You are on page 1of 14

Alabang Development Corp. v. Valenzuela Teehankee, J. | August 30, 1982 Note: Obiter lang ang relevant sa is!ussion.

Facts: This !ase originate "ro# a $etition "or re!onstitution o" title b% the res$on ents, &as!ual. The res$on ents allege that the% are the o'ners o" the lan 'hi!h is no' (Alabang )ills *illage +ub ivision., Alabang -evelo$#ent .or$oration /A-.0 "ile in the !ourt belo' a belate intervention an #otion "or ne' trial 'hi!h 'ere enie b% res$on ent 1u ge. The trial !ourt grante the $etition o" the res$on ents or ering the issuan!e o" T.Ts in "avor o" the#. This le to the "iling o" this $etition "or !ertiorari an $rohibition b% A-.. The above#entione lan s 'as also the sub1e!t o" a $revious !ase hear b% the .ourt, Director of Lands v Bernal. Issue: 2ON the !ourt ha 1uris i!tion3 Held: No, 4ailure o" the 5es$on ent to observe the noti!e re6uire#ents in +e!tion 12 an 13 o" 5e$ubli! A!t 27. Ratio: 8$on e9a#ination o" the sub1e!t $etition "or re!onstitution, the .ourt notes that so#e essential ata re6uire in se!tion 12 an se!tion 13 o" 5e$ubli! A!t 27 have been o#itte : the nature an es!ri$tion o" the buil ings or i#$rove#ents, 'hi!h o not belong to the o'ner o" the lan , an the na#es an a resses o" the o'ners o" su!h buil ings or i#$rove#ents, an the na#es an a resses o" the o!!u$ants or $ersons in $ossession o" the $ro$ert%, o" the o'ners o" the a 1oining $ro$erties an o" all $ersons 'ho #a% have an% interest in the $ro$ert%. Neither o these ata a$$ear in the Noti!e o" )earing. +u!h that no a 1oining o'ner, o!!u$ant or $ossessor 'as ever serve a !o$% thereo" b% registere #ail or other'ise. The !ourt then 6uotes the e!ision in :ernal. In view of these multiple omissions which constitute non-compliance with the above cited sections of the Act, We rule that said defects have not invested the Court with the authority or jurisdiction to proceed with the case because the manner or mode of obtainin jurisdiction as prescribed by the statute which is mandatory has not been strictly followed, thereby renderin all proceedin s utterly null and void At this $oint the !ase 'as alrea % is#isse , but then the !ourt !ontinues the is!ussion. 5elevant is!ussion: A"ter $assing u$on the 1uris i!tion issue, the .ourt !annot 1ust let go un#entione its observation that the lots 8involve in this re!onstitution !ase are $art o" the surve% $lan /&lan ;;< =3>30 allege l% !overing also ?ots 1 an 3 'hi!h are involve in the Bernal !ase. This re#arkable !oin!i en!e 'arrants a re$ro u!tion here o" the .ourt@s "in ings as to the non< vera!it% an "alsit% o" the surve% $lan ;;<=3>= sub#itte in su$$ort o" re!onstitution in the Bernal !ase.

The !ourt then !ontinues to $oint out that the lan involve in that !ase is the e9a!t sa#e lan . The evi en!e $resente , the sub ivision $lans 'ere the sa#e, an the res$on ents As the .ourt a!!e$te an a$$rove in the Bernal !ase the above "inal re$ort on the relo!ation< veri"i!ation surve% o" the regional o""i!er o" the :ureau o" ?an s an a #itte it as evi en!e o" the "alsit% o" the surve% $lan in 6uestion, there is no reason "or this .ourt not to use it like'ise as basis "or rea!hing. ( The !on!lusion that ?ots 2 an = su$$ose l% !overe b% the sa#e +urve% &lan ;;<=3>= are purely ima inary an Ado not actually e!ist on the round.A 2e !an take 1u i!ial noti!e o" innu#erable litigations an !ontroversies that have been s$a'ne b% the re!kless an hast% grant o" su!h re!onstitution o" allege lost or estro%e titles as 'ell as o" the nu#erous $ur!hasers 'ho have been vi!ti#iBe onl% to "in that the @lan s@ $ur!hase b% the# 'ere !overe b% "orge or "ake titles or their areas si#$l% @e9$an e @ through @table surve%s@ 'ith the !oo$eration o" uns!ru$ulous o""i!ials.A <Cigg%

