent li&ewise submitted documentar. e+idence consisting of newspaper articles of her husbandNs relationship with other women, his apprehension b. the authorities for illegal possession of drugs6 and copies of a prior church annulment decree.O7P The partiesN marriage was clericall. annulled b. the Tribunal %etropolitanum %atrimoniale which was affirmed b. the National Appellate %atrimonial Tribunal in 04<G.O5P During presentation of pri+ate respondentNs e+idence, petitioner, on April 0<, 0442, filed his 9pposition to pri+ate respondentNs petition for appointment as administratriC of the con*ugal partnership of gains. After pri+ate respondent rested her case, the trial court scheduled the reception of petitionerNs e+idence on %a. 00, 0442. 9n %a. <, 0442, two da.s before the scheduled hearing, a counsel for petitioner mo+ed for a postponement on the ground that the principal counsel was out of the countr. and due to return on the first wee& of 8une. O;P The court granted the motion and reset the hearing to 8une <, 0442. O1P 9n 8une <, 0442, petitioner failed to appear. 9n oral motion of pri+ate respondent, the court declared petitioner to ha+e wai+ed his right to present e+idence and deemed the case submitted for decision on the basis of the e+idence presented. 9n 8une 74, 0442, the trial court rendered *udgment declaring the nullit. of pri+ate respondentNs marriage to petitioner and awarding custod. of the children to pri+ate respondent. The court ruled>

Q)?EREF9RE, in +iew of the foregoing, the marriage contracted b. %a. Bictoria ". Tuason and Emilio R. Tuason on 8une 5, 0437 is declared null and 'oi" oh initio on the ground of ps.chological incapacit. on the part of the defendant under #ec. 5G of the Famil. Code. "et herein *udgment of annulment be recorded in the registr. of %andalu.ong, %etro %anila where the marriage was contracted and in the registr. of %a&ati, %etro %anila where the marriage is annulled. The custod. of the two '7( legitimate children of the plaintiff and the defendant is hereb. awarded to the plaintiff. The foregoing *udgment is without pre*udice to the application of the other effects of annulment as pro+ided for under Arts. 12 and 10 of the Famil. Code of the $hilippines.ROGP Counsel for petitioner recei+ed a cop. of this decision on August 7;, 0442. No appeal was ta&en from the decision. 9n #eptember 7;, 0442, pri+ate respondent filed a Q%otion for Dissolution of Con*ugal $artnership of Hains and Ad*udication to $laintiff of the Con*ugal $roperties.RO3P $etitioner opposed the motion on 9ctober 03, 0442 O<P Also on the same da., 9ctober 03, 0442, petitioner, through new counsel, filed with the trial court a petition for relief from *udgment of the 8une 74, 0442 decision. The trial court denied the petition on August <, 0440. O4P $etitioner appealed before the Court of Appeals the order of the trial court den.ing his petition for relief from *udgment. 9n 8ul. 74, 044;, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the trial court. O02P ?ence this petition. The threshold issue is whether a petition for relief from *udgment is warranted under the circumstances of the case. )e rule in the negati+e. A petition for relief from *udgment is go+erned b. Rule 5<, #ection 7 of the Re+ised Rules of Court which pro+ides>

Q#ection 7. $etition to Court of First nstance for relief from *udgment or other proceedings thereof. / )hen a *udgment or order is entered, or an. other proceeding is ta&en, against a part. in a court of first instance through fraud, accident, mista&e, or eCcusable negligence, he ma. file a petition in such court and in the same cause pra.ing that the *udgment, order or proceeding be set aside.R Ender the rules, a final and eCecutor. *udgment or order of the Regional Trial Court ma. be set aside on the ground of fraud, accident, mista&e or eCcusable negligence. n addition, the petitioner must assert facts showing that he has a good, substantial and meritorious defense or cause of action. O00P f the petition is granted, the court shall proceed to hear and determine the case as if a timel. motion for new trial had been granted therein. O07P n the case at bar, the decision annulling petitionerNs marriage to pri+ate respondent had alread. become final and eCecutor. when petitioner failed to appeal during the reglementar. period. $etitioner howe+er claims that the decision of the trial court was null and +oid for +iolation of his right to due process. ?e contends he was denied due process when, after failing to appear on two scheduled hearings, the trial court deemed him to ha+e wai+ed his right to present e+idence and rendered *udgment on the basis of the e+idence for pri+ate respondent. $etitioner *ustifies his absence at the hearings on the ground that he was then Qconfined for medical and:or rehabilitation reasons.RO05P n his affida+it of merit before the trial court, he attached a certification b. "t. Col. $laridel F. Bidal, Director of the Narcotics Command, Drug Rehabilitation Center which states that on %arch 73, 0442 petitioner was admitted for treatment of drug dependenc. at the Drug Rehabilitation Center at Camp ,agong Diwa, ,icutan, Taguig, %etro %anila of the $hilippine Constabular./ ntegrated National $olice. O0;P The records, howe+er, show that the former counsel of petitioner did not inform the trial court of this confinement. And when the court rendered its decision, the same counsel was out of the countr. for which reason the decision became final and eCecutor. as no appeal was ta&en therefrom. O01P The failure of petitionerNs counsel to notif. him on time of the ad+erse *udgment to enable him to appeal therefrom is negligence which is not eCcusable. Notice sent to counsel of record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of counsel to inform him of an ad+erse *udgment resulting in the loss of his right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a *udgment +alid and regular on its face.O0GP

#imilarl. ineCcusable was the failure of his former counsel to inform the trial court of petitionerNs confinement and medical treatment as the reason for his non/appearance at the scheduled hearings. $etitioner has not gi+en an. reason wh. his former counsel, intentionall. or unintentionall., did not inform the court of this fact. This led the trial court to order the case deemed submitted for decision on the basis of the e+idence presented b. the pri+ate respondent alone. To compound the negligence of petitionerNs counsel, the order of the trial court was ne+er assailed +ia a motion for reconsideration. Clearl., petitioner cannot now claim that he was depri+ed of due process. ?e ma. ha+e lost his right to present e+idence but he was not denied his da. in court. As the records show, petitioner, through counsel, acti+el. participated in the proceedings below. ?e filed his answer to the petition, cross/eCamined pri+ate respondentNs witnesses and e+en submitted his opposition to pri+ate respondentNs motion for dissolution of the con*ugal partnership of gains.O03P A petition for relief from *udgment is an eDuitable remed.6 it is allowed onl. in eCceptional cases where there is no other a+ailable or adeDuate remed.. )hen a part. has another remed. a+ailable to him, which ma. be either a motion for new trial or appeal from an ad+erse decision of the trial court, and he was not pre+ented b. fraud, accident, mista&e or eCcusable negligence from filing such motion or ta&ing such appeal, he cannot a+ail himself of this petition.O0<P ndeed, relief will not be granted to a part. who see&s a+oidance from the effects of the *udgment when the loss of the remed. at law was due to his own negligence6 otherwise the petition for relief can be used to re+i+e the right to appeal which had been lost thru ineCcusable negligence. O04P $etitioner also insists that he has a +alid and meritorious defense. ?e cites the Famil. Code which pro+ides that in actions for annulment of marriage or legal separation, the prosecuting officer should inter+ene for the state because the law Qloo&s with disfa+or upon the hapha!ard declaration of annulment of marriages b. default.R ?e contends that when he failed to appear at the scheduled hearings, the trial court should ha+e ordered the prosecuting officer to inter+ene for the state and inDuire as to the reason for his non/appearance.O72P Articles ;< and G2 of the Famil. Code read as follows> QArt. ;<. n all cases of annulment or declaration of absolute nullit. of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecution attorne. or fiscal assigned to

it to appear on behalf of the #tate to ta&e steps to pre+ent collusion between the parties and to ta&e care that e+idence is not fabricated or suppressed. n the cases referred to in the preceding paragraph, no *udgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of *udgment.R CCC CCC CCC

QArt. G2. No decree of legal separation shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of *udgment. n an. case, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorne. or fiscal assigned to it to ta&e steps to pre+ent collusion between the parties and to ta&e care that the e+idence is not fabricated or suppressed.RO70P A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation b. default is fraught with the danger of collusion.O77P ?ence, in all cases for annulment, declaration of nullit. of marriage and legal separation, the prosecuting attorne. or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of the state for the purpose of pre+enting an. collusion between the parties and to ta&e care that their e+idence is not fabricated or suppressed. f the defendant spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court cannot declare him or her in default but instead, should order the prosecuting attorne. to determine if collusion eCists between the parties.O75P The prosecuting attorne. or fiscal ma. oppose the application for legal separation or annulment through the presentation of his own e+idence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated. O7;P 9ur Constitution is committed to the polic. of strengthening the famil. as a basic social institution.O71P 9ur famil. law is based on the polic. that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which the state is +itall. interested. The state can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happ. families. The brea& up of families wea&ens our social and moral fabric and, hence, their preser+ation is not the concern alone of the famil. members. The facts in the case at bar do not call for the strict application of Articles ;< and G2 of the Famil. Code. For one, petitioner was not declared in default b. the trial court for failure to answer. $etitioner filed his answer to the complaint and contested the cause of action alleged b. pri+ate respondent. ?e acti+el. participated in the proceedings below b. filing se+eral pleadings and cross/ eCamining the witnesses of pri+ate respondent. t is cr.stal clear that e+er. stage of the litigation was characteri!ed b. a no/holds barred contest and not b. collusion.

The role of the prosecuting attorne. or fiscal in annulment of marriage and legal separation proceedings is to determine whether collusion eCists between the parties and to ta&e care that the e+idence is not suppressed or fabricated. $etitionerNs +ehement opposition to the annulment proceedings negates the conclusion that collusion eCisted between the parties. There is no allegation b. the petitioner that e+idence was suppressed or fabricated b. an. of the parties. Ender these circumstances, we are con+inced that the non/inter+ention of a prosecuting attorne. to assure lac& of collusion between the contending parties is not fatal to the +alidit. of the proceedings in the trial court. $etitioner also refutes the testimonies of pri+ate respondentNs witnesses, particularl. Dr. #amuel )ile. and %s. Adelita $rieto, as biased, incredible and hearsa.. $etitioner alleges that if he were able to present his e+idence, he could ha+e testified that he was not ps.chologicall. incapacitated at the time of the marriage as indicated b. the fact that during their first ten .ears, he and pri+ate respondent li+ed together with their children as one normal and happ. famil., that he continued supporting his famil. e+en after he left the con*ugal dwelling and that his wor& as owner and operator of a radio and tele+ision corporation places him in the public e.e and ma&es him a good sub*ect for malicious gossip lin&ing him with +arious women. These facts, according to petitioner, should dispro+e the ground for annulment of his marriage to petitioner. #uffice it to state that the finding of the trial court as to the eCistence or non/ eCistence of petitionerNs ps.chological incapacit. at the time of the marriage is final and binding on us.O7GP $etitioner has not sufficientl. shown that the trial courtNs factual findings and e+aluation of the testimonies of pri+ate respondentNs witnesses 'is)a)'is petitionerNs defenses are clearl. and manifestl. erroneous.O73P N B E) )?ERE9F, the petition is denied and the decision dated 8ul. 74, 044; of the Court of Appeals in CA/H.R. CB No. 53471 is affirmed. #9 9RDERED. ,e+ala"o 3!hair4an5 ,o4ero and Men"o1a JJ. concur. 6orres Jr. J. on lea+e.

