RepublicofthePhilippines

SupremeCourt
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

ANICETOBANGISsubstitutedby G.R.No.190875
his heirs, namely: RODOLFO B.
BANGIS, RONNIE B. BANGIS,
ROGELIO B. BANGIS, RAQUEL Present:
B. QUILLO, ROMULO B.
*
BANGIS, ROSALINA B. PARAN, PERALTA,J., ActingChairperson,
ROSARIO
B.
REDDY, ABAD,
**
REYNALDO B. BANGIS, and
VILLARAMA,JR.,
REMEDIOSB.LASTRE,
MENDOZA,and
Petitioners,
PERLASBERNABE,JJ.

versus

HEIRS OF SERAFIN AND

Promulgated:
SALUD ADOLFO, namely: LUZ

A.
BANNISTER,
SERAFIN
June13,2012
ADOLFO, JR., and ELEUTERIO

ADOLFO rep. by his Heirs,

namely: MILAGROS, JOEL,

MELCHOR,
LEA,
MILA,
NELSON,JIMMYandMARISSA,
allsurnamedADOLFO,
Respondents.
xx

DECISION

PERLASBERNABE,J.:

[1]
Assailed in this Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
CourtistheMarch30,2009Decision[2] oftheCourtofAppealsMindanaoStation(CA)

[2]
anditsDecember2,2009Resolution

inCAG.R.CVNo.00722MINwhichdeclared

thatthetransactionbetweenthepartieswasamortgage,notasale,andorderedpetitioners
to surrender the possession of the disputed lot upon respondents' full payment of their
indebtedness.

THEANTECEDENTFACTS

[3]

ThespousesSerafin,Sr.andSaludada

Adolfoweretheoriginalregisteredowners

ofa126,622squaremeterlotcoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitle(OCT)No.P489
issuedonDecember15,1954(derivedfromHomesteadPatentNo.V34974),locatedin
Valencia,Malaybalay,Bukidnon.ThispropertywasmortgagedtothethenRehabilitation
[4]
FinanceCorporation(nowDevelopmentBankofthePhilippinesorDBP)onAugust18,
1955,

and upon default in the payment of the loan obligation, was foreclosed and
[5]
ownershipwasconsolidatedinDBP'snameunderTransferCertificateofTitle(TCT)No.
[6]
T1152.
6313

SerafinAdolfo,Sr.,however,repurchasedthesameandwasissuedTCTNo.

onDecember1,1971,ayearafterhiswifediedin1970.

Sometimein1975,SerafinAdolfo,Sr.(Adolfo)allegedlymortgagedthesubject
[7]P12,500.00 to Aniceto Bangis (Bangis) who immediately took
[8]
property for the sum of
possessionoftheland.

Thesaidtransactionwas,however,notreducedintowriting.

WhenAdolfodied,hisheirs,namely,LuzAdolfoBannister,SerafinAdolfo,Jr.and
[9]Partition dated
Eleuterio Adolfo (Heirs of Adolfo), executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
December24,1997coveringthesubjectpropertyandTCTNo.T65152

wasissuedto

them.OnMay26,1998,thesaidpropertywassubdividedandseparatetitleswereissued
[10]

in names of the[10]
Heirs of Adolfo, as follows: TCT Nos. T66562 and T66563 for Luz
AdolfoBanester

[11]
TCTNos.T66560andT66561inthenameofSerafinAdolfo,Jr.

andTCTNos.T66564andT66565infavorofEleuterioAdolfo.

InJune1998,theHeirsofAdolfoexpressedtheirintentiontoredeemthemortgaged
propertyfromBangisbutthelatterrefused,claimingthatthetransactionbetweenhimand
Adolfo was one of sale. During the conciliation meetings in the barangay, Bangis' son,
[12]showed them a copy of a deed of sale and a certificate of title to the
Rudy Bangis,
disputedlot. [13]Thepartieshavingfailedtoamicablysettletheirdifferences,acertificate
tofileaction

wasissuedbythebarangay.