:e!#en v. .uares#a Dnares<+antiago Jas#in .uares#a /Jas#in0 'as e$lo%e b% :e!#en +ervi!e E9$orter an &ro#otion, ;n!/:e!#en0 to serve as assistant nurse in Al<:irk )os$ital in the Fing o# o" +au i Arabia, "or a !ontra!t uration o" 3 %ears, 'ith salar% o" 8+G2=>.00H#o. Over a %ear later, she ie allege l% o" $oisoning. Jessie 4a1ar o, a !o<'orker o" Jas#in, narrate that, Jas#in 'as "oun ea b% a "e#ale !leaner l%ing on the "loor insi e her or#itor% roo# 'ith her #outh "oa#ing an s#elling o" $oison. :ase on the $oli!e re$ort an the #e i!al re$ort o" the e9a#ining $h%si!ian o" the Al<:irk )os$ital, likel% !ause o" her eath 'as $oisoning. A"ter the bo % 'as re$atriate the .it% )ealth O""i!er o" .abanatuan "oun that Jas#in ie un er violent !ir!u#stan!es. A %ear a"ter her eath /a"ter e9hu#ation o" the !or$se0 N:; teste negative "or non<volatile, #etalli! $oison an inse!ti!i es. +$s. .uares#a /Jas#inIs $arents0 "ile a !o#$laint against :e!#en an its $rin!i$al in the F+A, 5a1ab J +ilsilah .o#$an% /5a1ab0, !lai#ing eath an insuran!e bene"its, as 'ell as #oral an e9e#$lar% a#ages "or Jas#inIs eath. .uares#as <K Jas#inIs eath 'as 'ork relate L as a result o" Jas#inIs eath un er #%sterious !ir!u#stan!es, the% su""ere slee$less nights an #ental anguish. :e!#en <K !ite $ast sui!i e atte#$ts o" Jas#in, relie on Al<:irk re$ort that eath 'as not 'ork relate 2hile the !ase 'as $en ing, :e!#en "ile a #ani"estation an #otion "or substitution alleging that 5a1ab ter#inate their agen!% relationshi$ an ha a$$ointe 2hite 4al!on +ervi!es, ;n!. /2hite 4al!on0 as its ne' re!ruit#ent agent in the &hili$$ines. Thus, 2hite 4al!on 'as i#$lea e as res$on ent as 'ell, an it a o$te an reiterate :e!#enIs argu#ents in the $osition $a$er it subse6uentl% "ile . ?A: is#isse !o#$laint, relie on Al<:irk "in ings that it 'as a sui!i e N?5.: reverse ?A, relie on the "in ing o" the .it% )ealth O""i!er o" .abanatuan that eath 'as ue to 'ork<!onne!te !ri#inal aggression. C5 enie .A: a""ir#e N?5. e9e!ution o" the e!ision, it shoul "irst be en"or!e against 2hite 4al!on +ervi!es an then against :e!#en +ervi!es 'hen it is alrea % i#$ossible, i#$ra!ti!al an "utile to go against 2hite 4al!on ;++8E+: 2ON +$s. .uares#a are entitle to #onetar% !lai#s, b% 'a% o" bene"its an "or the eath o" their aughter Jas#in. A. -oes her .ontrat $rovi e "or su!h !o#$ensation3 NO The ter#s an !on itions o" Jas#inIs 1997 E#$lo%#ent Agree#ent 'hi!h she an her e#$lo%er 5a1ab "reel% entere into !onstitute the la' bet'een the#. As a rule, sti$ulations in an e#$lo%#ent !ontra!t not !ontrar% to statutes, $ubli! $oli!%, $ubli! or er or #orals have the "or!e o" la' bet'een the !ontra!ting $arties.18 An e9a#ination o" sai e#$lo%#ent agree#ent sho's that it $rovi es "or no other #onetar% or other bene"itsH$rivileges than the "ollo'ing: a#ages,