(ECISION

4ELASCO, JR., !.6

accomplished as described in the monthl. progress billings. Ender this arrangement, ,F shall submit a monthl. progress billing to E#?R which would then re/measure the wor& accomplished and prepare a $rogress $a.ment Certificate for that monthNs progress billing. O1P

,efore us are these two '7( consolidated petitions for re+iew under Rule ;1 to nullif. certain issuances of the Court of Appeals 'CA(.

n the first petition, doc&eted as '.R. No. 17-870, petitioners Edsa #hangri/ la ?otel and Resort, nc. 'E#?R (, Rufo ,. Cola.co, Rufino ". #amaniego, Fuo& Fhoon Chen, and Fuo& Fhoon Tsen assail the Decision O0P dated No+ember 07, 0444 of the CA in CA/H.R. CB No. 13544, affirming the DecisionO7P dated #eptember 75, 044G of the Regional Trial Court 'RTC(, ,ranch 0G7 in $asig Cit. in Ci+il Case No. G5;51 that ordered them to pa. *ointl. and se+erall. respondent ,F Corporation ',F( a sum of mone. with interests and damages. The. also assail the CA Resolution dated 9ctober 71, 7222 which, apart from setting aside an earlier ResolutionO5P of August 05, 0444 granting E#?R Ns application for restitution and damages against bond, affirmed the aforesaid #eptember 75, 044G RTC Decision.

n a memorandum/letter dated August 0G, 0440 to ,F, E#?R laid out the collection procedure ,F was to follow, to wit> '0( submission of the progress billing to E#?R Ns Engineering Department6 '7( following/up of the preparation of the $rogress $a.ment Certificate with the ?ead of the -uantit. #ur+e.ing Department6 and '5( following/up of the release of the pa.ment with one E+el.n #an $ascual. ,F adhered to the procedures agreed upon in all its billings for the period from %a. 0, 0440 to 8une 52, 0447, submitting for the purpose the reDuired ,uilders )or& #ummar., the monthl. progress billings, including an e+aluation of the wor& in accordance with the $ro*ect %anagerNs nstructions '$% s( and the detailed +aluations contained in the )or& Bariation 9rders ')B9s( for final re/measurement under the $% s. ,F said that the +alues of the )B9s were contained in the progress billings under the section QChange 9rders.ROGP

From %a. 0, 0440 to 8une 52, 0447, ,F submitted a total of 04 progress billings following the procedure agreed upon. ,ased on $rogress ,illing Nos. 0 to 05, E#?R paid ,F $h$ <G,120,<5;.21.O3P

n the second petition, doc&eted as '.R. No. 17-82*, petitioner C.nthia RoCas/del Castillo also assails the aforementioned CA Decision of No+ember 07, 0444 insofar at it ad*udged her *ointl. and se+erall. liable with E#?R , et al. to pa. the monetar. award decreed in the RTC Decision.

According to ,F, howe+er, E#?R , for $rogress ,illing Nos. 0; to 04, did not re/measure the wor& done, did not prepare the $rogress $a.ment Certificates, let alone remit pa.ment for the inclusi+e periods co+ered. n this regard, ,F claimed ha+ing been misled into wor&ing continuousl. on the pro*ect b. E#?R which ga+e the assurance about the $rogress $a.ment Certificates alread. being processed.

,oth petitions stemmed from a construction contract denominated as #+ree4ent 7or the 89ecution o7 :uil"er;s <ork 7or the 8=*# *han+ri)la 0otel >ro?ectO;P that E#?R and ,F eCecuted for the construction of the ED#A #hangri/la ?otel starting %a. 0, 0440. Among other things, the contract stipulated for the pa.ment of the contract price on the basis of the wor&

After se+eral futile attempts to collect the unpaid billings, ,F filed, on 8ul. 7G, 0445, before the RTC a suit for a sum of mone. and damages.

n its defense, E#?R claimed ha+ing o+erpaid ,F for $rogress ,illing Nos. 0 to 05 and, b. wa. of counterclaim with damages, as&ed that ,F be ordered to refund the eCcess pa.ments. E#?R also charged ,F with incurring dela. and turning up with inferior wor& accomplishment.

According to the RTC, E#?R Ns refusal to pa. ,FNs +alid claims constituted e+ident bad faith entitling ,F to moral damages and attorne.Ns fees.

T/e RTC 9o$nd 9or 3 E#?R subseDuentl. mo+ed for reconsideration, but the motion was denied b. the RTC, prompting E#?R to appeal to the CA in CA)'.R. C4 No. -2*++.

9n #eptember 75, 044G, the RTC, on the main finding that ,F, as plaintiff a quo, is entitled to the pa.ment of its claim co+ered b. $rogress ,illing Nos. 0; to 04 and to the retention mone. corresponding to $rogress ,illing Nos. 0 to 00, with interest in both instances, rendered *udgment for ,F. The 7allo of the RTC Decision reads>

$ending the resolution of CA/H.R. CB No. 13544, the following e+ents and:or incidents transpired> '0( The trial court, b. 9rder dated 8anuar. 70, 0443, granted ,FNs motion for eCecution pending appeal. E#?R assailed this order before the CA +ia a petition for certiorari, doc&eted as CA)'.R. SP No. 7*182.O4P %eanwhile, the branch sheriff garnished from E#?R Ns ban& account in the $hilippine National ,an& '$N,( the amount of $h$ 51 million.

)?EREF9RE, defendants OE?#R P, RuOfPo ,. Cola.co, Rufino ". #amaniego, C.nthia del Castillo, Fuo& Fhoon Chen, and Fuo& Fhoon Tsen, are *ointl. and se+erall. hereb. ordered to>

0. $a. plaintiff the sum of $7;,3<2,;42.22 representing unpaid construction wor& accomplishments under plaintiffNs $rogress ,illings Nos. 0;/046

7.

Return to plaintiff the retention sum of $1,<02,222.226

5. $a. legal interest on the amount of $7;,3<2,;42.<2 representing the construction wor& accomplishments under $rogress ,illings Nos. 0;/04 and on the amount of $1,<02,222.22 representing the retention sum from date of demand until their full $a.ment6

'7( 9n %arch 3, 0443, the CA issued in CA/H.R. #$ No. ;50<3 a writ of preliminar. in*unction en*oining the trial court from carr.ing out its 8anuar. 70, 0443 9rder upon E#?R Ns posting of a $h$ 0 million bond. n a supplemental resolution issued on the same da., the CA issued a writ of preliminar. mandator. in*unction directing the trial court *udge and:or his branch sheriff acting under him 'a( to lift all the garnishments and le+. made under the en*oined order of eCecution pending appeal6 'b( to immediatel. return the garnished deposits to $N, instead of deli+ering the same to E#?R 6 and 'c( if the garnished deposits ha+e been deli+ered to ,F, the latter shall return the same to E#?R Ns deposit account.

;. $a. plaintiff $0,222,222.22 as moral damages, $0,222,222.22 as eCemplar. damages, $0,222,222.22 as attorne.Ns fees, and cost of the suit. O<P

'5( ,. a Decision dated 8une 52, 0443 in CA/H.R. #$ No. ;50<3, the CA set aside the trial courtNs 8anuar. 70, 0443 9rder. The CA would later den. ,FNs motion for reconsideration.

';( Aggrie+ed, ,F filed before this Court a petition for re+iew of the CA Decision, doc&eted as '.R. No. 1*0:--.O02P 9n August 00, 044<, the Court affirmed the assailed decision of the CA with the modification that the reco+er. of E#?R Ns garnished deposits shall be against ,FNs bond. O00P

)e denied the motions for reconsideration of E#?R and ,F.

The CA predicated its ruling on the interpla. of two main reasons. (irst, the issues the parties raised in their respecti+e briefs were, for the most part, factual and e+identiar.. Thus, there is no reason to disturb the case disposition of the RTC, inclusi+e of its award of damages and attorne.Ns fees and the reasons underpinning the award.*econ", ,F had sufficientl. established its case b. preponderance of e+idence. $art of what it had sufficientl. pro+en relates to E#?R being remiss in its obligation to re/ measure ,FNs later wor& accomplishments and pa. the same. 9n the other hand, E#?R had failed to pro+e the basis of its disclaimer from liabilit., such as its allegation on the defecti+e wor& accomplished b. ,F.

'1( Forthwith, E#?R filed, and the CA b. Resolution of August 05, 0444 granted, an application for restitution or damages against ,FNs bond. ConseDuentl., ,F and #tronghold nsurance Co., nc., the bonding compan., filed separate motions for reconsideration.

Apropos E#?R Ns entitlement to the remed. of restitution or reparation arising from the eCecution of the RTC Decision pending appeal, the CA held that such remed. ma. peremptoril. be allowed onl. if the eCecuted *udgment is re+ersed, a situation not obtaining in this case.

9n No+ember 07, 0444, in CA/H.R. CB No. 13544, the CA rendered a Decision resol+ing '0( the aforesaid motions of ,F and its suret. and '7( herein petitionersN appeal from the trial courtNs Decision dated #eptember 75, 044G. This No+ember 07, 0444 Decision, finding for ,F and now assailed in these separate recourses, dispositi+el. reads>

Following the denial b. the CA, per its Resolution O05P dated 9ctober 71, 7222, of their motion for reconsideration, petitioners are now before the Court, petitioner del Castillo opting, howe+er, to file a separate recourse.

'.R. No. 17-870 )?EREF9RE, premises considered, the decision appealed from is A IRME( in toto. This CourtNs Resolution dated 05 August 0444 is reconsidered and set aside, and defendants/appellantsN application for restitution is denied for lac& of merit.

n H.R. No. 0;1<;7, petitioners E#?R , et al. raise the following issues for our consideration>

#9 9RDERED.O07P

. )hether or not the OCAP committed gra+e abuse of discretion in disregarding issues of law raised b. petitioners in their appeal Oparticularl. in admitting in e+idence photocopies of $rogress ,illing Nos. 0; to 04, $% s and )B9sP.

. )hether or not the OCAP committed gra+e abuse of discretion in not holding respondent guilt. of dela. in the performance of its obligations and, hence, liable for liDuidated damages Oin +iew that respondent is guilt. of dela. and that its wor&s were defecti+eP.

n our re+iew of this case, we find that none of the abo+e eCceptions obtains. Accordingl., the factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed b. the CA, that there was dela. on the part of E#?R , that there was no proof that ,FNs wor& was defecti+e, and that petitioners were guilt. of malice and bad faith, ought to be affirmed.

. )hether or not the OCAP committed gra+e abuse of discretion in finding petitioners guilt. of malice and e+idence bad faith, and in awarding moral and eCemplar. damages and attorne.Ns fees to respondent.

Ad;issi<i=it& o9 P/oto.opies o9 Pro>ress 3i==in> Nos. 17 to 1+, PMIs and ?4Os

B. )hether or not the OCAP erred in setting aside its Resolution dated August 05, 7222.O0;P

The petition has no merit.

$etitioners fault the CA, and necessaril. the trial court, on the matter of the admission in e+idence of the photocopies of $rogress ,illing Nos. 0; to 04 and the complementing $% s and the )B9s. According to petitioners, ,F, before being allowed to adduce in e+idence the photocopies ad+erted to, ought to ha+e laid the basis for the presentation of the photocopies as secondar. e+idence, conformabl. to the best e+idence rule. Respondent ,F, on the other hand, a+ers ha+ing complied with the la.ing/the/basis reDuirement. Defending the action of the courts below in admitting into e+idence the photocopies of the documents aforementioned, ,F eCplained that it could not present the original of the documents since the. were in the possession of E#?R which refused to hand them o+er to ,F despite reDuests.