THEPROCEEDINGSBEFORETHERTC

[14]

OnJuly26,2000,theHeirsofAdolfofiledacomplaint

before the Regional

TrialCourt(RTC)forannulmentofdeedofsaleanddeclarationofthepurportedcontract
ofsaleasantichresis,accountingandredemptionofpropertyanddamagesagainstBangis,
docketedasCivilCaseNo.299300.ThecomplaintwasamendedonSeptember11,2001
[15]
toincludeaprayerforthecancellationofTCTNo.T10567andthetaxdeclarationsin
the name of Bangis in view of the manifestation

filed by ExOfficio Register of

Deeds, Atty. Phoebe Loyola Toribio of the Registry of Deeds, Malaybalay City which
states that the said title was of "dubious" origin since there was no deed of conveyance
[16]
uponwhichthesaidtransfercertificateoftitlewasbasedandthatitsderivativetitle,TCT
No.T10566,doesnotexistinthefilesoftheRegistryofDeeds.

OnNovember12,

2001,thecomplaintwasagainamendedtoreflecttheothercertificatesoftitlesissuedin
[17]
thenamesoftheHeirsofAdolfoandtheamountofP12,500.00representingthemortgage
debt,

followedbyanotheramendmentonOctober13,2003toincludetheallegation

thattheyhavepartitionedthesubjectlotonDecember24,1997andthatnocopyofthe
supposeddeedofsaleinfavorofBangis can be found in the records of the Provincial
Assessor'sOfficeandtheRegistrarofDeeds.Theyfurtherprayed,inthealternative,tobe
allowedtoredeemthesubjectlotundertheHomesteadLawandthatBangisbeorderedto
indemnify them: (a) P50,000.00 each as moral damages (b) 20% of the value of the
[18]
propertyasattorney'sfeesand(c)P50,000.00aslitigationexpensesaswellasthecosts
ofsuit.

[19]

InhisAnswerwithCounterclaim,

[20]
Bangisclaimedtohaveboughtthesubject

property from Adolfo for which TCT No. T10567

was issued. He also alleged to

havebeeninopenandadversepossessionofthepropertysince1972andthatthecauseof
actionoftheHeirsofAdolfohasprescribed.OnNovember11,2001,Bangisdiedandwas
substitutedinthissuitbyhisheirs,namely,RodolfoB.Bangis,RonieB.Bangis,Rogelio
B. Bangis, Raquel B. Quillo, Romulo B. Bangis, Rosalina B.[21]
Paran, Rosario B. Reddy,
ReynaldoB.BangisandRemediosB.Lastre(HeirsofBangis).

Duringthetrial,oneoftheHeirsofBangis,RodolfoBangis,presentedaphotocopy
[22]ExtraJudicial Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale dated December 30,
of an
1971

forthepurposeofprovingthesaleofthesubjectlotbyAdolfoandhisheirsin
[23]
favorofhispredecessorsininterest,AnicetoBangisandSegundinoCortel,forthesumof
P13,000.00.HealsopresentedaPromissoryNote
ofevendatepurportedlyexecuted
[24]
byBangisandSegundinoCortelundertakingtopaythebalanceofthepurchasepricein
theamountofP1,050.00.

[25]
BothdocumentswerenotarizedbyAtty.ValentinMurillo

whotestifiedtothefactoftheirexecution.
RodolfoBangislikewisetestifiedthatthey
[26]
havebeenpayingthetaxesdueonthepropertyandhadevenusedthesameascollateral
foraloanwithabank.

On rebuttal, one of the Heirs of Adolfo, Luz Adolfo Bannister, denied the due
[27]
executionandgenuinenessoftheforegoingExtraJudicialSettlementwithAbsoluteDeed
ofSaleallegingforgery.

[28]

OnDecember29,2005,theRTCrenderedaDecision

infavoroftheHeirsof

Adolfo,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE,thepreponderanceofevidencebeingstronglyinfavorofthe
plaintiffsandagainstthedefendants,decisionisherebyrendered:

1. Declaring the contract between the plaintiffs and defendants as a mere

mortgage or antichresis and since the defendants have been in the possession of the
propertyin1975uptothepresenttimeenjoyingallitsfruitsorincome,themortgaged
loanofP12,000.00isdeemedfullypaid

2.Orderingthedefendantstodeliverthepossessionofthepropertyinquestion
andalltheimprovementsthereontotheplaintiffspeacefully

3.DeclaringTCTNo.10567inthenameofAnicetoBangisasNULLAND
VOID AB INITIO and directing the Office of the Register of Deeds to cause its
cancellationfromitsrecordtoavoidconfusionregardingtheownershipthereofand

4.Declaringallthetransfercertificatesoftitleissuedinfavoroftheplaintiffs
namely, Luz AdolfoBannister, Serafin Adolfo, Jr. and Eleuterio Adolfo, as above
mentionedastheonesvalidandissuedinaccordancewithPD1529.

