Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

156536 October 31, 2006

JOSEPH CUA, petitioner, vs. GLORIA A. ARGAS, AURORA ARGAS, RAMON ARGAS, MARITES ARGAS, E!ELINA ARGAS AN! GEMMA ARGAS, respondents.

DECISION

A"CUNA, J.# his is a petition for revie! under Rule "# of the Rules of Court see$in% the reversal of the decision & dated March '(, '))', and the resolution' dated Dece*ber &+, '))', of the Court of ,ppeals in C,-..R. SP No. #/0(/ entitled 1.loria ,. Var%as, ,urora Var%as, Ra*on Var%as, Marites Var%as, Edelina Var%as and .e**a Var%as v. 2oseph Cua.1 he facts are as follo!s3 , parcel of residential land !ith an area of // s4uare *eters located in San 2uan, Virac, Catanduanes !as left behind b5 the late Paulina Var%as. On 6ebruar5 ", &//", a notari7ed E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs !as e8ecuted b5 and a*on% Paulina Var%as: heirs, na*el5 Ester Var%as, Visitacion Var%as, 2uan Var%as, ;enaida V. Matien7o, Rosario V. 6orte7a, ,ndres Var%as, .loria Var%as, ,ntonina Var%as and 6lorentino Var%as, partitionin% and ad<udicatin% unto the*selves the lot in 4uestion, each one of the* %ettin% a share of && s4uare *eters. 6lorentino, ,ndres, ,ntonina and .loria, ho!ever, did not si%n the docu*ent. Onl5 Ester, Visitacion, 2uan, ;enaida and Rosario si%ned it. he E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs !as published in the Catanduanes ribune for three consecutive !ee$s.= On Nove*ber &#, &//", an E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs !ith Sale " !as a%ain e8ecuted b5 and a*on% the sa*e heirs over the sa*e propert5 and also !ith the sa*e sharin%s. Once *ore, onl5 Ester, Visitacion, 2uan, ;enaida and Rosario si%ned the docu*ent and their respective shares totalin% ## s4uare *eters !ere sold to 2oseph Cua, petitioner herein. ,ccordin% to .loria Var%as, the !ido! of Santia%o Var%as and one of respondents herein, she ca*e to $no! of the E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs !ith Sale dated Nove*ber &(, &//" onl5 !hen the ori%inal house built on the lot !as bein% de*olished so*eti*e in Ma5 &//#. # She li$e!ise clai*ed she !as una!are that an earlier E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs dated 6ebruar5 ", &//" involvin% the sa*e propert5 had been published in the Catanduanes ribune.( ,fter $no!in% of the sale of the ## s4uare *eters to petitioner, .loria Var%as tried to redee* the propert5, !ith the follo!in% letter+ sent to petitioner on her behalf3 '/th 2une &//# Mr. 2oseph Cua Capilihan, Virac, Catanduanes