$refatoril., it should be stressed that the second and third issues tendered relate to the correctness of the CANs factual determinations, specificall. on whether or not ,F was in dela. and had come up with defecti+e wor&s, and whether or not petitioners were guilt. of malice and bad faith. t is basic that in an appeal b. certiorari under Rule ;1, onl. Duestions of law ma. be presented b. the parties and re+iewed b. the Court. O01P 8ust as basic is the rule that factual findings of the CA, affirmator. of that of the trial court, are final and conclusi+e on the Court and ma. not be re+iewed on appeal, eCcept for the most compelling of reasons, such as when> '0( the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises, or con*ectures6 '7( the inference is manifestl. mista&en, absurd, or impossible6 '5( there is gra+e abuse of discretion6 ';( the *udgment is based on a misapprehension of facts6 '1( the findings of fact are conflicting6 'G( such findings are contrar. to the admissions of both parties6 and '3( the CA manifestl. o+erloo&ed certain rele+ant e+idence and undisputed facts, that, if properl. considered, would *ustif. a different conclusion.O0GP

)e agree with ,F. The onl. actual rule that the term Qbest e+idenceR denotes is the rule reDuiring that the original of a writing must, as a general proposition, be producedO03P and secondar. e+idence of its contents is not admissible eCcept where the original cannot be had. Rule 052, #ection 5 of the Rules of Court enunciates the best e+idence rule:

#EC. 5. /ri+inal "ocu4ent 4ust @e pro"uce"2 e9ceptions. M )hen the sub*ect of inDuir. is the contents of a document, no e+idence shall be admissible other than the original document itself, eCcept in the following cases>

'a( )hen the original has been lost or destro.ed, or cannot be produced in court, without bad faith on the part of the offeror6

$rogress ,illing Nos. 0; to 04 instead of their originals has to be dismissed. The stenographic notes of the following eCchanges between Att.. Andres and Att.. Autea, counsel for ,F and E#?R , respecti+el., re+eal that ,F had complied with the reDuirements>

"<@ ?/en t/e ori>ina= is in t/e .$stod& or $nder t/e .ontro= o9 t/e part& a>ainst A/o; t/e eviden.e is o99ered, and t/e =atter 9ai=s to prod$.e it a9ter reasona<=e noti.eB 'Emphasis added.(

ATT@. ANDRE#>

Complementing the abo+e pro+ision is #ec. G of Rule 052, which reads>

#EC. G. <hen ori+inal "ocu4ent is in a"'erse part-;s custo"- or control. M f the document is in the custod. or under control of the ad+erse part., he must ha+e reasonable notice to produce it. f after such notice and after satisfactor. proof of its eCistence, he fails to produce the document, secondar. e+idence ma. be presented as in the case of loss.

During the pre+ious hearing of this case, .our ?onor, li&ewise, the witness testified that certain eChibits namel., the $rogress $a.ment Certificates and the $rogress ,illings the originals of these documents were transmitted to E#?R , all the originals are in the possession of E#?R since these are internal documents and am referring specificall. to the $rogress $a.ment Certificates. ?e reC$ested &o$r Honor, t/at in order t/at p=ainti99 D3 E <e a==oAed to present se.ondar& ori>ina=, t/at opposin> .o$nse= 9irst <e >iven opport$nit& to present t/e ori>ina=s A/i./ are in t/eir possession. %a. we &now if the. ha+e brought the originals and whether the. will present the originals in court, @our ?onor. 'Emphasis added.(

ATT@. AETEA>

#econdar. e+idence of the contents of a written instrument or document refers to e+idence other than the original instrument or document itself. O0<P A part. ma. present secondar. e+idence of the contents of a writing not onl. when the original is lost or destro.ed, but also when it is in the custod. or under the control of the ad+erse part.. n either instance, howe+er, certain eCplanations must be gi+en before a part. can resort to secondar. e+idence.

)e ha+e alread. informed our client about the situation, .our ?onor, that it has been claimed b. plaintiff that some of the originals are in their possession and our client assured that, the. will tr. to chec&. Enfortunatel., we ha+e not heard from our client, @our ?onor.

n our +iew, the trial court correctl. allowed the presentation of the photocopied documents in Duestion as secondar. e+idence. An. suggestion that ,F failed to la. the reDuired basis for presenting the photocopies of

Four factual premises are readil. deducible from the abo+e eCchanges, to wit> '0( the eCistence of the original documents which E#?R had possession of6 '7( a reDuest was made on E#?R to produce the documents6 '5( E#?R was afforded sufficient time to produce them6 and ';( E#?R was not inclined to produce them.

On t/e Restit$tion o9 t/e 'arnis/ed $nds Clearl., the circumstances obtaining in this case fall under the eCception under #ec. 5'b( of Rule 052. n other words, the conditions sine qua non for the presentation and reception of the photocopies of the original document as secondar. e+idence ha+e been met. These are> '0( there is proof of the original documentNs eCecution or eCistence6 '7( there is proof of the cause of the original documentNs una+ailabilit.6 and '5( the offeror is in good faith. O04P )hile perhaps not on all fours because it in+ol+ed a chec&, what the Court said in Ma+"a-ao '. >eople, is +er. much apt, thus>

)e now come to the propriet. of the restitution of the garnished funds. As petitioners maintain, the CA effecti+el., but erroneousl., pre+ented restitution of E#?R Ns improperl. garnished funds when it nullified its own August 05, 0444 Resolution in CA/H.R. #$ No. ;50<3. n this regard, petitioners in+ite attention to the fact that the restitution of the funds was in accordance with this CourtNs final and alread. eCecutor. decision in H.R. No. 057G11, impl.ing that E#?R should be restored to its own funds without awaiting the final outcome of the main case. For ease of reference, we reproduce what the appellate court pertinentl. wrote in its Resolution of August 05, 0444>

C C C To warrant the admissibilit. of secondar. e+idence when the original of a writing is in the custod. or control of the ad+erse part., #ection G of Rule 052 pro+ides that the ad+erse part. must be gi+en reasonable notice, that he fails or refuses to produce the same in court and that the offeror offers satisfactor. proof of its eCistence.

CCCC

The mere fact that the original of the writing is in the custod. or control of the part. against whom it is offered does not warrant the admission of secondar. e+idence. The offeror must pro+e that he has done all in his power to secure the best e+idence b. gi+ing notice to the said part. to produce the document. The notice ma. be in the form of a motion for the production of the original or made in open court in the presence of the ad+erse part. or 'ia a su@poena "uces tecu4, pro+ided that the part. in custod. of the original has sufficient time to produce the same. ?/en s$./ part& /as t/e ori>ina= o9 t/e Aritin> and does not vo=$ntari=& o99er to prod$.e it or re9$ses to prod$.e it, se.ondar& eviden.e ;a& <e ad;itted.O72P 'Emphasis supplied.(

3ASE( ON THE ORE'OIN', the Application 'for Restitution:Damages against ,ond for ECecution $ending Appeal( dated %a. 07, 0444 filed b. OE#?R P is 'RANTE(. Accordingl., the suret. of O,FP, #TR9NH?9"D nsurance Co., nc., is OR(ERE( to PAF the sum of O$h$ 51 millionP to OE#?R P under its # C ,ond. C C C n the e+ent that the bond shall turn out to be insufficient or the suret. '#TR9NH?9"D( cannot be made liable under its bond, O,FP, being *ointl. and se+erall. liable under the bond is OR(ERE( to RETURN the amount of O$h$ 51 millionP representing the garnished deposits of the ban& account maintained b. OE#?R P with the O$N,P #hangri/la $la!a ,ranch, %andalu.ong Cit.. 9therwise, this Court shall cause the implementation of the )rit of ECecution dated April 7;, 044< issued in Ci+il Case No. G5;51 against both O,FP, and:or its suret., #TR9NH?9"D, in case the. should fail to compl. with these directi+es.

#9 9RDERED.O70P

$etitionersN contention on the restitution angle has no merit, for, as ma. be recalled, the CA, simultaneousl. with the nullification and setting aside of its August 05, 0444 Resolution, affirmed, +ia its assailed No+ember 07, 0444 Decision, the RTC Decision of #eptember 75, 044G, the eCecution pending appeal of which spawned another dispute between the parties. And

as ma. be recalled further, the appellate court nullified its August 05, 0444 Resolution on the basis of #ec. 1, Rule 54, which pro+ides> #ec. 1. 877ect o7 re'ersal o7 e9ecute" ?u"+4ent. M )here the eCecuted *udgment is re+ersed totall. or partiall., or annulled, on appeal or otherwise, the trial court ma., on motion, issue such orders of restitution or reparation of damages as eDuit. and *ustice ma. warrant under the circumstances.

. T?E OCAP ERRED N N9T DEC"AR NH T?AT T?E DEC # 9N 9F T?E TR A" C9ERT AD8EDH NH $ET T 9NER $ER#9NA""@ " A,"E T9 RE#$9NDENT B9 D F9R N9T #TAT NH T?E FACTEA" AND "EHA" ,A# # F9R #EC? A)ARD.

9n the strength of the aforeDuoted pro+ision, the appellate court correctl. dismissed E#?R Ns claim for restitution of its garnished deposits, the eCecuted appealed RTC Decision in Ci+il Case No. G5;51 ha+ing in fact been upheld in toto.

. T?E OCAP ERRED N N9T RE" NH T?AT A# F9R%ER D RECT9R, $ET T 9NER CANN9T ,E ?E"D $ER#9NA""@ " A,"E F9R AN@ A""EHED ,REAC? 9F A C9NTRACT ENTERED NT9 ,@ T?E C9R$9RAT 9N.

. T?E OCAP ERRED N N9T RE" NH T?AT RE#$9NDENT # N9T ENT T"ED T9 AN A)ARD 9F %9RA" DA%AHE#.

t is true that the CourtNs Decision of August 00, 044< in H.R. No. 057G11 recogni!ed the +alidit. of the issuance of the desired restitution order. t bears to emphasi!e, howe+er, that the CA had since then decided CA/H.R. CB No. 13544, the main case, on the merits when it affirmed the underl.ing RTC Decision in Ci+il Case No. G5;51. This CA Decision on the original and main case effecti+el. rendered our decision on the incidental procedural matter on restitution moot and academic. Allowing restitution at this point would not ser+e an. purpose, but onl. prolong an alread. protracted litigation.

B. T?E OCAP ERRED N ?9"D NH $ET T 9NER $ER#9NA""@ " A,"E T9 RE#$9NDENT F9R ELE%$"AR@ DA%AHE#.

B. T?E OCAP ERRED N N9T RE" NH T?AT RE#$9NDENT # N9T ENT T"ED T9 AN@ A)ARD 9F ATT9RNE@N# FEE#.O77P

'.R. No. 17-82*

$etitioner RoCas/del Castillo, in her separate petition, eCcepts from the CA Decision affirming, in its entiret., the RTC Decision holding her, with the other indi+idual petitioners in H.R. No. 0;1<;7, who were members of the ,oard of Directors of E#?R , *ointl. and se+erall. liable with E#?R for the *udgment award. #he presentl. contends>

First off, RoCas/del Castillo submits that the RTC decision in Duestion +iolated the reDuirements of due process and of #ec. 0;, Article B of the Constitution that states, QNo decision shall be rendered b. an. court without eCpressing therein clearl. and distinctl. the facts and the law on which it is based.R

RoCas/del CastilloNs threshold posture is correct. ndeed, the RTC decision in Duestion, as couched, does not pro+ide the factual or legal basis for holding her personall. liable under the premises. n fact, onl. in the dispositi+e portion of the decision did her solidar. liabilit. crop up. And sa+e for her

inclusion as part. defendant in the underl.ing complaint, no reference is made in other pleadings thus filed as to her liabilit..

The Court notes that the appellate court, b. its affirmator. ruling, effecti+el. recogni!ed the applicabilit. of the doctrine on piercing the +eil of the separate corporate identit.. Ender the circumstances of this case, we cannot allow such application. A corporation, upon coming to eCistence, is in+ested b. law with a personalit. separate and distinct from those of the persons composing it. 9wnership b. a single or a small group of stoc&holders of nearl. all of the capital stoc& of the corporation is not, without more, sufficient to disregard the fiction of separate corporate personalit.. O75P Thus, obligations incurred b. corporate officers, acting as corporate agents, are not theirs but direct accountabilities of the corporation the. represent. #olidar. liabilit. on the part of corporate officers ma. at times attach, but onl. under eCceptional circumstances, such as when the. act with malice or in bad faith. O7;P Also, in appropriate cases, the +eil of corporate fiction shall be disregarded when the separate *uridical personalit. of a corporation is abused or used to commit fraud and perpetrate a social in*ustice, or used as a +ehicle to e+ade obligations.O71P n this case, no act of malice or li&e dishonest purpose is ascribed on petitioner RoCas/del Castillo as to warrant the lifting of the corporate +eil.