SOORDERED.

Aggrieved,theHeirsofBangisappealedtheforegoingdisquisitiontotheCourtof
Appeals(CA).

THECARULING

InitsassailedDecision,theCAaffirmedtheRTCfindingthatthecontractbetween
thepartieswasamortgage,notasale.ItnotedthatwhileBangiswasgivenpossessionof
the subject property, the certificate of title remained in the custody of Adolfo and was
[29]
nevercancelled.TheCAalsoorderedtheHeirsofAdolfotopaytheHeirsofBangisthe
mortgagedebtofP12,500.00

[30]
withtwelve(12%)percentinterestreckonedfrom1975

until1998andtodelivertothemthepossessionofthepropertyuponfullpayment.

It,
[31]T
however, deleted the RTC order directing the Register of Deeds to cancel TCT No.
10567inthenameofBangisforbeingacollateralattackproscribedunderPD1529.

[32]

Dissatisfied,theHeirsofBangisfiledaMotionforReconsideration

arguingthat

theCAerredindisregardingtheirtestimonialanddocumentaryevidence,particularly,the
ExtraJudicial Settlement with Absolute Deed of Sale (Exh. 2) which purportedly
[33]
established the sale in favor of their predecessorininterest,
Aniceto Bangis. The said
motionwas,however,deniedintheResolution

datedDecember2,2009.

THEISSUEBEFORETHECOURT

[34]
Hence,theinstantpetitionforreviewoncertioraribasedontheloneassignmentof
error

thatthetransactionbetweenthepartieswasoneofsaleandnotamortgageor
[35]
antichresis.Insupport,petitionerHeirsofBangismaintainthattheCAerredinnotgiving
probativeweighttotheExtraJudicialSettlementwithAbsoluteDeedofSale

which

supposedlybolsterstheirclaimthattheirfather,AnicetoBangis,boughtthesubjectparcel
of land from Adolfo. Hence, the corresponding title, TCT No. T10567, issued as a

consequenceshouldberespected.

On their part, respondent Heirs of Adolfo averred that no reversible error was
committed by the CA in upholding that no sale transpired between the parties'
predecessorsininterest. Moreover, petitioners' TCT No. T10567 was not offered in
[36]
evidenceandworse,certifiedasofdubiousoriginpertheManifestationoftheRegistrar
ofDeeds.

THECOURT'SRULING

Thepetitionmustfail.

Attheoutset,itshouldbeemphasizedthatapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunder
Rule45oftheRulesofCourtinvolvesonlyquestionsoflawandnotoffacts.Aquestion
of law exists when there is doubt as to what the law is on a given set of facts while a
[37]
question of fact arises when there is doubt as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.

The Heirs of Bangis, in insisting that both the RTC and the CA erroneously
disregarded the evidence of sale they presented, are effectively asking the Court to re
evaluatefactualissueswhichisproscribedunderRule45."Suchquestionsastowhether
certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as
feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and
[38]
convincingandadequatetoestablishapropositioninissue,arewithoutdoubtquestionsof
fact."


Nonetheless, the Court perused the records and found substantial evidence
supportingthefactualfindingsoftheRTC,asaffirmedbytheCA,thatthenatureofthe
transaction between the parties' predecessorsininterest was a mortgage and not a sale.
[39]
Thus,themaximthatfactualfindingsofthetrialcourtwhenaffirmedbytheCAarefinal
andconclusiveontheCourt

obtainsinthiscase.

