CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

G.R. NO. 220598- JULY 19, 2016 | GLORIA MACAPAGALARROYO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE SANDIGANBA YAN (First Division), Respondents.
FACTS: On July 10, 2012, the Ombudsman charged in the Sandiganbayan former President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and several others for committing the crime of plunder. All public
officers committing the offense in relation to their respective offices and taking undue advantage
of their respective official positions, authority, relationships, connections or influence, conniving,
conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
criminally amass, accumulate and/or acquire. Directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the
aggregate amount or total value of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE MILLION NINE HUNDRED NINETY
SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTEEN PESOS (PHP365,997,915.00), more or less, through
any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts, or similar schemes or means.
The Sandiganbayan eventually acquired jurisidiction over most of the accused, including
petitioners. All filed petitions for bail, which the Sandiganbayan granted except those of the
petitioners. Their motions for reconsideration were denied. GMA assailed the denial of her
petition for bail before the Supreme Court. However, this remains unresolved.
After the Prosecution rested its case, the accused separately filed their demurrers to evidence
asserting that the Prosecution did not establish a case for plunder against them.
The Sandiganbayan granted the demurrers and dismissed the case against the accused within its
jurisdiction, except for petitioners and Valencia. It held that there was sufficient evidence
showing that they had conspired to commit plunder.
Petitioners filed this case before the Supreme Court on certiorari before the Supreme Court to
assail the denial of their demurrers to evidence, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
ISSUE/S: Procedural Issue: WON the special civil action for certiorari is proper to assail the denial
of the demurrers to evidence.
RULING: Yes. Certiorari is proper since the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in
denying GMAs demurrer to evidence. General rule: The special civil action for certiorari is
generally not proper to assail such an interlocutory order issued by the trial court because of the
availability of another remedy in the ordinary course of law. Moreover, Section 23, Rule 119 of
the Rules of Court expressly provides, the order denying the motion for leave of court to file
demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari
before judgment.
Exception: In the exercise of our superintending control over other courts, we are to be guided
by all the circumstances of each particular case as the ends of justice may require. So it is that
the writ will be granted where necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial
(citing Ong v. People [G.R. No. 140904, October 9, 2000]).

PROPERTY
GR. NO. 168078 | Fabio Cahayag and COnrado Rivera, petitioners, vs. Commercial
Credit Corporation, represented by its President, Leonardo B. Alejandro, et. al.,
respondents
FACTS: Petitioner Dulos Realty was the registered owner of certain residential lots covered by
TCT Nos. S-39767, S-39775, S-28335, S-39778, and S-29776, located at Airmens village
Subdivision, Pulang Lupa II, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. On December 22, 1980, Dulos Realty
obtained a loan from respondent CCC in the amount of P 300, 000. To secure the loan, realty
executed a real estate mortgage over the subject properties in favor of respondent. The
mortgagewas duly annotated on the certificates of title on 3 February 1981. On 29 March 1981,

JONALD B. DORADO CASE DIGEST

Dulos Realty entered into a Contract to sell with petitioner Cahayag over the lot covered by TCT
No. S-39775.
On 12 August 1981, DUlos Realty entered into another contract to sell, this time with
petitioner Rivera over the lot covered by TCT No. S-28335. DUlos Realty defaulted in the payment
of the mortgage loan,prompting respondent CCC to initiate extrajudicial foreclosureproceedings.
On 17 November 1981, the auction sale was held , with respondent CCC emerging as the highest
bidder. On 23 November 1981, a certificate of sale covering the properties, together with all the
buildings improvements and properties existing thereon, was issued on favor of CCC. The
certificate was annotated on 8 March 1982. Thereafter, Dulos Realty entered into a contract to
sell with petitioner Escalona over the house and lot covered by TCT No. S-29776.
On 10 November 1983, an affidavit of consolidation in favor of respondent CCC dated 26
August 1983 was annotated on the corresponding titles to the properties. By virtues of the
affidavit, TCT Nos. S-39775, etc.- all in the names of DUlos Realty were cancelled and TCT.Nos.
74531 until 74534 were issued in the name of respondent CCC on the same day. On 10
December 1983, Dulos Realty enteres into a deed of absolute sale with petitioner Baldoza over
the property covered by TCT No. S-39778, together with the improvements existing thereon.
On 21 December 1983, respondent CCC through a deed of absolute sale, sold to
respondent Qua the same subject properties, now covered by TCT Nos. 74531 until 34 which
were in the name of the respondent CCC.The sale was duly annotated on the corresponding titles
to the properties on January 5, 1984. Accordingly. TCT nos. 74531 until 34 were cancelled: and
TCT Nos. 77012 until 15 were issued to respondent Qua on 5 January 1984.
Subsequently, respondent Qua filed ejectment suits individually against petitioners Dulos
Realty, Cahayag, Escalona, and Rivera before the MTC of Las Pinas, Metro Manila. The MTC
rendered decisions in favor of respondent Qua ordering Dulos Realty, Escalona, Cahayag, and
Rivera to vacate the properties. On 5 December 1988, petitioners filed a complaint against
respondents for the annulment of Sherrifs Sale and other documents with preliminary injunction
and/or temporary restraining order before the RTC of Makati City. On 6 July 1992, the RTC
rendered a decision which ruled that the houses were not included in the real mortagage; and
that the forclosure of the mortgage over the subject lots, as well as the housing units was not
valid.
Respondents proceeded to the CA where they secured a favourable ruling, in its decision
rendered 2 November 2004, the appellate court held that the extrajudicial foreclosure was valid,
since the real estate mortagage clearly included the buildings and improvements on the land
subject of the mortgage. After establishing the inclusion of the housing units in the real estate
mortgage, the CA determined the rights of the buyers in the contract to sell/contract of sale vis-vis those of the mortgagee and its successors-in-interest. The CA accordingly reversed and set
aside the RTC decision, dismissed the case for lack of merit, and ordered petitioners to surrender
possessionof the properties to respondent Qua.
ISSUES: Whether the real mortgage covers the lands only, as enumerated in the deed of real
estate mortgage or the housing units as well.
RULING: We deny the petition. It is true that the list of properties attached to the deed of real
estate mortgage refers merely to the lands themselves and does not include the housing units
found thereon. A plain reading of the real estate mortgage, however, reveals that it covers the
housing units as well. Thus, the housing units would fall under the catch-all phrase together
with all the buildings and/or other improvements now existing or which may hereafter be placed
or constructed thereon.
The contra proferentum rulefinds no application to this case. The doctrine provides that in
the interpretation of documents, ambiguities are to be construed against the drafter. By its very
nature, the precept assumes the existence of an ambiguity in the contract, which is why contra
preferentum is also called the ambiguity doctrine. In this case, the deed of real estate mortgage
clealy establishes that the improvements found on the real properties listed therein are included
JONALD B. DORADO CASE DIGEST

as subject matter of the contract. It covers not only the real properties, but the buildings and
improvements thereon as well.

JONALD B. DORADO CASE DIGEST