)e do not find an.thing in the testimon. of one Crispin ,alingit to indicate that RoCas/del Castillo made an. misrepresentation respecting the pa.ment of the bills in Duestion. ,alingit, in fact, testified that the submitted but unpaid billings were still being e+aluated. Further, in the said testimon., in no instance was bad faith imputed on RoCas/del Castillo.

Not lost on the Court are some material dates. As it were, the contro+ers. between the principal parties started in 8ul. 0447 when RoCas/del Castillo no longer sat in the E#?R ,oard, a realit. ,F does not appear to dispute. n fine, she no longer had an. participation in E#?R Ns corporate affairs when what basicall. is the E#?R /,F dispute erupted. Familiar and fundamental is the rule that contracts are binding onl. among parties to an agreement. Art. 0500 of the Ci+il Code is clear on this point>

Article 0500. Contracts ta&e effect onl. between the parties, their assigns and heirs, eCcept in cases where the rights and obligations are not transmissible b. their nature, or b. stipulation or b. pro+ision of law.

The abo+e conclusion would still hold e+en if petitioner RoCas/del Castillo, at the time E#?R defaulted in pa.ing ,FNs monthl. progress bill, was still a director, for, before she could be held personall. liable as corporate director, it must be shown that she acted in a manner and under the circumstances contemplated in #ec. 50 of the Corporation Code, which reads>

n the instant case, RoCas/del Castillo could not plausibl. be held liable for breaches of contract committed b. E#?R nor for the alleged wrongdoings of its go+erning board or corporate officers occurring after she se+ered official ties with the hotel management.

#ection 50. Directors or trustees who Ai==9$==& or GnoAin>=& vote 9or or assent to patent=& $n=aA9$= a.ts o9 t/e .orporation or a.C$ire an& pe.$niar& interest in .on9=i.t with their dut. as such directors or trustees shall be liable *ointl. and se+erall. for all damages resulting therefrom suffered b. the corporation, its stoc&holders or members and other persons. 'Emphasis ours.(

Hi+en the foregoing perspecti+e, the other issues raised b. RoCas/del Castillo as to her liabilit. for moral and eCemplar. damages and attorne.Ns fees are now moot and academic.

And her other arguments insofar the. indirectl. impact on the liabilit. of E#?R need not detain us an. longer for we ha+e sufficientl. passed upon those concerns in our re+iew of H.R. No. 0;1<;7.

%etropolitan Trial Court of %anila 1 and seasonabl. ele+ated to the Regional Trial Court. To sta. its eCecution, ANC filed a supersedes bond in the amount of $7,322,222.22, which was appro+ed b. 8udge Re.es. 0 ?e subseDuentl. affirmed the appealed *udgment on 8une 3, 0440. * 9n 8une 02, 0440, the petitioner filed an e9 parte motion for eCecution on the ground that the *udgment had alread. become final and eCecutor. under RA G250. 8udge Re.es granted the motion the same da. 7 and at ;>22 o=cloc& that afternoon the writ of eCecution was ser+ed on ANC. ANC mo+ed to Duash the writ on 8une 00, 0440, but hours later, sensing that the motion could not be acted upon, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals. 9n 8ul. 5, 0440, that court issued the Duestioned decision, - prompting the filing of the present petition for certiorari. The petitioner assails the action of the respondent court and contends that decisions of the regional trial court in cases eCclusi+el. cogni!able b. inferior courts and are final and eCecutor. under RA G250. Thus> #ec. 0. . . . An cases 7allin+ un"er the e9clusi'e ori+inal ?uris"iction o7 4unicipal an" citcourts which are appeale" to the courts o7 7irst instance the "ecision o7 the latter shall @e 7inal> >ro'i"e" 6hat the 7in"in+s o7 7acts containe" in sai" "ecision are supporte" @- su@stantial e'i"ence as @asis thereo7 an" the conclusions are not clearl- a+ainst the law an" ?urispru"ence 6 in cases falling under the concurrent *urisdictions of the municipal and cit. courts with the courts of first instance, the appeal shall be made directl. to the Court of Appeals whose decision shall be final> >ro'i"e" howe'er that the #upreme Court in its direction ma., in an. case in+ol+ing a Duestion of law, upon petition of the part. aggrie+ed b. the decision and under rules and conditions that it ma. prescribe, reDuire b.certiorari that the case be certified to it for re+iew and determination, as if the case had been brought before it on appeal. 'Emphasis supplied.( The respondents argue on the other hand that under ,$ 074, decisions of the regional trial court in cases originating from and within the eCclusi+e *urisdiction of the metropolitan or municipal trial courts are not final but sub*ect to appeal in a petition for re+iew to the Court of Appeals. #uch

?HERE ORE, the petition in H.R. No. 0;1<;7 is (ISMISSE(, while the petition in H.R. No. 0;1<35 is 'RANTE(. Accordingl., the appealed Decision dated No+ember 07, 0444 of the CA in CA/H.R. CB No. 13544 is A IRME( with MO(I ICATION that the petitioner in H.R. No. 0;1<35, C.nthia RoCas/del Castillo, is absol+ed from an. liabilit. decreed in the RTC Decision dated #eptember 75, 044G in Ci+il Case No. G5;51, as affirmed b. the CA.

SO OR(ERE(.

CITF O MANILA, represented <& Ma&or 'e;i=iano C. Lope%, Jr., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT O APPEALS and THE ARMF 5 NA4F CLU3, INC., respondents. T$e C$ief Legal Officer for petitioner. %amon ". &on'ales for private respon ent.

CRU!, !.(p Respondent Court of Appeals is faulted in this action for certiorari for ha+ing set aside the order of eCecution dated 8une 02, 0440, and the writ of eCecution issued b. 8udge )ilfredo Re.es of the Regional Trial Court of %anila in Ci+il Case No. 401G551. This was a complaint for unlawful detainer filed b. the Cit. of %anila against pri+ate respondent Arm. and Na+. Club for +iolation of the lease agreement between them o+er a parcel of land on RoCas ,oule+ard in the said cit.. A summar. *udgment in fa+or of the petitioner was rendered b. the

decisions cannot be eCecuted where the period of time for the defendant to perfect his appeal has not .et eCpired. Thus> #ec. 77. ',$ 074( I #ppellate ?uris"iction. B Regional Trial Courts shall eCercise appellate *urisdiction o+er all cases decided b. %etropolitan Trial Courts, %unicipal Trial Courts and %unicipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respecti+e territorial *urisdiction. #uch cases shall be decided on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and:or briefs as ma. be submitted b. the parties or reDuired b. the Regional Trial Courts. 6he "ecision o7 the ,6! in such cases shall @e appeala@le @- petition 7or re'iew to the Anter4e"iate #ppellate !ourt which 4a- +i'e it "ue course onl- when the petition shows pri4a 7acie that the lower court has co44itte" an error o7 7act or law that will warrant a re'ersal or 4o"i7ications o7 the "ecision or ?u"+4ent sou+ht to @e re'iewe". 'Emphasis supplied.( t is useful at this point to re+iew the distinction between a AfinalA *udgment and one which has become Afinal and eCecutor..A n >C=6 84plo-ees Dnion '. >C=6 (ree 6elephone <orkers Dnion : the Court obser+ed> . . . 'A(n order or *udgment is deemed final when it finall. disposes of the pending action so that nothing more can be done with it in the trial court. n other words, a final order is that which gi+es an end to the litigation . . . when the order or *udgment does not dispose of the case completel. but lea+es something to be done upon the merits, it is merel. interlocutor.. The case of #ntonio '. *a4onte 2 elaborated on this matter thus> A final order of *udgment finall. disposes of, ad*udicates, or determines the rights, or some right or rights of the parties, either on the entire contro+ers. or on some definite and separate branch thereof, and concludes them until it is re+ersed or set aside . . .)here no issue is left for future consideration, eCcept the fact of compliance or non/compliance with the terms of the *udgment or order, such *udgment or order is final and appealable. ,. contrast, in An'est4ents Anc. '. !ourt o7 #ppeals, 8 we declared> Now, a Afinal *udgmentA in the sense *ust described becomes final Aupon eCpiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been dul. perfectedA or, an appeal therefrom ha+ing been ta&en, the *udgment of the

appellate tribunal in turn becomes final and the records of the case are returned to the Court of origin. The AfinalA *udgment is then correctl. categori!ed as a Afinal and eCecutor. *udgmentA in respect to which, as the law eCplicitl. pro+ides, AeCecution shall issue as a matter of right.A t bears stressing that onl. a final *udgment or order, i.e., Aa *udgment or order that finall. dispose of the action of proceedingA can become final and eCecutor.. A *udgment becomes Afinal and eCecutor.A b. operation of law. Finalit. of *udgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of the reglementar. period to appeal if no appeal is perfected. n such a situation, the pre+ailing part. is entitled to a writ of eCecution, and issuance thereof is a ministerial dut. of the court. ,oth RA G250 and ,$ 074 pro+ide that decisions of the regional trial court in its appellate capacit. ma. be ele+ated to the Court of Appeals in a petition for re+iew. n effect, both laws recogni!e that such *udgments are AfinalA in the sense that the. finall. dispose of, ad*udicate, or determine the rights of the parties in the case. ,ut such *udgments are not .et Afinal and eCecutor.A pending the eCpiration of the reglementar. period for appeal. During that period, eCecution of the *udgment cannot .et be demanded b. the winning part. as a matter of right. n the present case, the pri+ate respondent had up to 8une 71, 0440, to appeal the decision of the regional trial court. The motion for eCecution was filed b. the petitioner on 8une 02, 0440, before the eCpiration of the said reglementar. period. As the decision had not .et become final and eCecutor. on that date, the motion was premature and should therefore not ha+e been granted. Contrar. to the petitioner=s contention, what the trial court authori!ed was an eCecution pending appeal. )hile it is true that eCecution pending appeal is allowed under Rule 54, #ec. 7, of the Rules of Court, this pro+ision must be strictl. construed, being an eCception to the general rule. The reason allowing this &ind of eCecution must be of such urgenc. as to outweigh the in*ur. or damage of the losing part. should it secure a re+ersal of the *udgment on appeal. Absent an. such *ustification, the order of eCecution must be struc& down as flawed with gra+e abuse of discretion. + )e see no such *ustification in the case before us.