THEREWASNEITHERAN
ANTICHRESISNORSALE

Forthecontractofantichresistobevalid,Article2134oftheCivilCoderequires
that"theamountoftheprincipalandoftheinterestshallbespecifiedinwritingotherwise
the contract of antichresis shall be void." In this case, the Heirs of Adolfo were
indisputably unable to produce any document in support of their claim that the contract
[40]
betweenAdolfoandBangiswasanantichresis,hence,theCAproperlyheldthatnosuch
relationshipexistedbetweentheparties.

[41]
Ontheotherhand,theHeirsofBangispresentedanExtraJudicialSettlementwith
Absolute Deed of Sale dated December 30, 1971

to justify their claimed ownership

[42]
andpossessionofthesubjectland.However,notwithstandingthatthesubjectofinquiryis
theverycontentsofthesaiddocument,onlyitsphotocopy

waspresentedatthetrial

without providing sufficient justification for the production of secondary evidence, in

violation of the best evidence rule embodied under Section 3 in relation to Section 5 of
Rule130oftheRulesofCourt,towit:

SEC.3.Originaldocumentmustbeproducedexceptions.Whenthesubject
ofinquiryisthecontentsofadocument,noevidenceshallbeadmissibleotherthanthe
originaldocumentitself,exceptinthefollowingcases:

(1)Whentheoriginalhasbeenlostordestroyed,orcannotbe
producedincourt,withoutbadfaithonthepartoftheofferor

(2)Whentheoriginalisinthecustodyorunderthecontrolofthe
party against whom the evidence is offered, and the latter fails to
produceitafterreasonablenotice

(3)Whentheoriginalconsistsofnumerousaccountsorother
documentswhichcannotbeexaminedincourtwithoutgreatlossoftime
andthefactsoughttobeestablishedfromthemisonlythegeneralresult
ofthewholeand

(4)Whentheoriginalisapublicrecordinthecustodyofapublic
officerorisrecordedinapublicoffice.

SEC.5.Whenoriginaldocumentisunavailable.Whentheoriginaldocument
hasbeenlostordestroyed,orcannotbeproducedincourt,theofferor,uponproofof
itsexecutionorexistenceandthecauseofitsunavailabilitywithoutbadfaithonhis
part,mayproveitscontentsbyacopy,orbyarecitalofitscontentinsomeauthentic
document,orbythetestimonyofwitnessesintheorderstated.

[43]
ThebaretestimonyofoneoftheHeirsofBangis,RodolfoBangis,thatthesubject
documentwasonlyhanded

[44]
tohimbyhisfather,Aniceto,withtheinformationthatthe

original thereof "could not be found"

[45]
was insufficient to justify its admissibility.

Moreover, the identification made by Notary Public Atty. Valentin Murillo

that he
notarized such document cannot[46]
be given credence as his conclusion was not verified
against his own notarial records.

[47] could have secured a

Besides, the Heirs of Bangis

[48]
certifiedcopyofthedeedofsalefromtheAssessor'sOffice
custodyincompliancewithSection7,Rule130

thatpurportedlyhadits

oftheRulesofCourt.


Insum,theHeirsofBangisfailedtoestablishtheexistenceanddueexecutionofthe
[49]
subjectdeedonwhichtheirclaimofownershipwasfounded.Consequently,theRTCand
CAwerecorrectinaffordingnoprobativevaluetothesaiddocument.

TCTNO.T10567INTHENAMEOF
ANICETOBANGISCANNOTPREVAIL
OVERTHETITLESOFTHEHEIRSOF
ADOLFO

RecordsrevealthatTCTNo.T10567purportedlysecuredasaconsequenceofthe
deed of sale executed by Adolfo and his heirs in favor of Bangis was not offered in
[50]
evidence.Aperusalofitscopy,however,showsthatitwasatransferfromTCTNo.T
10566,

whichtitletheHeirsofBangisunfortunatelyfailedtoaccountfor,andboreno

relationatalltoeitherOCTNo.P489(theoriginaltitleoftheSpousesAdolfo)orTCT
[51] to Adolfo when he repurchased the same property from DBP). The
No. T6313 (issued
Manifestation

of the Register of Deeds of Malaybalay City regarding the doubtful

origin of TCT No. T10567 and the regularity of the titles of the Heirs of Adolfo are
insightful,thus:

ThattheverificationfromtheofficeoftheoriginalcopyofTransferCertificateof
TitleNo.T10567inthenameofAnecitoBangisisexistingintheoffice.Machinecopy
ofthesaidtitleisheretoattachedasannex"A"butnothinginthetitlewhetherannotated
orattached,anyDeedofConveyanceorotherDocumentsbywhichsaidtitlewasissued
ortransferredinthenameofAnecitoBangis.