Sir3 his is in behalf of *5 client, Ms. ,urora Var%as,0 >c?o ,tt5. Prospero V. abli7o@ one of the la!ful heirs of the late Paulina Var%as, ori%inal o!ner of Aot No. '&" of Virac, Poblacion covered b5 ,RP No. )=&-))=& in her na*e. I understand that a docu*ent 1E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs !ith Sale1 !as e8ecuted b5 so*e of *5 client:s co-heirs and alle%ed representatives of other co-heirs, b5 virtue of !hich docu*ent 5ou ac4uired b5 purchase fro* the si%natories to the said docu*ent, five >#@ shares !ith a total area of fift5-five s4uare *eters of the above-described land. his is to serve 5ou notice that *5 client shall e8ercise her ri%ht of le%al rede*ption of said five >#@ shares as !ell as other shares !hich 5ou *a5 li$e!ise have ac4uired b5 purchase. ,nd 5ou are hereb5 %iven an option to a%ree to le%al rede*ption !ithin a period of fifteen >&#@ da5s fro* 5our receipt hereof. Should 5ou fail to conve5 to *e 5our a%ree*ent !ithin said &#-da5-period, proper le%al action shall be ta$en b5 *5 client to redee* said shares. han$ 5ou. Ver5 trul5 5ours, >S%d.@ 2B,N .. , ENCI, Chen the offer to redee* !as refused and after havin% failed to reach an a*icable settle*ent at the baran%a5 level,/ .loria Var%as filed a case for annul*ent of E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent and Ae%al Rede*ption of the lot !ith the Municipal rial Court >M C@ of Virac, Catanduanes a%ainst petitioner and consi%ned the a*ount of P&)),))) !hich is the a*ount of the purchase !ith the Cler$ of Court on Ma5 '), &//(. &) 2oinin% her in the action !ere her children !ith Santia%o, na*el5, ,urora, Ra*on, Marites, Edelina and .e**a, all surna*ed Var%as. Subse4uentl5, Carlos .ianan, 2r. and .loria ,rcilla, heirs of the alle%ed pri*itive o!ner of the lot in 4uestion, Pedro Aa$andula, intervened in the case.&& Respondents clai*ed that as co-o!ners of the propert5, the5 *a5 be subro%ated to the ri%hts of the purchaser b5 rei*bursin% hi* the price of the sale. he5 li$e!ise alle%ed that the =)-da5 period follo!in% a !ritten notice b5 the vendors to their co-o!ners for the* to e8ercise the ri%ht of rede*ption of the propert5 had not 5et set in as no !ritten notice !as sent to the*. In effect, the5 clai*ed that the E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs and the E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs !ith Sale !ere null and void and had no le%al and bindin% effect on the*. &' ,fter trial on the *erits, the M C rendered a decision&= in favor of petitioner, dis*issin% the co*plaint as !ell as the co*plaint-in-intervention for lac$ of *erit, and declarin% the Deed of E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs !ith Sale valid and bindin%. he M C upheld the sale to petitioner because the transaction purportedl5 occurred after the partition of the propert5 a*on% the co-o!ner heirs. he M C opined that the other heirs could validl5 dispose of their respective shares. Moreover, the M C found that althou%h there !as a failure to strictl5 co*pl5 !ith the re4uire*ents under ,rticle &)00 of the Civil Code&" for a !ritten notice of sale to be served upon respondents b5 the vendors prior to the e8ercise of the for*er:s ri%ht of rede*ption, this deficienc5 !as cured b5 respondents: actual $no!led%e of the sale, !hich !as *ore than =) da5s before the filin% of their co*plaint, and their consi%nation of the purchase price !ith the Cler$ of Court, so that the latter action ca*e too late. 6inall5, the M C ruled that respondents failed to establish b5 co*petent proof petitioner:s bad faith in purchasin% the portion of the propert5 o!ned b5 respondents: co-heirs.&# On appeal, the Re%ional rial Court >R C@, Dranch "', of Virac, Catanduanes affir*ed the M C decision in a <ud%*ent dated Nove*ber '#, &///. he *atter !as thereafter raised to the Court of ,ppeals >C,@. he C, reversed the rulin% of both lo!er courts in the assailed decision dated March '(, '))', declarin% that the E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs and the E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs !ith Sale, dated 6ebruar5 ",