1. 1,300 rials /or 8+G2=>.000 #onthl% salar%L 2. 4ree air ti!kets to F+A at the start o" her !ontra!t an to the &hili$$ines at the en thereo", as 'ell as "or her va!ation at the en o" ea!h t'ent% "our<#onth servi!eL 3. Trans$ortation to an "ro# 'orkL =. 4ree living a!!o##o ationsL M. 4ree #e i!al treat#ent, e9!e$t "or o$ti!al an ental o$erations, $lasti! surger% !harges an lenses, an #e i!al treat#ent obtaine outsi e o" F+AL 7. Entr% visa "ees 'ill be share e6uall% bet'een her an her e#$lo%er, but the e9itHre<entr% visa "ees, "ees "or ;6a#a issuan!e, rene'al, re$la!e#ent, $ass$ort rene'al, s$onsorshi$ trans"er an other liabilities shall be borne b% herL >. Thirt% a%s $ai va!ation leave 'ith roun tri$ ti!kets to Canila a"ter t'ent% "our<#onths o" !ontinuous servi!eL 8. Eight a%s $ubli! holi a%s $er %earL 9. The in e#nit% bene"it ue her at the en o" her servi!e 'ill be !al!ulate as $er labor la's o" F+A. Thus, the agree#ent oes not in!lu e $rovisions "or insuran!e, or "or a!!i ent, eath or other bene"its that the .uares#as seek to re!over, an 'hi!h the labor tribunals an a$$ellate !ourt grante variabl% in the guise o" !o#$ensator% a#ages. :. +houl Jas#inIs eath be !onsi ere as 'ork<!onne!te an thus !o#$ensable3 The evi en!e in i!ates that it is not. At the ti#e o" her eath, she 'as not on ut%, or else evi en!e to the !ontrar% 'oul have been a u!e . Neither 'as she 'ithin hos$ital $re#ises at the ti#e. ;nstea , she 'as at her or#itor% roo# on $ersonal ti#e 'hen she ie . Neither has it been sho'n, nor oes the evi en!e suggest, that at the ti#e she ie , Jas#in 'as $er"or#ing an a!t reasonabl% ne!essar% or in!i ental to her e#$lo%#ent as nurse, be!ause she 'as at her or#itor% roo#. ;t is reasonable to su$$ose that all her 'ork is $er"or#e at the Al<birk )os$ital, an not at her or#itor% roo#. .. -i Jas#in .o##it +ui!i e3 +. oes not subs!ribeL it is be%on hu#an !o#$rehension that a 2M<%ear ol 4ili$ina, in the $ri#e o" her li"e an 'orking abroa 'ith a !han!e at #aking a e!ent living 'ith a high<$a%ing 1ob 'hi!h she !oul not "in in her o'n !ountr%, 'oul si#$l% !o##it sui!i e "or no !o#$elling reason. Evi en!e b% the .it% health O""i!er sho'e that 1as#ine 'as $robabl% #anhan le an ra$e

+. ategori!all% hol s, base on the evi en!eL the a!tual e9$erien!es o" our O42sL an the resilient an !ourageous s$irit o" the 4ili$ina that trans!en s the vilest ese!ration o" her $h%si!al sel", that Jas#in i not !o##it sui!i e but a vi!ti# o" #ur erous aggression. +. on re!ruit#ent agen!ies: ;n a "oreign lan 'here O42s are likel% to en!ounter uneven i" not is!ri#inator% treat#ent "ro# the "oreign govern#ent, an !ertainl% a ela%e a!!ess to language inter$retation, legal ai , an the &hili$$ine !onsulate, the re!ruit#ent agen!ies shoul be the "irst to !o#e to the res!ue o" our istresse O42s sin!e the% kno' the e#$lo%ers an the a resses 'here the% are e$lo%e or statione . 8$on the# lies the $ri#ar% obligation to $rote!t the rights an ensure the 'el"are o" our O42s, 'hether istresse or not. 2ho else is in a better $osition, i" not these re!ruit#ent agen!ies, to ren er i##e iate ai to their e$lo%e O42s abroa 3 :e!#enIs a!tions o" si#$l% is#issing Jas#inIs eath as a sui!i e !ontratr% to #orals an $ubli! $oli!% .ourt hol s that the .uares#as are entitle to #oral a#ages, 'hi!h :e!#en an 2hite 4al!on are 1ointl% an soli aril% liable to $a%, together 'ith e9e#$lar% a#ages "or 'anton an o$$ressive behavior, an b% 'a% o" e9a#$le "or the $ubli! goo .