Thatfortheinformationandguidanceofthecourtattachedherewithisamachine
copies[sic]OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P489inthenameofSerafinAdolfo,marked
as annex "B" which supposedly the mother title of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T
10567 as to how this title was transferred in the name of Anecito Bangis. Nothing will
show which will validly supports [sic] the said transfer, in other words the said title is
dubious.

ThisOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P489inthenameofSerafinAdolfowas

mortgage to the Development Bank of the Philippines and then it was consolidated and
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T1152wasissuedinthenameofDevelopmentBankof
the Philippines. From the Development Bank of the Philippines a Deed of Sale was
executed by the Development Bank of the Philippines in favor of Serafin Adolfo and
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T6313markedannex"B1"wasissuedinthenameof
SerafinAdolfo.

AnExtrajudicialSettlementwasnow[sic]bytheHeirsofSerafinAdolfoand
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T65152 annex "B2", T66560 annex "B3", T66561
annex"B4",T66562annex"B5",T66563annex"B6",T66564annex"B7",andT
66565annex"B8"wereissuedtotheHeirs.

ThetitlesissuedtotheHeirsofSerafinAdolfowerelegitimatelyissuedbythis
officeafterallits[sic]requirementsandsupportingdocumentsweresubmittedandproper
annotationswerereflectedatthebackofthetitleofSerafinAdolfo.

TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T10567asshownonthetitlewasderivedfrom
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.T10566but[sic]titleisnotexistinginthisoffice.

[52]
AsheldinthecaseofTopManagementProgramsCorporationv.LuisFajardoand
theRegisterofDeedsofLasPiasCity:

"iftwocertificatesoftitlepurporttoinclude

the same land, whether wholly or partly, the better approach is to trace the original
certificatesfromwhichthecertificatesoftitleswerederived."

[53]
Having,thus,tracedtherootsoftheparties'respectivetitlessupportedbytherecords
of the Register of Deeds of Malaybalay City, the courts a quo
were correct in
upholding the title of the Heirs of Adolfo as against[54]
TCT No. T10567 of Bangis,
notwithstanding its earlier issuance on August 18, 1976
or long before the Heirs of
[55]on May 26, 1998. To paraphrase the Court's ruling in
Adolfo secured their own titles
Mathay v. Court of Appeals:

where two (2) transfer certificates of title have been

issued on different dates, the one who holds the earlier title may prevail only in the
absence of any anomaly or irregularity in the process of its registration, which
circumstancedoesnotobtaininthiscase.

CANCELLATIONOF

TCTNO.T10567

[56]

The Court cannot sustain the CA's ruling

that TCT No. T10567 cannot be

invalidatedbecauseitconstitutesasacollateralattackwhichiscontrarytotheprincipleof
indefeasibilityoftitles.

ItmustbenotedthatBangisinterposedacounterclaiminhisAnswerseekingtobe
[57]
declaredasthetrueandlawfulownerofthedisputedpropertyandthathisTCTNo.T
10567 be declared as superior over [58]
the titles of the Heirs of Adolfo.

Since a

counterclaimisessentiallyacomplaint
then, a determination of the validity of TCT
[59]
No.T10567visavisthetitlesoftheHeirsofAdolfocanbeconsideredasadirect,not
collateral,attackonthesubjecttitles.