t is worth remar&ing that as the case was not tried under the Rule on #ummar. procedure, the writ of eCecution did not e+en fall under the following #ection 0< thereof > d( #ec. 0<. #ppeal. I The *udgment or final order, including that rendered under #ection 1 hereof, shall be appealable to the appropriate regional trial court which shall decide the same on the basis of the records, in accordance with #ection 77 of ,atas $ambansa ,lg. 074. The decision of the regional trial court in such ci+il cases shall be immediatel. eCecutor.. To sta. the eCecution, a supersedes bond is necessar. eCcept where one has alread. been filed in the lower court. This bond continues to be effecti+e if the *udgment of the regional trial court is appealed. ,ut during the pendenc. of the appeal, the defendant/appellant must continue to depositing with the appellate court the pa.ments reDuired in the appealed *udgment. The rentals accruing during the pendenc. of the appeal must be deposited on or before the date stipulated, if there is one, and in the absence thereof, on or before the dates pro+ided for in #ec. < of Rule 32. Failure to ma&e such deposits or pa.ments is ground for eCecution of the *udgment. 1, #ince the pri+ate respondent in the case at bar has filed a supersedeas bond and the stipulated rental is .earl., 11eCecution ma. issue onl. when it fails to ma&e the .earl. deposit of the rental, and after notice and hearing. #uch default has not .et been established. The Court notes with disappro+al the arbitrar. manner in which #heriff Dominador Cacpal and Deput. #heriff Re.naldo Cordero acted in deli+ering possession of the leased premises to the petitioner. The e+idence shows that the. enforced the writ of eCecution on the same date the. recei+ed it, forcibl. ta&ing out mo+ables from the said premises, including chandeliers, furniture and furnishings, music organs, stereo components, lighting fiCtures and computers. The. turned off the water, cut off the electricit. and disconnected the telephones. The. also unreasonabl. pre+ented ANC members from entering the premises to get their personal belongings. Cacpal and Cordero are hereb. sternl. reprimanded and warned that a repetition of similar arbitrariness will be dealt with more se+erel.. Their conduct was a clear +iolation of the reDuirement that> Ender the Rules of Court the immediate enforcement of a writ of e*ectment eCecution is carried out b. gi+ing the defendant notice of such writ, and ma&ing a demand that defendants compl. therewith within a reasonable

period, normall. from three '5( to fi+e '1( da.s, and it is onl. after such period that the sheriff enforces the writ b. the bodil. remo+al of the defendant and his personal belonging. 10 9n the issue of the propriet. of a special ci+il action for certiorari to assail an order of eCecution pending appeal, this Court has held that I . . . Although #ec. 0, Rule GG of the Rules of Court pro+ides that the special ci+il action of certiorarima. onl. be in+o&ed when Athere is no appeal, nor an. plain, speed. and adeDuate remed. in the 'ordinar.( course of lawA this rule is not without eCception. The a+ailabilit. of the ordinar. course of appeal does not constitute sufficient ground to pre+ent a part. from ma&ing use of the eCtraordinar. remed. of certiorari where the appeal is not an adeDuate remed. or eDuall. beneficial, speed. and sufficient. t is the ina"equacB not the mere absence of all other legal remedies and the danger of failure of *ustice without merit that usuall. determines the propriet. of certiorari. 1* )hile appeal is normall. emplo.ed to Duestion an order or writ which +aries the terms of the decision being eCecuted, it is ne+ertheless not the sole and eCclusi+e remed.. The special ci+il action of certiorari and prohibition under Rule G1 was a+ailable to the pri+ate respondent on the allegation that the regional trial court, in issuing the writ of eCecution, committed gra+e abuse of discretion and acted be.ond its *urisdiction and that the ordinar. remed. of appeal was inadeDuate. The last Duestion to be resol+ed is, assuming that the decision of the regional trial court had alread. become Afinal and eCecutor.,A could the said court order its eCecutionJ The rule is that if the *udgment of the metropolitan trial court is appealed to the regional trial court and the decision of the latter is itself ele+ated to the Court of Appeals, whose decision thereafter became final, the case should be remanded through the regional trial court to the metropolitan trial court for eCecution. 17 The onl. eCception is the eCecution pending appeal, which can be issued b. the regional trial court under #ec. < of Rule 32 or the Court of Appeals or the #upreme Court under #ec. 02 of the same Rule. As pre+iousl. obser+ed, the petitioner has shown no weight. *ustification for the application of the eCception. ?ence, the respondent court committed no error in re+ersing the Regional Trial Court of %anila and annulling the writ of eCecution issued b. it on 8une 02, 0440, pending appeal of its decision.

ACC9RD NH"@, the petition is D #% ##ED, and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is AFF R%ED intoto. No costs. #9 9RDERED. Ear'asa Melencio)0errera Futierre1 Jr. >aras (eliciano >a"illa :i"in Frio)#quino Me"ial"ea ,e+ala"o =a'i"e Jr. an" ,o4ero JJ. concur. (ernan !.J. is on lea'e.

E+er. administration that too& o+er the reins of go+ernment saw the gra+it. of this problem. Thus, each offered to the tenant/tillers its own +ersion of the appropriate legislation for their emancipation. 6he #+ricultural 6enanc- #ct o7 1GHI 'R. A. No. 0044(, the initial attempt of $resident %agsa.sa. at agrarian reform, was concei+ed as a remedial legislation to uplift the social and economic status of tenants. t was insinuated in the legislati+e deliberations that se+eral pro+isions therein operated to depri+e the landowner of his right to contract and his right to propert. without due process of law. ,ut, it was also argued, this in+ol+ed societal +alues and the agricultural tenanc. act was meant to remed. an eCisting social e+il. ?ence, all tenanc. laws that followed thereafter were crafted along this line. This case is now being scrutini!ed and tested against the bedroc& of legal and eDuitable safeguards to achie+e a trul. successful and balanced agrarian reform initiati+e. For more than a Duarter of a centur. petitioner Bictor H. Balencia, a go+ernment retiree, sought *ustice through administrati+e and *udicial channels to regain possession of his two '7( parcels of land which he claims to ha+e been un*ustl. withheld from him b. persons claiming to be tenants with the ostensible complicit. of go+ernment officials implementing the agrarian reform program. n the meantime his appeal for fairness and *ustice was denied him through procedural infirmities. )e are now as&ed to probe into his lonel. plight with a reminder that it is our solemn dut. to dispense eDual *ustice to the rich and the poor. <e ha'e repeate"l- stresse" that social ?ustice ) or an- ?ustice 7or that 4atter ) is 7or the "eser'in+ whether he @e a 4illionaire in his 4ansion or a pauper in his ho'el. At is true that in case o7 reasona@le "ou@t we are to tilt the @alance in 7a'or o7 the poor to who4 the !onstitution 7ittin+l- e9ten"s its s-4path- an" co4passion. :ut ne'er is it ?usti7ie" to +i'e pre7erence to the poor si4pl- @ecause the- are poor or re?ect the rich si4pl- @ecause theare rich 7or ?ustice 4ust alwa-s @e ser'e" 7or the poor an" the rich alike accor"in+ to the 4an"ate o7 the law.O0P The propert. in dispute in+ol+es two '7( parcels of land situated at ,aranga. "inothangan, Canlaon Cit., Negros 9riental, co+ered b. TCT No. ?/T/053 with an area of 75.3734 hectares, and b. ?omestead Application No. ?A/ 750G20 with Final $roof and TaC Declaration No. 2101 with an area of G.;543 hectares.

ICTOR '. 4ALENCIA, petitioner, vs. COURT O APPEALS, HON. TEO ISTO T. 'UIN'ONA, JR., as EHe.$tive Se.retar&, HON. ERNESTO 'ARILAO, Se.retar& o9 A>rarian Re9or;, CRISOSTOMO M. CORPIN, Re>iona= (ire.tor, (AR Re>ion 4II, SANTOS 'AR'AFA, JULIANO MA'(AFAO, CRESCENCIANO RIAS, E(ERICO JARE, ROSEN(O LO3RESCO, ERNESTO LO3RESCO, ELICIANO LO3RESCO, CATALINO MANTAC, 4ICTORIANO MONTE) ALCON, RANCISCO O3AN', AM3ROSIO SEMILLANO, RO'ELIO TAMAFO and E(IL3ERTO LO3RESCO,respon ents. (ECISION 3ELLOSILLO, !.6 T?E TENANC@ CR # # N T?E $? " $$ NE# is not *ust of recent +intage. ?istor. is replete with instances where tenant/farmers, relegated to a life of perpetual bondage, ha+e rushed onto the battlefield with hopes of freedom from imminent thralldom, aptl. described b. $rofessor ?arold 8. "as&i as the normal life of the poor / their perpetual fear of the morrow, their haunting sense of impending disaster, their fitful search for beaut. that perpetuall. eludes them.

9n 3 %a. 0413 Bictor H. Balencia acDuired the first parcel co+ered b. TCT No. ?/T/053 from a certain ,onifacio #upnet. The onl. tenant of the propert. at that time was a certain Digo. ,esario who was succeeded b. his son 8esus ,esario. 9n 7 8ul. 04G0 Balencia and 8esus ,esario terminated their landlord/tenant relationship through a public instrument +oluntaril. eCecuted b. them, thus re+erting the actual ph.sical possession of the propert. to petitioner Balencia. 9n 77 9ctober 04G7 Balencia entered into a ten '02(/.ear ci+il law lease agreement o+er his two '7( parcels of land with a certain Hlicerio ?enson. ,efore the ten '02(/.ear lease eCpired, apparentl. without ob*ection from ?enson, Balencia leased the propert. for fi+e '1( .ears to Fr. Andres Flores under a ci+il law lease concept beginning 70 August 0432 or until 52 8une 0431 after which the lease was cancelled and inscribed as Entr. No. 013< in TCT No. ?/T/053. The lease agreement between Balencia and Fr. Flores was sub*ect to a prohibition against subleasing or encumbering the land without BalenciaNs written consent. This was admitted b. the parties as reflected in the DAR An'esti+ation ,eport an" ,eco44en"ations.O7P The prohibition against subleasing or encumbering of the land apparentl. included the prohibition against installing a leasehold tenant thereon. ncidentall., it ma. be mentioned that in the prior lease agreement with ?enson no such prohibition was stipulated. During the period of his lease, ?enson instituted Crescenciano Frias and %arciano Frias to wor& on the propert., although onl. Crescenciano Frias apparentl. remained in the land while %arciano Frias must ha+e abandoned his cause if an., as he was not impleaded in this case6 neither did he appear on record to ha+e been issued a C"T in his name. During the lease of Fr. Andres Flores, he designated Francisco 9bang 'as o+erseer(, Rogelio Tama.o, Federico 8are, Feliciano "obresco, %elchor %oncada, Rosendo "obresco, Bictoriano %ontefalcon, #antos Harga.a, Catalino %antac, ?erodita #emillano, Ernesto "obresco, Nati+idad "obresco and Alfredo Demerin, along with Crescenciano and %arciano Frias, to culti+ate the land. These farmhands shared their produce with Fr. Flores. #ubseDuentl., Francisco 9bang, #antos Harga.a, Crescenciano Frias, Federico 8are, Rosendo "obresco, 8uliano %agda.ao, Ernesto "obresco, Feliciano "obresco, Catalino %antac, Bictoriano %ontefalcon, Ambrosio #emillano, Rogelio Tama.o and Edilberto "obresco, became recipients of C"Ts and are collecti+el. referred to herein as pri+ate respondents.

)hen the lease agreement between Balencia and Fr. Flores eCpired on 52 8une 0431, Balencia demanded that pri+ate respondents +acate the premises. nstead of compl.ing with the demand, the. refused and continued culti+ating the land despite the demand for them to +acate. Balencia wanted to regain possession of his propert. so he could wor& it b. administration, ha+ing in fact appointed ,ernie ,autista as o+erseer until petitioner could retire from the go+ernment ser+ice. n his initial step in his long and agoni!ing *ourne., Balencia filed a letter of protest with the %inister of Agrarian Reform to ta&e bac& the actual possession of his propert. that was sub*ect of the ci+il law lease agreement. 9n 72 %arch 043G his letter was referred to the DAR Regional 9ffice in Cebu Cit.. %eanwhile, without the &nowledge much less consent of Balencia, pri+ate respondents applied for Certificates of "and Transfer 'C"Ts( under the 9peration "and Transfer '9"T( $rogram pursuant to $residential Decree No. 73 claiming the. were @ona 7i"e tenants of the propert.. 9n 02 December 04<1, while the in+estigation was being conducted b. the DAR pursuant to petitionerNs letter of protest of 72 %arch 043G, but before it could be terminated, the DAR issued the Duestioned C"Ts to pri+ate respondents. The DAR Team 9ffice in Canlaon Cit. pursuant to the 9peration "and Transfer $rogram under $res. Decree No. 73 and "etter of nstruction No. ;3; identified the following persons as farmer/beneficiaries> O5P NA%E A. TAL DEC. No. 2101 0. #antos Harga.a 7. 8uliano %agda.ao 2/2300G2 a( 2/2300G0 b( 2/2300G5 c( 2/2300GG d( 2/230031 ,. TCT No. ?T/053 5. Crescenciano Frias 2/2300G; 2001 2.<<42 ha. 2000 2077 200; 2003 207; 2.5522 ha. 2.5512 ha. 2.7112 ha. 2.;<71 ha. 2.50;2 ha. C"T N9. "9T N9. AREA 'hectares(