JAO V CA /June 18, 19980 DOC RI!"# .ourts, it 'as state , shoul a$$l% the results o" s!ien!e 'hen !o#$etentl% obtaine in ai o" situations $resente , sin!e to re1e!t sai result 'as to en% $rogress. FAC $# &etitioner, re$resente b% her #other, "ile a !ase "or re!ognition an su$$ort 'ith the Juvenile an -o#esti! 5elations .ourt against res$on ent. 5es$on ent enie $aternit% so the $arties agree to a bloo grou$ing test to be !on u!te b% the National :ureau o" ;nvestigation /N:;0. The results o" the test in i!ate that $etitioner !oul not have been the $ossible o""s$ring o" the #other an res$on ent. The 5T. initiall% "oun the result legall% !on!lusive but u$on se!on C5 o" the $etitioner, it or ere a trial on the #erits. The 5T. "oun "or $etitioner an she 'as e!lare the !hil o" res$on ent, entitling her to his #onthl% su$$ort. The .A reverse . I$$%"$# 2ON the result o" the bloo grou$ing test is a #issible an !on!lusive to $rove non< $aternit%. H"&D# No RA IO# 4or the $ast three e!a es, the use o" bloo t%$ing in !ases o" is$ute $arentage has alrea % be!o#e an i#$ortant legal $ro!e ure. There is no' al#ost universal s!ienti"i! agree#ent that bloo grou$ing tests are !on!lusive as to non<$aternit%, although in!on!lusive as to $aternit% N that is, the "a!t that the bloo t%$e o" the !hil is a $ossible $ro u!t o" the #other an allege "ather oes not !on!lusivel% $rove that the !hil is born b% su!h $arents. :ut i" the bloo t%$e o" the !hil is not the $ossible bloo t%$e 'hen the bloo o" the #other an that o" the allege "ather are !ross#at!he , then the !hil !annot $ossibl% be that o" the allege "ather. ;n 1uris i!tions like the 8nite +tates, the a #issibilit% o" bloo tests results to $rove non<$aternit% has alrea % been $asse u$on in several !ases. The .ourt sai that the !o#$etent #e i!al testi#on% 'as over'hel#ingl% in "avor o" the $lainti"", an to re1e!t su!h testi#on% 'oul be tanta#ount to re1e!ting s!ienti"i! "a!t. .ourts, it 'as state , shoul a$$l% the results o" s!ien!e 'hen !o#$etentl% obtaine in ai o" situations $resente , sin!e to re1e!t sai result 'as to en% $rogress. The N:;Is "orensi! !he#ist 'ho !on u!te the tests is also a serologist, an has ha e9tensive $ra!ti!e in this area "or several %ears. The bloo tests 'ere !on u!te si9 /70 ti#es using t'o /20 s!ienti"i!all% re!ogniBe bloo grou$ing s%ste#s, the CN Test an the A:O +%ste#,1= un er 'itness an su$ervision.