InPasiov.Monterroyo,theCourthasruled,thus:

Itisalreadysettledthatacounterclaimisconsideredanoriginalcomplaintand
assuch,theattackonthetitleinacaseoriginallyforrecoveryofpossessioncannotbe
consideredasacollateralattackonthetitle.DevelopmentBankofthePhilippinesv.
CourtofAppealsissimilartothecasebeforeusinsofaraspetitionerinthatcasefiled
an action for recovery of possession against respondent who, in turn, filed a
counterclaimclaimingownershipoftheland.Inthatcase,theCourtruled:

NoristhereanyobstacletothedeterminationofthevalidityofTCT
No. 10101. It is true that the indefeasibility of torrens title cannot be
collaterally attacked. In the instant case, the original complaint is for
recoveryofpossessionfiledbypetitioneragainstprivaterespondent,not
anoriginalactionfiledbythelattertoquestionthevalidityofTCTNo.
10101onwhichpetitionerbasesitsright.Toruleontheissueofvalidity
inacaseforrecoveryofpossessionistantamounttoacollateralattack.
However, it should not [b]e overlooked that private respondent filed a
counterclaim against petitioner, claiming ownership over the land and
seekingdamages.Hence,wecouldruleonthequestionofthevalidityof
TCTNo.10101forthecounterclaimcanbeconsideredadirectattack
onthesame.Acounterclaimisconsideredacomplaint,onlythistime,
itistheoriginaldefendantwhobecomestheplaintiff...Itstandsonthe

same footing and is to be tested by the same rules as if it were an

independentaction.xxx(Citationsomitted)[60]

[61]
Besides,theprohibitionagainstcollateralattackdoesnotapplytospuriousornon
existenttitles,whicharenotaccordedindefeasibility,

asinthiscase.

THEPRESENTACTION
HASNOTPRESCRIBED

The claim of the Heirs of Bangis that since they have been in possession of the
subjectlandsince1972orfor28yearsreckonedfromthefilingofthecomplaintin2000
then, the present action has prescribed is untenable. It bears to note that while Bangis
indeedtookpossessionofthelanduponitsallegedmortgage,thecertificateoftitle(TCT
No. 6313) remained with Adolfo and upon his demise, transferred to his heirs, thereby
negating any contemplated transfer of ownership. Settled is the rule that no title in
derogation[62]
of that of the registered owner can be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession.

Moreover,evenifacquisitiveprescriptioncanbeappreciatedinthiscase,

theHeirsofBangis'possessionbeinginbadfaithistwoyearsshyoftherequisite30year
uninterruptedadversepossessionrequiredunderArticle1137oftheCivilCode.

Consequently,theHeirsofBangiscannotvalidlyclaimtherightsofabuilderin
goodfaithasprovidedforunderArticle449inrelationtoArticle448oftheCivilCode.
Thus,theorderforthemtosurrenderthepossessionofthedisputedlandtogetherwithall
itsimprovementswasproperlymade.

LIABILITYFORTHEPAYMENT
OFINTEREST


Finally,itisundisputedthattheHeirsofBangismadenojudicialorextrajudicial
demand on the Heirs of Adolfo to pay the mortgage debt. Instead, it was the latter who
[63]intent to pay their father's loan obligation, admittedly in the amount of
signified their
P12,500.00,

whichwasrefused.Themortgagecontractthereforecontinuedtosubsist

despite the lapse of a considerable number of years from the time it was constituted in
1975becausethemortgagedebthasnotbeensatisfied.

[64]
FollowingtheCourt'srulingintheiconiccaseofEasternShippingLines,Inc.v.
CourtofAppeals,

theforegoingliability,whichisbasedonaloanorforbearanceof

money,shallbesubjecttolegalinterestof12%perannumfromthedateitwasjudicially
determinedbytheCAonMarch30,2009untilthefinalityofthisDecision,andnotfrom
1975 (the date of the constitution of the mortgage) nor from 1998 (when an attempt to
[65]
paywasmade)orin2000atthetimethecomplaintwasfiled,becauseitwastheHeirsof
Adolfo and not Bangis who filed the instant suit
to collect the indebtedness.
[66]
Thereafter,thejudgmentawardinclusiveofinterestshallbearinterestat12%perannum
untilitsfullsatisfaction.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,theinstantpetitionforreviewoncertiorariis
DENIED and the assailed Decision dated March 30, 2009 of the Court of Appeals
MindanaoStation(CA)anditsResolutiondatedDecember2,2009inCAG.R.CVNo.
00722MINareAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATION:(1)cancellingTCTNo.T10567
and(2)orderingrespondentHeirsofAdolfotopaypetitionerHeirsofBangisthesumof
P12,500.00withlegalinterestof12%perannumreckonedfromMarch30,2009untilthe
finalityofthisDecisionandthereafter,12%annualinterestuntilitsfullsatisfaction.