&//" and Nove*ber &#, &//", respectivel5, !ere void and !ithout an5 le%al effect. he C, held that, pursuant to Section &, Rule +" of the Rules of Court, &( the e8tra<udicial settle*ent *ade b5 the other co-heirs is not bindin% upon respondents considerin% the latter never participated in it nor did the5 ever si%nif5 their consent to the sa*e. 9is *otion for reconsideration havin% been denied, petitioner filed the present petition for revie!. he issues are3 Chether heirs are dee*ed constructivel5 notified and bound, re%ardless of their failure to participate therein, b5 an e8tra<udicial settle*ent and partition of estate !hen the e8tra<udicial settle*ent and partition has been dul5 publishedE and, ,ssu*in% a published e8tra<udicial settle*ent and partition does not bind persons !ho did not participate therein, !hether the !ritten notice re4uired to be served b5 an heir to his co-heirs in connection !ith the sale of hereditar5 ri%hts to a stran%er before partition under ,rticle &)00 of the Civil Code &+ can be dispensed !ith !hen such co-heirs have actual $no!led%e of the sale such that the =)-da5 period !ithin !hich a co-heir can e8ercise the ri%ht to be subro%ated to the ri%hts of a purchaser shall co**ence fro* the date of actual $no!led%e of the sale. Petitioner ar%ues, as follo!s3 6irstl5, the ac4uisition b5 petitioner of the sub<ect propert5 subse4uent to the e8tra<udicial partition !as valid because the partition !as dul5 published. he publication of the sa*e constitutes due notice to respondents and si%nifies their i*plied ac4uiescence thereon. Respondents are therefore estopped fro* den5in% the validit5 of the partition and sale at this late sta%e. Considerin% that the partition !as valid, respondents no lon%er have the ri%ht to redee* the propert5. Secondl5, petitioner is a possessor and builder in %ood faith. hirdl5, the M C had no <urisdiction over the co*plaint because its sub<ect *atter !as incapable of pecuniar5 esti*ation. he co*plaint should have been filed !ith the R C. 6ourthl5, there !as a non-<oinder of indispensable parties, the co-heirs !ho sold their interest in the sub<ect propert5 not havin% been i*pleaded b5 respondents. 6ifthl5, the appeal to the C, should have been dis*issed as it !as not properl5 verified b5 respondents. .loria Var%as failed to indicate that she !as authori7ed to represent the other respondents >petitioners therein@ to initiate the petition. Moreover, the verification !as inade4uate because it did not state the basis of the alle%ed truth and?or correctness of the *aterial alle%ations in the petition. he petition lac$s *erit. he procedure outlined in Section & of Rule +" is an ex parte proceedin%. he rule plainl5 states, ho!ever, that persons !ho do not participate or had no notice of an e8tra<udicial settle*ent !ill not be bound thereb5. &0 It conte*plates a notice that has been sent out or issued before an5 deed of settle*ent and?or partition is a%reed upon >i.e., a notice callin% all interested parties to participate in the said deed of e8tra<udicial settle*ent and partition@, and not after such an a%ree*ent has alread5 been e8ecuted &/ as !hat happened in the instant case !ith the publication of the first deed of e8tra<udicial settle*ent a*on% heirs. he publication of the settle*ent does not constitute constructive notice to the heirs !ho had no $no!led%e or did not ta$e part in it because the sa*e !as notice after the fact of e8ecution. he re4uire*ent of publication is %eared for the protection of creditors and !as never intended to deprive heirs of their la!ful participation in the decedent:s estate. In this connection, the records of the present case confir* that respondents never si%ned either of the settle*ent docu*ents, havin% discovered their e8istence onl5 shortl5 before the filin% of the present co*plaint. 6ollo!in% Rule +", these e8tra<udicial settle*ents do not bind respondents, and the partition *ade !ithout their $no!led%e and consent is invalid insofar as the5 are concerned.