ESTRELLA PIGAO, ROMEO PIGAO, EMMANUEL PIGAO, ISABELITA ABAD, PURITA SARTIGA, CESAR PIGAO, TERESITA PIGAO, VIRGILIO PIGAO and EVANGELINE KIUNISALA, Petitioners, vs. SAMUEL RABANILLO, Res ondent. (May 2, 2006) DOCTRINE! ". Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general no!ledge" (2) it must be !ell and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain" and (#) it must be no!n to be !ithin the limits of jurisdiction of the court$ %he &o!er of ta ing judicial notice is to be e'ercised by courts !ith caution$ (are must be ta en that the requisite notoriety e'ists and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be &rom&tly resolved in the negative$ #. ) document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence !hen it is sim&ly mar ed for identification" it must be formally offered, and the o&&osing counsel given an o&&ortunity to object to it or cross*e'amine the !itness called u&on to &rove or identify it$ ) formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and judgment only + and strictly + u&on the evidence offered by the &arties at the trial$ %o allo! a &arty to attach any document to his &leading and then e'&ect the court to consider it as evidence may dra! un!arranted consequences$ %he o&&osing &arty !ill be de&rived of his chance to e'amine the document and object to its admissibility$ %he a&&ellate court !ill have difficulty revie!ing documents not &reviously scrutini,ed by the court belo!$ %he &ertinent &rovisions of the -evised -ules of (ourt on the inclusion on a&&eal of documentary evidence or e'hibits in the records cannot be stretched as to include such &leadings or documents not offered at the hearing of the case$ NATURE! .etition for revie! on certiorari PONENTE! (orona, J. $ACTS! 1$ () decision: /01-123-1, the decision rendered in (ivil (ase 4o$ 5*66*26270 on 2ebruary 27, 1668 is hereby -191-:1; and :1% ):<;1$ )s &rayed for in the ans!er, %ransfer (ertificate of %itle 4o$ =6210 over the 2>0 square*meter lot located at 62 (no! 102) ?*=th :treet, ?amuning, 5ue,on (ity issued in the name of 1usebio .igao@s children is hereby ordered ()4(1AA1; and the -egister of ;eeds of 5ue,on (ity is hereby ordered to <::B1 a ne! one in lieu thereof in the names of both 1usebio .igao@s children and :amuel -abanillo, !ith the front half &ortion of the lot &ertaining to the latter and the bac half &ortion &ertaining to the former$ -%(: /01-123-1, judgment is hereby rendered in the follo!ing: 1$ ;eclaring C&etitionersD the absolute o!ners of the entire land described in %(% 4o$ =6210 and declaring the deed of assignment issued by the late 1usebio .igao in favor of Cres&ondentD null and void$ 2$ 3rdering C&etitionersD to &ay Cres&ondentD the value of the house and im&rovements thereon in the event that they choose to a&&ro&riate the same in !hich case Cres&ondentD is given the right of retention until he has been reimbursed by C&etitionersD" or to com&el Cres&ondentD to buy the land in case they choose not to$ <n the latter case, Cres&ondentD cannot be com&elled to buy the land if the value thereof is higher than the value of the im&rovements$ #$ ;ismissing the case against defendant Eil Fmata for lac of cause of action there being no &rivity of contract bet!een him and C&etitionersD" >$ ;ismissing both C&etitioners@D and Cres&ondent@sD claims for damages and attorney@s fees there being no satisfactory !arrant thereto" and =$ 4o &ronouncements as to costs$

2$

16>7: 1usebio .igao settled on 2>0 meter lot" land used to be o!ned by .eo&le@s 0omesite and 0ousing cor&oration (.00()" 1usebio a&&lied for the &urchase of the lot and a contract to sell !as entered into by 1usebio and .00( 16=6: 1usebio e'cuted deed of assignment of rights over one* half of the &ro&erty in favor of res&ondent -abanillo" fornt half !as occu&ied by -abanillo, established a building and &aid amorti,ations 1670, 1usebio e'ecuted a deed of mortgage over the same half*&ortion of the &ro&erty in favor of res&ondent$ )fter the amorti,ations on the subject lot !ere fully &aid in 167#, the .00( issued a deed of sale over the entire lot in favor of 1usebio$ 1678, res&ondent e'ecuted an affidavit of adverse claim over the front half &ortion of the lot registered in 1usebio@s name$ %his affidavit !as duly annotated Gune 17, 1676, 1usebio died and !as survived by his children, herein &etitioners 1688, after the 3ffice of the -egister of ;eeds of 5ue,on (ity !as gutted by fire, &etitioner 1strella .igao a&&lied for the reconstitution of the original of %(% 4o$ 1676>1 that !as burned$ %his !as a&&roved in 1660 and %(% !as issued, still in the name of 1usebio$ %his reconstituted title no longer carried the annotation of the adverse claim of res&ondent$ <n 1662, &etitioners e'ecuted an e'trajudicial settlement of 1usebio@s estate among themselves, including the entire subject lot$ )s a consequence, %(% 4o$ =6210 !as issued for the entire lot in the name of &etitioners$ -es&ondent continued to occu&y the front half &ortion through his tenant, Eil Fmata$ 3n Ganuary 26, 1666, &etitioners instituted civil case -%(, against res&ondent and Fmata !herein they sought to quiet their title over the entire lot and to recover &ossession of the front half &ortion$ %hey averred that 1usebio@s deed of assignment and deed of mortgage !ere clouds on their title !hich should be nullified$ %he -%( ruled in favor of &etitioners