TherestoftheDecisionstands.

SOORDERED.

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson

ROBERTOA.ABADMARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice
ActingMember

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson,ThirdDivision

CERTIFICATION

IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultation
beforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
SeniorAssociateJustice
(PerSection12,R.A.296,
TheJudiciaryActof1948,asamended)

*
**
[1]
PerSpecialOrderNo.1228datedJune6,2012.

DesignatedactingmemberinlieuofJusticePresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.,perSpecialOrderNo.1229datedJune6,2012.
[2] PennedbyAssociateJusticeRodrigoF.Lim,Jr.,withAssociateJusticesRomuloV.BorjaandMichaelP.Elbinias

concurring,andAssociateJusticesElihuA.YbaezandRubenC.Ayson,dissentingrollo,pp.2439.
[3]
[4] Id.at4041.
[5] Sometimesreferredtoas"Salud"intherecords.
[6] Folderofexhibits,Exhibit"A",pp.269270.
[7] Id.,Exhibit"B"at271.
[8] Id.,Exhibit"C"at272.
[9] TSN,March3,2004,p.13.

Id.at14.

[10]

Exhibit"C1",(dorsalportion)at272.

[11]

[11]
[12] ShouldbeBannister.
[13] Supranote4,Exhibits"D"to"F1",at273278.
[14] TSN,March5,2004,pp.1921.
[15] Supranote4,Exhibit"G"at279.
[16] Records,pp.14.
[17] Id.at5253.
[18] Id.at5460.
[19] Id.at70,7276.
[20] Id.at114,116120.
[21] Id.at3133.
[22] Id.at4951.
[23] Id.at97,108109.
[24] Folderofexhibits,Exhibit"I"forpetitionersExhibit"2"forrespondents,at350351.
[25] Id.,Exhibit"1",at349.
[26] TSN,May20,2005,p.10TSN,November26,2004,pp.7,11and12.
[27] TSN,November26,2004,p.5TSN,September2,2005,pp.36.
[28] TSN,May20,2005,pp.1819.
[29] TSN,August5,2005,pp.48.
[30] Supranote14at204218.
[31] Rollo,pp.3134.
[32] Id.at38.
[33] Id.,at3638.
[34] CArollo,pp.94107.
[35] SeeSupranote2.
[36] Id.at7.
[37] SeeSupranote23.
[38] Supranote29at6775.

Abalosv.Sps.Darapa,G.R.No.164693,March23,2011,646SCRA200,207and208.
[39] HeirsofMarioPacresv.HeirsofCeciliaYgoa,G.R.No.174719,May5,2010,620SCRA213,225,citing

Paternov.Paterno,G.R.No.63680,March23,1990,183SCRA630,636.
[40]
[41] Abalosv.SpousesDarapa,supranote37.
[42] Supranote29at3233.
[43] Supranote4,Exhibit"I"forpetitionersExhibit"2"forrespondents,at350351.
[44] SeeSupranote23.
[45] TSN,May20,2005,p.5.
[46] Id.at67.

TSN,November26,2004,pp.1415.
[47] DepartmentofEducation,CultureandSportsv.DelRosario,etal.,G.R.No.146586,January26,2005,449

SCRA299,317.
[48]
TSN,May20,2005,pp.2022.
Sec.7.Evidenceadmissiblewhenoriginaldocumentisapublicrecord.Whentheoriginalofadocumentisinthe
custodyofapublicofficerorisrecordedinapublicoffice,itscontentsmaybeprovedbyacertifiedcopyissuedbythe
[49]

[49]

publicofficerincustodythereof.
[50]
[51] Duerov.Hon.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.131282,January4,2002,373SCRA11,17.
[52] Supranote14at49.

Supranoteat15.
[53] G.R.No.150462,June15,2011,citingthecaseofDegollacionv.RegisterofDeedsofCavite,G.R.No.161433,

August29,2006,500SCRA108,115.
[54]
[55] Supranote29at3436.
[56] Supranote14at49.
[57] G.R.No.115788,September17,1998,295SCRA556,578.

Supranote29at3638.
Records,pp.3233.