;. Federico 8are

a( 2/30030 b( 2/30037

2072 2070 2051 2074 2057 2055 205; 2005 205G 200<

2.;G22 ha. 2.7122 ha. 2.7551 ha. 0.2571 ha. 2.<422 ha. 2.<;22 ha. 2.5;22 ha. 2.2;71 ha. 2.0<22 ha. 0.722 has. 2.25;2 ha. 2.0051 ha. 2.25;2 ha. 2.5;22 ha 0.72;2 has. 02.0211 has

1. Rosendo "obresco

a( 2/2300<4 b( 2/2300<7

G. Ernesto "obresco

a( 2/2300<1 b( 2/300<3

3. Feliciano "obresco <. Catalino %antac 4. Bictoriano %ontefalcon 02. Francisco 9bang 00. Ambrosio #emillano

2/2300<< 2/2300G7 2/230042

2/2300G< a( 2/2300G1 b( 2/23003G c( 2/230033 200G 2071 207G 2054 2077

an on/site in+estigation and inspection of the Balencia propert., Att.. Ampong, in his An'esti+ation ,eport an" ,eco44en"ations dated 3 December 04<< found that> 'a( ,ernie ,autista, without an. authorit. from protestant Balencia, obtained and:or recei+ed shares of the pala. produced e+er. har+est from pri+ate respondents starting 0431 to 04<5 with his wife ?a!el issuing the corresponding receipts6 'b( #ince the time ,autista and spouse obtained and:or recei+ed the owner=s shares of the produce from pri+ate respondents not a single ca+an nor its eDui+alent in cash was turned o+er or remitted to Balencia6 'c( $ri+ate respondents stopped gi+ing the landowner=s shares to ,autista and his wife when the. alread. refused to issue receipts, and so from then on pri+ate respondents appropriated to themsel+es all the landowner=s shares6 'd( )hile en*o.ing the possession, culti+ation and utili!ation of the two '7( parcels of land, some of the pri+ate respondents sublet their farmholdings for financial considerations and turned them o+er to the sublessees for specified periods6O;P 'e( The DAR Team 9ffice in Canlaon Cit. had the landholding included in the Final #ur+e. of 04<5 notwithstanding BalenciaNs pending protest contesting the issuance of the C"Ts6O1P and, 'f( #ometime in Februar. 04<< Balencia and Catalino %antac entered into a leasehold contract o+er a 2.2;71 hectare of the 75.3734 hectares co+ered b. TCT No. ?/T/053.OGP Att.. Bilmo Ampong also found that the right of pri+ate respondents to the land ceased upon the termination of the lease contracts, eCcept as regards respondent Catalino %antac with whom petitioner Balencia entered into a tenanc. agreement. Att.. Ampong further confirmed that Balencia did not recei+e an.thing from pri+ate respondents as consideration for tilling his land. ConseDuentl., Att.. Ampong recommended that the C"Ts issued to pri+ate respondents be cancelled and the final sur+e. conducted on the landholding of Balencia set aside. 9n 7; August 04<4 the DAR Regional 9ffice in Cebu Cit., in DARR9 Adm. Case No. B /003/<4, notwithstanding the An'esti+ation ,eport an" ,eco44en"ations of its DAR Team 9ffice, dismissed Balencia=s protest and held that pri+ate respondents had the right to continue on the land until otherwise ordered b. the court.O3P Balencia mo+ed for reconsideration but on 07 8ul. 0440 the motion was denied. This setbac& of Balencia prompted him to appeal to the 9ffice of the $resident under authorit. of DAR %emo. Circ. No. 5, series of 044;, arguing that the #ecretar. of Agrarian ReformO<Perred in considering pri+ate respondents as tenants and in not recogni!ing petitionerNs right of retention

07. Rogelio Tama.o 05. Edilberto "obresco

2/23004; 2/230035

Total Area

n +iew of the issuance of C"Ts to pri+ate respondents, petitioner Balencia filed a second letter of protest and reDuested an in+estigation and subseDuent cancellation of the C"Ts. n Februar. 04<< petitioner Balencia and Catalino %antac, one of pri+ate respondents, entered into a leasehold contract underta&ing to ha+e a profit/ sharing agreement. No other respondent entered into an. agreement or tenanc. contract, whether written or +erbal, with Balencia, ?enson or Fr. Flores. 9n G and < 8ul. 04<< an administrati+e in+estigation was conducted b. the DAR ?earing 9fficer, Att.. Bilmo Ampong. This was done more than twel+e '07( .ears after the initial letter of protest was filed on 72 %arch 043G. After

under R. A. No. GG13 otherwise &nown as 6he !o4prehensi'e #+rarian ,e7or4 Caw. 9n < 9ctober 0445 ECecuti+e #ecretar. Teofisto Huingona, 8r., b. authorit. of the $resident, affirmed the order of the DAR of 07 8ul. 0440 sub*ect to the modification that the area acDuired b. petitioner Balencia as homestead be eCcluded from the co+erage of $. D. No. 73. Balencia then brought his case to the Court of Appeals contending that the ECecuti+e #ecretar. erred in recogni!ing pri+ate respondents as tenants and disallowing him and his se+en '3( Qcompulsor. heirsR from eCercising their right of retention under R. A. No. GG13. ?owe+er, in a decision promulgated on 73 8ul. 0441 the Court of Appeals dismissed the case on a technical ground, i.e., that his appeal was filed out of time. O4P The appellate court ruled that petitioner should ha+e filed with it a petition for re+iew within fifteen '01( da.s from receipt of the order of the DAR #ecretar. pursuant to #ec. 1; of R. A. No. GG13 and #upreme Court Adm. Circ. No. 0/41, instead of ele+ating the case to the 9ffice of the $resident pursuant to DAR %emo. Circ. No. 5, series of 044;. ?ence, according to the Court of Appeals, the petition of Balencia was filed out of time. 9n 77 #eptember 0441 petitionerNs motion for reconsideration was denied. n its Resolution the Court of Appeals, citing *hell >hilippines Anc. '. !entral :ank O02P held that in case of discrepanc. between the basic law and a rule or regulation issued to implement the law, the basic law pre+ails because the rule or regulation cannot go be.ond the terms and pro+isions of the basic law.O00P Thus, DAR %emo. Circ. No. 5, series of 044;, according to the Court of Appeals, cannot be considered +alid and effecti+e since it runs counter to #ec. 1; of R. A. No. GG13 which pro+ides for an appeal from an. decision, order, award or ruling b. the DAR to the Court of Appeals. O07P "i&ewise, the appellate court held that the doctrine of eChaustion of administrati+e remedies does not appl. in the present case where the respondent is a Department #ecretar. whose acts, as alter ego of the $resident, bear the implied appro+al of the latter. O05P Balencia filed this >etition 7or ,e'iew on !ertiorari under Rule ;1 of the Rules of Court see&ing to re+erse and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA/H.R. #$ No. 57GG4 dated 73 8ul. 0441 as well as its Resolution den.ing his %otion for Reconsideration of 77 #eptember 0441. $etitioner contends that DAR %emo. Circ. No. 5, series of 044;, is +alid not being contrar. to law and *urisprudence, and should be accorded respect

being the Agrarian Reform #ecretar.Ns construction of the law that his Department administers and implements. $ublic respondents, on the other hand, a+er that #ecs. 01 and 72 of ,oo& B of E. 9. No. 747 which are cited as the legal bases of DAR %emo. Circ. No. 5 refer to the procedure for administrati+e appeals from an agenc. to the Department ?ead which in this case is the DAR through its #ecretar.. The. argue that there is no pro+ision for appeal to the 9ffice of the $resident since in the administrati+e structure the #ecretar. of Agrarian Reform is the alter ego of the $resident. The. contend that #ec. 75 of ,oo& B cites the finalit. of the decision of the appellate agenc. without pro+iding for a further appeal, and that #ec. 71 pro+ides for *udicial re+iew from an agenc. decision, as the. point to #ec. 1; of R. A. No. GG13O0;P and #C Adm. Circ. No. 0/41.O01P )e agree with petitioner. nterpreting and harmoni!ing laws with laws is the best method of interpretation. Anterpretare et concor"are le+es le+i@us est opti4us interpretan"i 4o"us.O0GP This manner of construction would pro+ide a complete, consistent and intelligible s.stem to secure the rights of all persons affected b. different legislati+e and Duasi/legislati+e acts. )here two '7( rules on the same sub*ect, or on related sub*ects, are apparentl. in conflict with each other, the. are to be reconciled b. construction, so far as ma. be, on an. fair and reasonable h.pothesis. Balidit. and legal effect should therefore be gi+en to both, if this can be done without destro.ing the e+ident intent and meaning of the later act. E+er. statute should recei+e such a construction as will harmoni!e it with the pre/eCisting bod. of laws. ?armoni!ing DAR %emo. Circ. No. 5, series of 044;, with #C Adm. Circ. No. 0/41 and #ec. 1; of R. A. No. GG13 would be consistent with promoting the ends of substantial *ustice for all parties see&ing the protecti+e mantle of the law. To reconcile and harmoni!e them, due consideration must be gi+en to the purpose for which each was promulgated. The purpose of DAR %emo. Circ. No. 5, series of 044;, is to pro+ide a mode of appeal for matters not falling within the *urisdictional ambit of the Department of Agrarian Reform Ad*udication ,oard 'DARA,( under R. A. No. GG13 and correct technical errors of the administrati+e agenc.. n such eCceptional cases, the Department #ecretar. has established a mode of appeal from the Department of Agrarian Reform to the 9ffice of the $resident as a plain, speed., adeDuate and ineCpensi+e remed. in the ordinar. course of law. This would enable the 9ffice of the $resident, through the ECecuti+e #ecretar., to re+iew technical matters within the eCpertise of the administrati+e machiner. before *udicial re+iew can be resorted to b. wa. of

an appeal to the Court of Appeals under Rule ;5 of the 0443 Rules on Ci+il $rocedure. 9n the other hand, the purpose of #C Adm. Circ. No. 0/41, now embodied in Rule ;5 of the 0443 Rules of Ci+il $rocedure, is to in+o&e the constitutional power of *udicial re+iew o+er Duasi/*udicial agencies, such as the Department of Agrarian Reform under R. A. No. GG13 and the 9ffice of the $resident in other cases b. pro+iding for an appeal to the Court of Appeals. #ection 1; of R. A. No. GG13 is consistent with #C Adm. Circ. No. 0/41 and Rule ;5 in that it establishes a mode of appeal from the DARA, to the Court of Appeals. n #n+ara '. 8lectoral !o44ission this Court upheld the promulgation of the rules of procedure of the Commission since the. were necessar. to the proper eCercise of its eCpress power to hear and decide election contests in+ol+ing members of the legislature, although not specificall. granted b. the Constitution or statute.O03P )e ruledO0<P / 9 9 9 the creation o7 the 8lectoral !o44ission carrie" with it e9 necesitate rei the power re+ulati'e in character to li4it the ti4e within which protests intruste" to its co+ni1ance shoul" @e 7ile". At is a settle" rule o7 construction that where a +eneral power is con7erre" or "ut- en?oine" e'er- particular power necessar- 7or the e9ercise o7 the one or the per7or4ance o7 the other is also con7erre" 3!oole- !onstitutional Ci4itations Jt h e". Kol. A pp. 1LJ 1LG5. An the a@sence o7 an- 7urther constitutional pro'ision relatin+ to the proce"ure to @e 7ollowe" in 7ilin+ protests @e7ore the 8lectoral !o44ission there7ore the inci"ental power to pro4ul+ate such rules necessar- 7or the proper e9ercise o7 its e9clusi'e power 9 9 9 4ust @e "ee4e" @- necessari4plication to ha'e @een lo"+e" also in the 8lectoral !o44ission 'emphasis supplied(. Thus, the power of the Department #ecretar. to promulgate internal rules of administrati+e procedure is lodged in him @- necessar- i4plication as part of his eCpress power to Qpromulgate rules and regulations necessar. to carr. out department ob*ecti+es, policies, functions, plans, programs and pro*ects.RO04P s an appeal to the 9ffice of the $resident from the Department #ecretar. pursuant to DAR %emo. Circ. No. 5, series of 044;, proper under the doctrine of eChaustion of administrati+e remediesJ $etitioner contends that an appeal to the 9ffice of the $resident from the #ecretar. of Agrarian Reform is proper under the doctrine of eChaustion of