#$

>$

=$ 6$ 7$

8$

ISSUES% &ELD! ". 9alidity of the deed of assignment !hereby 1usebio assigned to res&ondent his rights to half of the lot (0eld: in favor of .etitioners, reversing ()) #. /hether an im&lied trust relationshi& !as created bet!een 1usebio and his heirs as trustees and res&ondent as beneficiary (0eld: in favor of .etitioners, reversing ()) RATIO%RULING! <ssue <! ". .etitoners argue for the a&&lication of :ec 118 of () 1>1 .ublic Aand )ct: Sec. 118. Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units, or institutions, lands acquired under free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or rant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period, but the improvements or crops on the land may be mort a ed or pled ed to qualified persons, associations, or corporations. %hey argue that the deed of assignment !as entered into during the &rohibited &eriod$ -es&ondents argues that () 1>1 ony a&&lies to homestead or sales &atent$ :( agrees$ %he land !as o!ned by .00(, a govt cor&oration #. /hen 1usebio and res&ondent entered into a deed of assignment, it !as before the final deed of sale in favor of 1usebio$ /hen the deed of sale !as issued there !as a &orhibiton against alienation of the lot$ () held ho!ever that 1usebio merely assigned the rigt to buy, o!n and occu&y the front &ortion of the lot and not the lot iself, thus () held that deed of assignment !as valid because 1usebio !as under no &rohibition to sell such right$

a$

'EVIDENCE STU$$( .etitioners insist such &rohibition: %o su&&ort their claim, they request this (ourt to ta e judicial notice of the fact that the &ro*forma conditional contracts*to* sell bet!een .00( and a&&licants for the &urchase of its lots contained a condition stating that Hthe a&&licant agree(d) not to sell, assign, encumber, mortgage, lease, sublet or in any other manner affect his right under this contract, at any time, in any manner !hatsoever, in !hole or in &art, !ithout first obtaining the !ritten consent of the (or&oration$H )lthough they admitted that they failed to &resent during the trial the conditional contract to sell bet!een 1usebio and .00(, they claimed that they did not have a co&y thereof$ <n fact, !hat they submitted to this (ourt !as a co&y of a conditional contract to sell bet!een a certain )rmando Iernabe and the .00( -es&ondent objects to admission of evidence because it !as not &resented during trial or on a&&eal$ :( agrees$ %his document is not among matters the la! mandatorily requires (ourt to ta e judicial notice of$ 4either can (ourt consider it of &ublic no!ledge nor ca&able of unquestionable demonstration nor ought to be n!n to judges because of their judicial functions Matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general no!ledge" (2) it must be !ell and authoritatively settled and not doubtful or uncertain" and (#) it must be no!n to be !ithin the limits of jurisdiction of the court$ %he &o!er of ta ing judicial notice is to be e'ercised by courts !ith caution$ (are must be ta en that the requisite notoriety e'ists and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be &rom&tly resolved in the negative$ <t should have been &resented during trial and formally offered as evidence$ ) document, or any article for that matter, is not evidence !hen it is sim&ly mar ed for identification" it must be formally offered, and the o&&osing counsel given an o&&ortunity to object to it or cross*e'amine the !itness called u&on to &rove or identify it$ ) formal offer is necessary since judges are required to base their findings of fact and judgment only + and strictly + u&on the evidence offered by the &arties at the trial$ %o allo! a &arty to attach any document to his &leading and then e'&ect the court to consider it as evidence may dra! un!arranted consequences$ %he o&&osing &arty !ill be de&rived of his chance to e'amine the document and object to its admissibility$ %he a&&ellate court !ill have difficulty revie!ing documents not &reviously scrutini,ed by the court belo!$ %he &ertinent &rovisions of the -evised -ules of (ourt on the inclusion on a&&eal of documentary evidence or e'hibits in the records cannot be stretched as to include such &leadings or documents not offered at the hearing of the case$ Iesides, this document does not even &ertain to the lot and &arties involved here$ )ccordingly, it is neither relevant nor material evidence$ Iut even assuming that it !ere, then it !ould substantially affect the outcome of the case so res&ondent should have been given the chance to scrutini,e the document and object to it during the trial of the case$