his is not to sa5, thou%h, that respondents: co-heirs cannot validl5 sell their hereditar5 ri%hts to third persons even before the partition of the estate. he heirs !ho actuall5 participated in the e8ecution of the e8tra<udicial settle*ents, !hich included the sale to petitioner of their pro indiviso shares in the sub<ect propert5, are bound b5 the sa*e. Nevertheless, respondents are %iven the ri%ht to redee* these shares pursuant to ,rticle &)00 of the Civil Code. he ri%ht to redee* !as never lost because respondents !ere never notified in !ritin% of the actual sale b5 their coheirs. Dased on the provision, there is a need for !ritten notice to start the period of rede*ption, thus3 Should an5 of the heirs sell his hereditar5 ri%hts to a stran%er before the partition, an5 or all of the co-heirs *a5 be subro%ated to the ri%hts of the purchaser b5 rei*bursin% hi* for the price of the sale, $ro%&'e' t(e) 'o *o +&t(&, t(e $er&o' o- o,e .o,t( -ro. t(e t&.e t(e) +ere ,ot&-&e' &, +r&t&,/ o- t(e *01e b) t(e %e,'or. >Emphasis supplied.@ It bears e*phasis that the period of one *onth shall be rec$oned fro* the ti*e that a co-heir is notified in !ritin% b5 the vendor of the actual sale. Critten notice is indispensable and *andator5, ') actual $no!led%e of the sale ac4uired in so*e other *anner b5 the rede*ptioner not!ithstandin%. It cannot be counted fro* the ti*e advance notice is %iven of an i*pendin% or conte*plated sale. he la! %ives the co-heir thirt5 da5s fro* the ti*e !ritten notice of the actual sale !ithin !hich to *a$e up his or her *ind and decide to repurchase or effect the rede*ption. '& hou%h the Code does not prescribe an5 particular for* of !ritten notice nor an5 distinctive *ethod for !ritten notification of rede*ption, the *ethod of notification re*ains e8clusive, there bein% no alternative provided b5 la!.'' his proceeds fro* the ver5 purpose of ,rticle &)00, !hich is to $eep stran%ers to the fa*il5 out of a <oint o!nership, if, as is often the case, the presence of outsiders be undesirable and the other heir or heirs be !illin% and in a position to repurchase the share sold.'= It should be $ept in *ind that the obli%ation to serve !ritten notice devolves upon the vendor co-heirs because the latter are in the best position to $no! the other co-o!ners !ho, under the la!, *ust be notified of the sale. '" his !ill re*ove all uncertaint5 as to the fact of the sale, its ter*s and its perfection and validit5, and 4uiet an5 doubt that the alienation is not definitive.'# ,s a result, the part5 notified need not entertain doubt that the seller *a5 still contest the alienation. '( Considerin%, therefore, that respondents: co-heirs failed to co*pl5 !ith this re4uire*ent, there is no le%al i*pedi*ent to allo!in% respondents to redee* the shares sold to petitioner %iven the for*er:s obvious !illin%ness and capacit5 to do so. Ai$e!ise untenable is petitioner:s contention that he is a builder in %ood faith. .ood faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land the latter is buildin% on is one:s o!n !ithout $no!led%e of an5 defect or fla! in one:s title.'+ Petitioner derived his title fro* the E8tra 2udicial Settle*ent ,*on% 9eirs Cith Sale dated Nove*ber &#, &//". 9e !as ver5 *uch a!are that not all of the heirs participated therein as it !as evident on the face of the docu*ent itself. Decause the propert5 had not 5et been partitioned in accordance !ith the Rules of Court, no particular portion of the propert5 could have been identified as 5et and delineated as the ob<ect of the sale. his is because the alienation *ade b5 respondents: co-heirs !as li*ited to the portion !hich *a5 be allotted to the* in the division upon the ter*ination of the co-o!nership. Despite this %larin% fact, and over the protests of respondents, petitioner still constructed i*prove*ents on the propert5. 6or this reason, his clai* of %ood faith lac$s credence. ,s to the issue of lac$ of <urisdiction, petitioner is estopped fro* raisin% the sa*e for the first ti*e on appeal. Petitioner activel5 participated in the proceedin%s belo! and sou%ht affir*ative rulin% fro* the lo!er courts to uphold the validit5 of the sale to hi* of a portion of the sub<ect propert5 e*bodied in the e8tra<udicial settle*ent a*on% heirs. 9avin% failed to seasonabl5 raise this defense, he cannot, under the peculiar circu*stances of this case, be per*itted to challen%e the <urisdiction of the lo!er court at this late sta%e. Chile it is a rule that a <urisdictional 4uestion *a5 be raised at an5 ti*e, an e8ception arises !here estoppel has alread5 supervened. Estoppel sets in !hen a part5 participates in all sta%es of a case before challen%in% the <urisdiction of the lo!er court. One cannot belatedl5 re<ect or repudiate its decision after voluntaril5 sub*ittin% to its <urisdiction, <ust to secure affir*ative relief a%ainst one:s opponent or after failin% to obtain such relief. he Court has, ti*e and a%ain, fro!ned upon the undesirable practice of a part5 sub*ittin% a case for decision and then acceptin% the <ud%*ent, onl5 if favorable, and attac$in% it for lac$ of <urisdiction !hen adverse. '0