administrati+e remedies. 9n the other hand, it is the contention of public respondent, the 9ffice of the #olicitor Heneral, that an eCception to this well/ settled principle is the doctrine of Dualified political agenc.. )here the respondent is a Department #ecretar., whose acts as an alter ego of the $resident bear the implied or assumed appro+al of the latter, unless the $resident actuall. disappro+es them, administrati+e remedies ha+e alread. been eChausted. Recourse to the court ma. be made at that point, according to pri+ate respondents, a +iew that was sustained b. the Court of Appeals. n this case, the appellate court ruled that the appeal before it was filed be.ond the reglementar. period as petitioner appealed to the 9ffice of the $resident, and not to the Court of Appeals, where it should ha+e been brought. n 6an '. =irector o7 (orestr- this Court ruled that e+en if the respondent was a Department #ecretar., an appeal to the $resident was proper where the law e9pressl- pro'i"e" 7or e9haustion.O72P As a +alid eCercise of the #ecretar.Ns rule/ma&ing power to issue internal rules of procedure, DAR %emo. Circ. No. 5, series of 044;, eCpressl. pro+ides for an appeal to the 9ffice of the $resident. Thus, petitioner Balencia filed on 7; No+ember 0445 a timel. appeal b. wa. of a petition for re+iew under Rule ;5 to the Court of Appeals from the decision of the 9ffice of the $resident, which was recei+ed on 00 No+ember 0445, well within the fifteen '01(/da. reglementar. period. An administrati+e decision must first be appealed to administrati+e superiors up to the highest le+el before it ma. be ele+ated to a court of *ustice for re+iew. The power of *udicial re+iew ma. therefore be eCercised onl. if an appeal is first made b. the highest administrati+e bod. in the hierarch. of the eCecuti+e branch of go+ernment. n !alo '. (uertes this Court held that an administrati+e appeal to the $resident was the final step in the administrati+e process and thus a condition precedent to a *udicial appeal.O70P ?ence, an appeal to the 9ffice of the $resident from the decision of the Department #ecretar. in an administrati+e case is the last step that an aggrie+ed part. should ta&e in the administrati+e hierarch., as it is a plain, speed. and adeDuate remed. a+ailable to the petitioner. ndeed, certain procedural technicalities ha+e beclouded this case from the outset such that the substanti+e issue regarding the true nature of the relationship between petitioner and pri+ate respondents was not addressed b. the Court of Appeals, hence, the raison ";tre of the case. t must necessaril. be discussed if this Court were to resol+e with finalit. the

protracted conflict that has lasted o+er twent./fi+e '71( .ears. )e are resol+ing the Duestion at this point to bring this case once and for all to a *ust, fair and eDuitable conclusion. )here there are clear errors of law this Court must eCercise its constitutional power of *udicial re+iew to correct such errors. The substanti+e issue to be resol+ed ma. be eCpressed in this manner> Can a contract of ci+il law lease prohibit a ci+il law lessee from emplo.ing a tenant on the land sub*ect matter of the lease agreementJ 9therwise stated, can petitionerNs ci+il law lessee, Fr. Flores, install tenants on the sub*ect premises without eCpress authorit. to do so under Art. 0G;4 of the Ci+il Code, more so when the lessee is eCpressl. prohibited from doing so, as in the instant caseJ Contrar. to the impression of pri+ate respondents, #ec. G of R. A. No. 5<;;, as amended, does not automaticall. authori!e a ci+il law lessee to emplo. a tenant without the consent of the landowner. The lessee must be so specificall. authori!ed. For the right to hire a tenant is basicall. a personal ri+ht o7 a lan"owner, eCcept as ma. be pro+ided b. law. :ut certainlnowhere in *ec. M "oes it sa- that a ci'il law lessee o7 a lan"hol"in+ is auto4aticall- authori1e" to install a tenant thereon . A different interpretation would create a per+erse and absurd situation where a person who wants to be a tenant, and ta&ing ad+antage of this percei+ed ambiguit. in the law, as&s a third person to become a ci+il law lessee of the landowner. ncredibl., this tenant would technicall. ha+e a better right o+er the propert. than the landowner himself. This tenant would then gain securit. of tenure, and e+entuall. become owner of the land b. operation of law. This is most unfair to the hapless and unsuspecting landowner who entered into a ci+il law lease agreement in good faith onl. to reali!e later on that he can no longer regain possession of his propert. due to the installation of a tenant b. the ci+il law lessee. 9n the other hand, under the eCpress pro+ision of Art. 0G;4 of the Ci+il Code, the lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor, unless there is a stipulation to the contrar.. n the case before us, not onl. is there no stipulation to the contrar.6 the lessee is eCpressl. prohibited from subleasing or encumbering the land, which includes installing a leasehold tenant thereon since the right to do so is an attribute of ownership. $lainl. stated therefore, a contract of ci+il law lease can prohibit a ci+il law lessee from emplo.ing a tenant on the land sub*ect matter of the lease agreement. An eCtensi+e and correct discussion of the statutor.

interpretation of #ec. G of R. A. No. 5<;;, as amended, is pro+ided b. the minorit. +iew in :ernas '. !ourt o7 #ppeals.O77P )hen #ec. G pro+ides that the agricultural leasehold relations shall be limited to the person who furnishes the landholding, either as owner, ci+il law lessee, usufructuar., or legal possessor, and the person who personall. culti+ates the same, it assumes that there is alread. an eCisting agricultural leasehold relation, i.e., a tenant or agricultural lessee alread. wor&s the land. The epigraph of #ec. G merel. states who are Q>arties to #+ricultural Ceasehol" ,elations,R which assumes that there is alread. a leasehold tenant on the land6 not until then. This is precisel. what we are still as&ed to determine in the instant proceedings. To better understand #ec. G, let us refer to its precursor, #ec. < of R. A. No. 0044, as amended.O75P Again, #ec. < of R. A. No. 0044 assumes the eCistence of a tenanc. relation. As its epigraph suggests, it is a QCi4itation o7 ,elation,R and the purpose is merel. to limit the tenanc. Qto the person who furnishes the land, either as owner, lessee, usufructuar., or legal possessor, and to the person who actuall. wor&s the land himself with the aid of labor a+ailable from within his immediate farm household.R 9nce the tenanc. relation is established, the parties to that relation are limited to the persons therein stated. 9b+iousl., inherent in the right of landholders to install a tenant is their authorit- to do so6 otherwise, without such authorit- ci'il law lessees as lan"hol"ers cannot install a tenant on the lan"hol"in+ . Eeither *ec. M o7 ,. #. Eo. LJII nor *ec. J o7 ,. #. Eo. 11GG auto4aticall- authori1es the persons na4e" therein to e4plo- a tenant on the lan"hol"in+ . According to %r. 8ustice Huillermo #. #antos and CAR ECecuti+e 8udge Artemio C. %acalino, respected authorities on agrarian reform, the reason for #ec. G of R. A. No. 5<;; and #ec. < of R. A. No. 0044 in limiting the relationship to the lessee and the lessor is to Qdiscourage absenteeism on the part of the lessor and the custom of co/tenanc.R under which Qthe tenant 'lessee( emplo.s another to do the farm wor& for him, although it is he with whom the landholder 'lessor( deals directl.. Thus, under this practice, the one who actuall. wor&s the land gets the short end of the bargain, for the nominal or ScapitalistN lessee hugs for himself a ma*or portion of the har+est.RO7;P This breeds eCploitation, discontent and confusion C C C C The kasu+pon+, kasapi, or katulon+also wor&s at the pleasure of the nominal tenant.O71P )hen the new law, therefore, limited tenanc. relation to the landholder and the person who actuall. wor&s the land himself with the

aid of labor a+ailable from within his immediate farm household, it eliminated the nominal tenant or middleman from the picture. O7GP Another noted authorit. on land reform, Dean 8eremias E. %ontema.or, O73P eCplains the rationale for #ec. < of R. A. No. 0044, the precursor of #ec. G of R. A. No. 5<;;> *ince the law esta@lishes a special relationship in tenanc- with i4portant consequences it properl- pinpoints the persons to who4 sai" relationship shall appl-. 6he spirit o7 the law is to pre'ent @oth lan"hol"er a@senteeis4 an" tenant a@senteeis4. 6hus it woul" see4 that the "iscretionar- powers an" i4portant "uties o7 the lan"hol"er like the choice o7 crop or see" cannot @e le7t to the will or capacit- o7 an a+ent or o'erseer ?ust as the culti'ation o7 the lan" cannot @e entruste" @- the tenant to so4e other people. 6enanc- relationship has @een hel" to @e o7 a personal character .O7<P #ection G as alread. stated simpl. enumerates who are the parties to an eCisting contract of agricultural tenanc., which presupposes that a tenanc. alread. eCists. t does not state that those who furnish the landholding, i.e., either as owner, ci+il law lessee, usufructuar., or legal possessor, are automaticall. authori!ed to emplo. a tenant on the landholding. The reason is ob+ious. The ci+il lease agreement ma. be restricti+e. E+en the owner himself ma. not be free to install a tenant, as when his ownership or possession is encumbered or is sub*ect to a lien or condition that he should not emplo. a tenant thereon. This contemplates a situation where the propert. ma. be intended for some other specific purpose allowed b. law, such as, its con+ersion into an industrial estate or a residential subdi+ision. Ender Casti4o1a '. :lanco,O74P pri+ate respondents in that case could not be lawful tenants of the landowner for the reason that the ci+il law lessees, after failing to return the landholding to the landowner, alread. became deforciants. A deforciant cannot install a lawful tenant who is entitled to securit. of tenure. Attention ma. be in+ited to settled *urisprudence that the eCistence of an agricultural leasehold relationship is not terminated b. changes of ownership in case of sale, or transfer of legal possession as in lease. O52P This, again, assumes that tenanc. alread. eCists. n the case at bar, no such relationship was e+er created between the ci+il law lessees and pri+ate respondents, and subseDuentl., between Balencia and pri+ate respondents eCcept Catalino %antac. )ith respect to the lease agreement between Balencia and Fr. Flores, the lessee did not ha+e an. authorit. to sublease BalenciaNs propert.