b$

c$

d$

e$

). 4evertheless, !e hold that the deed of assignment bet!een 1usebio and res&ondent is null and void for being contrary to &ublic &olicy$ Bnder .00( rules, &reference for the &urchase of residential lots from the .00( !as accorded to bona fide occu&ants of such lots$ *. 1usebio, as a bona fide occu&ant of the subject lot, had a vested right to buy the &ro&erty$ %his did not, ho!ever, give him the unbridled freedom to transfer his right to a third &arty, s&ecially one !ho !as unqualified to avail of it$ +. %he .00( !as clothed !ith authority to determine if a &erson !as qualified to &urchase a residential lot from it$ %here is no sh&!ing that the .00(@s a&&roval for the assignment of half of the lot !as ever obtained$ %he assignment of rights by 1usebio to res&ondent !ho !as not a bona fide occu&ant of the lot, frustrated the &ublic &olicy of the gvernment$ %hus null and void$ <ssue <<:

1$ -easoning of (): C)Dfter the e'ecution of the deed of assignment, Cres&ondentD &roceeded to buy the front half &ortion from .00( by &aying the amorti,ations due thereon in e'ercise of the right !hich he &urchased by !ay of deed of assignment$ 0e also established his residence on this &ortion since he !as then secure in the no!ledge that he eventually !ill o!n the same &ortion having also &urchased this right to o!n in the deed of assignment$ %herefore, !hen the &urchase &rice for the entire lot !as finally &aid, the deed of its conveyance !as finally e'ecuted and the title to the entire lot !as issued in 1usebio .igao@s name, an im&lied trust relationshi& !as created over the front half &ortion bet!een .igao and Cres&ondentD$ .er )rticle 1>>8 of the (ivil (ode, Hthere is an im&lied trust !hen &ro&erty is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one &arty but the &rice is &aid by another for the &ur&ose of having the beneficial interest of the &ro&erty$H %he former &arty is referred to as the trustee, !hile the latter is referred to as the beneficiary$ <n the case at bench, the trustee is .igao, !ho, !ith the title to the entire lot issued to him, holds the front half &ortion thereof in trust for Cres&ondentD, !ho is the beneficiary$ 2$ 1'ce&tion to the establishment of an im&lied resulting trust under )rticle 1>>8 is !hen its enforcement contravenes &ublic &olicy$ %he &arties must necessarily be subject to the same limitations on allo!able sti&ulations in ordinary contracts, i$e$, their sti&ulations must not be contrary to la!, morals, good customs, &ublic order, or &ublic &olicy$ /hat the &arties then cannot e'&ressly &rovide in their contracts for being contrary to la! and &ublic &olicy, they cannot im&liedly or im&licitly do so in the guise of a resulting trust$ #$ )dmittedly, res&ondent shouldered half of the amorti,ations !hich !ere received by 1usebio@s !ife and &aid to the .00( for the &urchase of the lot$ 0e also &aid for the realty ta'es for the said &ortion$ 0o!ever, this !as not an im&lied trust !herein &etitioners held the title over the front half &ortion in trust for res&ondent$ 3ther!ise, it !ould again run against &ublic &olicy$ DISPOSITION! /01-123-1, the instant &etition is hereby E-)4%1;$ %he (ourt of )&&eals decision dated 3ctober 26, 2001 in ()*E$-$ (9 4o$ 60066 is -191-:1; and :1% ):<;1$ %he decision of the -egional %rial (ourt of 5ue,on (ity, Iranch 6= in (ivil (ase 4o$ 5*66*26270 is -1<4:%)%1;$