Petitioner:s fourth ar%u*ent, that there is a non-<oinder of indispensable parties, si*ilarl5 lac$s *erit. ,n indispensable part5 is a part5-in-interest !ithout !ho* there can be no final deter*ination of an action and !ho is re4uired to be <oined as either plaintiff or defendant. '/ he part5:s interest in the sub<ect *atter of the suit and in the relief sou%ht is so ine8tricabl5 intert!ined !ith the other parties that the for*er:s le%al presence as a part5 to the proceedin% is an absolute necessit5. 9ence, an indispensable part5 is one !hose interest !ill be directl5 affected b5 the court:s action in the liti%ation. In the absence of such indispensable part5, there cannot be a resolution of the controvers5 before the court !hich is effective, co*plete, or e4uitable. =) In relation to this, it *ust be $ept in *ind that the co*plaint filed b5 respondents ulti*atel5 pra5ed that the5 be allo!ed to redee* the shares in the propert5 sold b5 their co-heirs. Si%nificantl5, the ri%ht of the other heirs to sell their undivided share in the propert5 to petitioner is not in dispute. Respondents concede that the other heirs acted !ithin their hereditar5 ri%hts in doin% so to the effect that the latter co*pletel5 and effectivel5 relin4uished their interests in the propert5 in favor of petitioner. Petitioner thus stepped into the shoes of the other heirs to beco*e a co-o!ner of the propert5 !ith respondents. ,s a result, onl5 petitioner:s presence is absolutel5 re4uired for a co*plete and final deter*ination of the controvers5 because !hat respondents see$ is to be subro%ated to his ri%hts as a purchaser. 6inall5, petitioner contends that the petition filed b5 respondents !ith the C, should have been dis*issed because the verification and certificate of non-foru* shoppin% appended to it !ere defective, citin% specificall5 the failure of respondent .loria Var%as to3 >&@ indicate that she !as authori7ed to represent her co-respondents in the petition, and >'@ state the basis of the alle%ed truth of the alle%ations. he %eneral rule is that the certificate of non-foru* shoppin% *ust be si%ned b5 all the plaintiffs or petitioners in a case and the si%nature of onl5 one of the* is insufficient. =& Nevertheless, the rules on foru* shoppin%, !hich !ere desi%ned to pro*ote and facilitate the orderl5 ad*inistration of <ustice, should not be interpreted !ith such absolute literalness as to subvert their o!n ulti*ate and le%iti*ate ob<ective. Strict co*pliance !ith the provisions re%ardin% the certificate of non-foru* shoppin% *erel5 underscores its *andator5 nature in that the certification cannot be alto%ether dispensed !ith or its re4uire*ents co*pletel5 disre%arded. =' Bnder <ustifiable circu*stances, the Court has rela8ed the rule re4uirin% the sub*ission of such certification considerin% that althou%h it is obli%ator5, it is not <urisdictional.== hus, !hen all the petitioners share a co**on interest and invo$e a co**on cause of action or defense, the si%nature of onl5 one of the* in the certification a%ainst foru* shoppin% substantiall5 co*plies !ith the rules. =" he co-respondents of respondent .loria Var%as in this case !ere her children. In order not to defeat the ends of <ustice, the Court dee*s it sufficient that she si%ned the petition on their behalf and as their representative. 2HERE3ORE, the petition is !ENIE! for lac$ of *erit. Costs a%ainst petitioner. SO OR!ERE!. Puno, J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Garcia, JJ., concur.

3oot,ote*
&

C, Rollo, pp. &/=-')/. Id. at ==&. Records >M C@, p. #. Id. at &+)-&+'.

'

"

ranscript of Steno%raphic Notes > SN@ dated 2anuar5 &(, &//+, pp. /-&)E SN dated 2anuar5 &+, &//+, pp. '-".
#

SN dated 2anuar5 &+, &//+, p. ". Records >M C@, p. &((. ,urora Var%as is the dau%hter of .loria Var%as.

,fter the conciliation proceedin%s bet!een the parties failed, a Certification to 6ile ,ction !as issued b5 the Aupon Chair*an of Daran%a5 San 2uan, Virac, Catanduanes on Nove*ber &", &//#.
/ &)

Records >M C@, p.&+(. Id. at ="-#+. Records >R C@, pp. 0(-0+. Records >M C@, pp. =0)-=/(. CIVIA CODE, ,rticle &)003

&&

&'

&=

&"

Should an5 of the heirs sell his hereditar5 ri%hts to a stran%er before the partition, an5 or all of the co-heirs *a5 be subro%ated to the ri%hts of the purchaser b5 rei*bursin% hi* for the price of the sale, provided the5 do so !ithin the period of one *onth fro* the ti*e the5 !ere notified in !ritin% of the sale b5 the vendor.
&#

Records >M C@, pp. =/&-=/#. RBAES O6 COBR , Section &. E8tra <udicial settle*ent b5 a%ree*ent bet!een heirs3