due to the prohibition in their lease agreement. t is li&ewise in clear and unambiguous terms that the lease agreement was onl. for a limited duration with no eCtension.O50P n >once '. Fue'arraO57P and Jo-a '. >are?aO55P the agricultural leasehold relations were preser+ed because the Qlegal possessors therein were clearl. clothed with legal authorit. or capacit. to install tenants.R ,ut e+en assuming that the. were not so authori!ed as in the >once case where the ci+il law lessee was eCpressl. barred from installing a tenant under their contract of lease, the subseDuent actions of the landowners in eCtending the lifetime of the lease, or in negotiating for better terms with the tenants, placed the landowners in estoppel to contest the agricultural leasehold relations. ConseDuentl., the tenants in those cases ma. be categori!ed as tenants "e ?ure en*o.ing tenurial securit. guaranteed b. the Agricultural Tenanc. "aw, now b. the Agricultural "and Reform Code, as amended. This is not the case before us. t must be noted that Balencia ne+er eCtended the term of the ci+il law lease, nor did he negotiate with respondents for Qbetter termsR upon the eCpiration of the lease. ?e wanted precisel. to reco+er possession of the propert. upon the eCpiration of the contract on 52 8une 0431, eCcept from %antac with whom he alread. entered into a tenanc. contract as herein before stated. Balencia appointed an o+erseer to prepare for his e+entual ta&eo+er and to culti+ate the propert. through labor administration after his long .ears in the go+ernment ser+ice. Beril., the intention of Balencia after the eCpiration of the lease contract was for him to culti+ate the land b. administration, or b. himself, and not to surrender possession, much less ownership, to the pri+ate respondents. There ma. be apprehensions that should #ec. G of R. A. No. 5<;; be construed as not to +est the ci+il law lessee or legal possessor with automatic authorit. to install tenants, it would in effect open the floodgates to their e*ectment on the mere preteCt that the ci+il law lessee or legal possessor was not so authori!ed b. the landowner. This is more imagined than real. n the +er. recent case of Fan1on '. !ourt o7 #ppeals decided 52 8ul. 7227, this Court resol+ed the issue of whether the pri+ate respondents should be considered agricultural tenants of the petitioner.O5;P The Court ruled that the respondents were not instituted as agricultural lessees but as ci+il law lessees of the land. This was e+ident from the contract of lease eCecuted b. the parties. The respondents were neither Qi4plie"l-R instituted as tenants nor designated as agricultural lessees

b. reason alone of the acDuiescence b. petitioner to the continued possession of the propert.. The Department of Agrarian Reform in Fan1on made the factual determination that the agreement entered into between Florisco ,anhaw 'one of the respondents( and Carolina ". Han!on 'petitioner( was a ci+il law lease. ?owe+er, there was no e+idence to pro+e that the other defendants in that case allegedl. instituted as tenants were sharing or pa.ing rentals to Florisco ,anhaw or to the landowner. The DAR held that mere allegation without the corresponding receipts would not sufficientl. establish a tenanc. relationship especiall. since there was an eCpress prohibition in the ci+il law lease contract from subleasing the sub*ect land to an. other person. O51P From the foregoing discussion, it is reasonable to conclude that a ci+il law lessee cannot auto4aticall- institute tenants on the propert. under to #ec. G of R. A. No. 5<;;. The correct +iew that must necessaril. be adopted is that the ci+il law lessee, although a legal possessor, ma. not install tenants on the propert. unless eCpressl. authori!ed b. the lessor. And if a prohibition eCists or is stipulated in the contract of lease the occupants of the propert. are merel. ci+il law sublessees whose rights terminate upon the eCpiration of the ci+il law lease agreement. n the present case, the Decision of the #ecretar. of Agrarian Reform, as modified b. the 9ffice of the $resident through the ECecuti+e #ecretar., held that pri+ate respondents were deemed leasehold tenants. The. anchored their proposition on #ec. G of R. A. No. 5<;;, as amended, otherwise &nown as 6he #+ricultural Can" ,e7or4 !o"e, which states that since the ci+il law lessees had a +alid contract with Balencia, the sublessees were auto4aticall- deemed his tenants b. operation of law. This conclusion espoused b. the #ecretar. of Agrarian Reform is arbitrar. and unfounded. The following essential requisites must concur in order to establish a tenanc. relationship>O5GP 'a( the parties being landowner and tenant6 'b( the sub*ect matter is agricultural land6 'c( there is consent b. the landowner6 'd( the purpose is agricultural production6 'e( there is personal culti+ation b. the tenant6 and, 'f( there is sharing of har+ests between the parties. An allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in Duestion does not ma&e the case an agrarian dispute.O53P Claims that one is a tenant do not automaticall. gi+e rise to securit. of tenure. The elements of tenanc. must first be pro+ed in order to entitle the claimant to securit. of tenure. O5<P

A tenanc. relationship cannot be presumed. There must be e+idence to pro+e this allegation. ?ence, a perusal of the records and documents is in order to determine whether there is substantial e+idence to pro+e the allegation that a tenanc. relationship does eCist between petitioner and pri+ate respondents. The principal factor in determining whether a tenanc. relationship eCists is intent. Tenanc. is not a purel. factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. t is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and their written agreements, pro+ided these are complied with and are not contrar. to law, are e+en more important. O54P n !a@alles '. =#,O;2P the Court held that all these reDuisites must concur in order to create a tenanc. relationship. The absence of one does not ma&e an occupant or a culti+ator thereof or a planter thereon a "e ?ure tenant. This is so because unless a person has established his status as a "e ?ure tenant he is not entitled to securit. of tenure nor is he co+ered b. the "and Reform $rogram of the Ho+ernment under eCisting tenanc. laws. O;0P The securit. of tenure guaranteed b. our tenanc. laws ma. be in+o&ed onl. b. tenants "e ?ure, not b. those who are not true and lawful tenants. O;7P n :eren+uer Jr. '. !ourt o7 #ppeals this Court ruled that the respondentsN self/ser+ing statements regarding their tenanc. relations could not establish the claimed relationship.O;5P The fact alone of wor&ing on anotherNs landholding does not raise a presumption of the eCistence of agricultural tenanc..O;;P #ubstantial e+idence does not onl. entail the presence of a mere scintilla of e+idence in order that the fact of sharing can be established6 there must be concrete e+idence on record adeDuate enough to pro+e the element of sharing.O;1P :e?asa '. !ourt o7 #ppeals similarl. ruled that to pro+e sharing of har+ests, a receipt or an. other e+idence must be presented as self/ ser+ing statements are deemed inadeDuate.O;GP n the present case, it is not disputed that the relationship between Balencia and ?enson, and subseDuentl., Balencia and Fr. Flores, partoo& of a ci+il law lease. ?enson and later Fr. Flores were not instituted as agricultural lessees but as ci+il law lessees. As a finding of fact, the #ecretar. of Agrarian Reform held that a written ci+il law lease contract between Balencia and Fr. Flores was on file which contained in clear and precise terms the stipulation prohibiting the subleasing or encumbering of his parcels of land without the written consent of Balencia.O;3P The #ecretar. e+en went as far as

stating for the record that such stipulation barring the subletting of the propert. was +iolated b. Fr. Flores when he subleased the sub*ect parcels of land to pri+ate respondents.O;<P The findings of fact b. the DAR ?earing 9fficer, Att.. Ampong, in his An'esti+ation ,eport an" ,eco44en"ations dated 3 December 04<< concerning the admission b. pri+ate respondents that the. ne+er turned o+er the rentals or har+ests to Balencia and, instead, to his o+erseer who was not authori!ed to recei+e an. pa.ments, must be deemed conclusi+e. O;4P As to the ci+il law lease between Balencia and Fr. Flores, the prohibition against subletting the propert. without the written consent of Balencia must be upheld. Thus, there is no tenurial securit. for pri+ate respondents designated b. the ci+il law lessee, eCcept for the oft/mentioned Catalino %antac. Furthermore, it must be noted that pri+ate respondents Ernesto "obresco and Francisco 9bang sublet the land to third persons. E+en assuming ar+uen"o then that the. were tenants, although installed without authorit., the act of subletting to third persons eCtinguished the agricultural leasehold relations of Ernesto "obresco and Francisco 9bang as it constituted an abandonment of the landholding due to absence of personal culti+ation. #ince pri+ate respondents with the eCception of Catalino %antac cannot be deemed tenants in contemplation of law, the. are therefore not entitled to Certificates of "and Transfer 'C"Ts( under the 9peration "and Transfer '9"T( $rogram pursuant to $res. Decree No. 73 and ".9. . No. ;3;. All other persons found in the land in Duestion are considered unlawful occupants of the propert. unless otherwise authori!ed b. the landowner to possess the same in a lawful capacit.. E+en as we uphold time and again the eCistence and +alidit. of implied agricultural tenanc. agreements, we encourage the forging of written documents to pre+ent ambiguit. as to the terms set b. both parties and for them to eCpress their intent in clear language. This would minimi!e and e+en pre+ent the Qshotgun approachR to tenanc. relations imposed b. some officials of the Ho+ernment without compl.ing with the essential reDuisites of tenanc. as pro+ided b. law. Agreements must be entered freel. and +oluntaril. b. the parties concerned without the influence of third parties, much less the Ho+ernment, ma&ing representations for either side. An

eCpress tenanc. agreement would facilitate the aims of the agricultural tenanc. laws and promote social *ustice for both landowner and tenant. )ith respect to the retention limits of land ownership b. Balencia and his Qdirect descendants,R the Comprehensi+e Agrarian Reform "aw allows landowners whose lands ha+e been co+ered b. $res. Decree No. 73 to &eep the area originall. retained b. them pro+ided the original homestead grantees who still own the original homestead at the time of the appro+al of Rep. Act No. GG13 shall retain the same areas as long as the. continue to culti+ate the homestead.O12P The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner, as a general rule.O10P ?owe+er, the factual determination of whether Balencia and his Qdirect descendantsR ha+e complied with #ec. G of Rep. Act No. GG13 should be addressed b. the Department of Agrarian Reform. Ascertaining if petitioner and his Qdirect descendantsR are within the se+en '3(/hectare retention limit pro+ided b. $res. Decree No. 73 reDuires the technical eCpertise of the administrati+e agenc. concerned. t is appalling to note that it too& o+er twel+e '07( .ears for the Agrarian Reform Team 727 of the Canlaon Cit. 9ffice of the DAR to act on a simple matter calling for a preliminar. determination of tenanc. status, in spite of a telegram sent on 52 %arch 043G b. the #ecretar. of Agrarian Reform directing the Team "eader of A.R.T. 727 to in+estigate and submit a report on the landholding of petitioner Balencia.O17P This is trul. a tra+est. of great magnitude and a clear/cut case of undue dela. and administrati+e in*ustice, for the rights of the landowner must eDuall. be protected *ust as passionatel. as the rights of the tenant/tiller, especiall. so that in the meantime he has been depri+ed of the actual possession of his propert. which he en+isioned to culti+ate himself after retiring from the go+ernment ser+ice6 worse, he was not paid his landholderNs shares in the har+ests, and there is no telling when, if e+er, he will e+er be paid b. pri+ate respondents who claim to be his Qtenants.R ECecuti+e or administrati+e *ustice must alwa.s be dispensed with an e+en hand, regardless of a personNs economic station in life. ?HERE ORE, the petition is HRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA/H.R. #$ No. 57GG4 dated 73 8ul. 0441 and its Resolution dated 77 #eptember 0441 den.ing the %otion for Reconsideration are REBER#ED and #ET A# DE, and a new one is entered as follows>

0. The area acDuired b. petitioner Bictor H. Balencia under his ?omestead Application No. ?A/750G20 with Final $roof and TaC Declaration No. 2101 is ELC"EDED from the co+erage of $res. Decree No. 73, hence, must be retained b. him6 7. The Certificates of "and Transfer 'C"Ts( issued to pri+ate respondents #antos Harga.a 'C"T No. 2/2300G2(, 8uliano %agda.ao 'C"Ts Nos. 2/ 2300G0, 2/2300G5, 2/2300GG K 2/230031(, Crescenciano Frias 'C"T No. 2/ 2300G;(, Federico 8are 'C"Ts Nos. 2/230030 K 2/230037(, Rosendo "obresco 'C"Ts Nos. 2/2300<4 K 2/2300<7(, Ernesto "obresco 'C"Ts Nos. 2/2300<1 K 2/2300<3(, Feliciano "obresco 'C"T No. 2/2300<<(, Bictoriano %ontefalcon 'C"T No. 2/230042(, Francisco 9bang 'C"T No. 2/2300G<(, Ambrosio #emillano 'C"Ts Nos. 2/2300G1, 2/23003G K 2/230033(, Rogelio Tama.o 'C"T No. 2/23004;( and Edilberto "obresco 'C"T No. 2/230035( are CANCE""ED and NE"" F ED for ha+ing been issued without factual and legal basis6 5. The agricultural leasehold of respondent Catalino %antac 'C"T No. 2/ 2300G7( co+ering an area of 2.2;71 hectare sub*ect of tenanc. agreement with petitioner Bictor H. Balencia is%A NTA NED and RE#$ECTED6 ;. All unlawful occupants of the propert. under TCT No. ?/T/053 and ?omestead Application No. ?A/750G20 with Final $roof, and TaC Declaration No. 2101 including but not limited to the pri+ate respondents mentioned in par. 7 hereof are 9RDERED to %%ED ATE"@ BACATE and RETERN peacefull. to the lawful owner, petitioner Bictor H. Balencia, the parcels of land respecti+el. possessed or occupied b. them. No pronouncement as to costs. SO OR(ERE(.