&(

If the decedent left no !ill and no debts and the heirs are all of a%e, or the *inors are represented b5 their <udicial or le%al representatives dul5 authori7ed for the purpose, the parties *a5, !ithout securin% letters of ad*inistration, divide the estate a*on% the*selves as the5 see fit b5 *eans of a public instru*ent filed in the office of the re%ister of deeds, and should the5 disa%ree, the5 *a5 do so in an ordinar5 action of partition. 8 8 8 he parties to an e8tra<udicial settle*ent, !hether b5 public instru*ent or b5 stipulation in a pendin% action for partition, or the sole heir !ho ad<udicates the entire estate to hi*self b5 *eans of an affidavit shall file, si*ultaneousl5 !ith and as a condition precedent to the filin% of the public instru*ent, or stipulation in the action for partition, or of the affidavit in the office of the re%ister of deeds, a bond !ith the said re%ister of deeds, in an a*ount e4uivalent to the value of the personal propert5 involved as certified to under oath b5 the parties concerned and conditioned upon the pa5*ent of an5 <ust clai* that *a5 be filed under section " of this rule. 8 8 8 he fact of the e8tra<udicial settle*ent or ad*inistration shall be published in a ne!spaper of %eneral circulation in the *anner provided in the ne8t succeedin% sectionE but no e8tra<udicial settle*ent shall be bindin% upon an5 person !ho has not participated therein or had no notice thereof.
&+

Supra note &". RBAES O6 COBR , Rule +", Section &888

&0

he fact of the e8tra<udicial settle*ent or ad*inistration shall be published in a ne!spaper of %eneral circulation in the *anner provided in the ne8t succeedin% sectionE but no e8tra<udicial settle*ent shall be bindin% upon an5 person !ho has not participated therein or had no notice thereof .
&/

Pedrosa v. CA, ..R. No. &&0(0), March #, '))&, =#= SCR, ('), ('0. Verdad v. CA, ..R. No. &)//+', ,pril '/, &//(, '#( SCR, #/=.

')

'&

olentino, ,rturo M., 1Co**entaries and 2urisprudence on the Civil Code,1 Vol. III, pp. ()(-()+ >'))&@. Garcia v. Calaliman, ..R. No. '(0##, ,pril &+, &/0/, &+' SCR, ')&.

''

ermoso v. CA, ..R. No. &)0#0), Dece*ber '/, &//0, =)) SCR, #&(, 4uotin% !e Jesus v. "an#lapus, "& Phil. &00 >&/"0@.
'= '"

!e Ape v. CA, ..R. No. &==(=0, ,pril &#, '))#, "#( SCR, &/=.

Verdad v. CA, supra note '), 4uotin% Ca$rera v. Villanueva, ..R. No. A-+#)(/, ,pril &#, &/00, &() SCR, (+'.
'# '(

!e Ape v. CA, supra note '".

%n#sitco v. CA, ..R. No. &'&#'+, March '/, &//(, '## SCR, +)=, 4uotin% Pleasantville !evelopment Corporation v. CA, ..R. No. +/(00, 6ebruar5 &, &//(, '#= SCR, &), and &loreza v. Evan#elista, ..R. No. A-'#"(', 6ebruar5 '&, &/0), /( SCR, &=).
'+ '0

!avid v. Cordova, ..R. No. &#'//'. 2ul5 '0, '))#, "(" SCR, =0". RBAES O6 COBR , Rule =, Section +-

'/

Parties in interest !ithout !ho* no final deter*ination can be had of an action shall be <oined either as plaintiffs or defendants.
=)

P'( v. "ilita, ..R. Nos. &("0)& and &(#&(#, ,u%ust &0, '))#, "(+ SCR, =++.

Gonzales v. (ali)atan *ilusan# (a+an sa Pananalapi , Inc., ..R. No. &#)0#/, March '0, '))#, "#" SCR, &&&E Andres v. Cuevas, ..R. No. &#)0(/, 2une /, '))#, "() SCR, =0.
=& ='

San "i#uel v. A$alla, ..R. No. &"/)&&, 2une '0, '))#, "(& SCR, =/'. %larte v. %,,ice o, the President, ..R. No. &(#0'&, 2une '&, '))#, "() SCR, #(&. omes Su$division omeo.ners Association ,

==

-C Construction and !evelopment Corporation v. Emil+ ..R. No. &=/=(), Septe*ber '=, '))=, "&& SCR, #)".
="