SOLID BANK v. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORP. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, Petitioners, vs. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORPORATION, Spouses JONG-WON HONG !" SOO-OK KIM HONG,#TERESITA C$, !" RICARDO P. G$E%ARA !" Spouse,## respondents. (July 28, 2005) DOCTRINE& a. While a court is not mandated to take judicial notice of this ractice under !ection " of #ule "2$ of the #ules of %ourt, it nevertheless may do so under !ection 2 of the same #ule. &he latter #ule rovides that a court, in its discretion, may take judicial notice of 'matters (hich are of u)lic kno(led*e, or ou*ht to )e kno(n to jud*es )ecause of their judicial functions.' ). &hus, the %ourt has taken judicial notice of the ractices of )anks and other financial institutions. Precisely, it has noted that it is their uniform ractice, )efore a rovin* a loan, to investi*ate, e+amine and assess (ould,)e )orro(ers- credit standin* or real estate offered as security for the loan a lied for. NAT$RE& Petition for #evie(" under #ule .5 of the #ules of %ourt PONENTE& P/01/023/0, J.: FACTS& '. &he 4aria %ristina %hemical 2ndustries (4%%2) and three (5) 6orean cor orations decided to for*e a joint venture and esta)lish a cor oration, under the name of the 4indanao 7erroalloy %or oration (%or oration for )revity) (. 8n 0ovem)er 29, "$$0, the 3oard of :irectors of the %or oration a roved a ;#esolution- authori<in* its President and %hairman of the 3oard of :irectors or &eresita #. %u, actin* to*ether (ith Jon*,Won =on*, to secure an omni)us line in the a**re*ate amount of P50,000,000.00 from the !olid)ank ). &he %or oration started its o erations sometime in / ril, "$$" and its inde)tedness )allooned to P200,.55,989.9$ com ared to its assets of only P95,.>9,000.00. &he %or oration also secured 2 ordinary time loans from the !olid)ank. *. &he %or oration e+ecuted ;Promissory 0ote n favor of the 3ank evidencin* its loan &eresita %u and Jon*,Won =on* affi+ed their si*natures on the note. &o secure the ayment of the said loan, the %or oration, throu*h Jon*,Won =on* and &eresita %u, e+ecuted a ;:eed of /ssi*nment- in favor of the 3ank coverin* its ri*hts, title and interest to the roceeds of drafts dra(n under an irrevoca)le letter of credit. &he %or oration like(ise e+ecuted a ;?uedan-, and a &rust #ecei t /*reement )y (ay of additional security, under (hich the %or oration )ound and o)li*ed to kee and hold, in trust for the 3ank or its 8rder. Jon*,Won =on* and &eresita %u affi+ed their si*natures thereon for the %or oration. +,. =o(ever, shortly after the e+ecution of the said deeds, the %or oration sto ed its o erations. &he %or oration failed to ay its loan availments from the 3ank inclusive of accrued interest. ++. &he 3ank sent a letter to the %or oration demandin* ayment of its loan availments inclusive of interests due. &he %or oration failed to com ly (ith the demand of the 3ank. &he 3ank sent another letter to the @%or orationA demandin* ayment of its account (hich, )y 0ovem)er 25, "$$2, had amounted to P>,285,$"5.55. &he %or oration a*ain failed to com ly (ith the demand of the 3ank. +-. &he 3ank filed a com laint a*ainst the %or oration (ith the #e*ional &rial %ourt for ;!um of 4oney.+.. Bnder its ;/mended %om laint-, the Plaintiff alle*ed that it im leaded #icardo 1uevara and his (ife as :efendant. +/. @PetitionerA like(ise filed a criminal Ciolation of P.:. ""5, )ut, the investi*atin* Prosecutor issued a ;#esolutionfindin* no ro)a)le cause +0. 2n the interim, the %or oration filed, on June 20, "$$., a ;Petition-, (ith the #e*ional &rial %ourt for ;Coluntary 2nsolvency-. a. &he %ourt issued an 8rder, on July "2, "$$., findin* the Petition sufficient in form and su)stance ). the %ourt issued an 8rder sus endin* the roceedin*s as a*ainst the :efendant %or oration )ut orderin* the roceedin*s to roceed as a*ainst the individual defendants +'. &he %ourt rendered a :ecision dismissin* the com laint for lack of cause of action of @ etitionerA a*ainst the ! ouses Jon*,Won =on*, &eresita %u and the ! ouses #icardo 1uevara a. the %ourt a quo found and declared that @ etitionerA failed to adduce a morsel of evidence to rove the ersonal lia)ility of the said @res ondentsA +(. 2n the meantime, on motion of @ etitionerA, the %ourt set aside its 8rder, dated 7e)ruary 2, "$$5, sus endin* the roceedin*s as a*ainst the @res ondentA %or oration. +). @PetitionerA filed a ;4otion for !ummary Jud*ment- a*ainst the @res ondentA %or oration. &he %ourt rendered a ;!ummary Jud*ment- a*ainst the @res ondentA %or oration in favor of @PetitionerA !8D2:3/06 %8#P8#/&280 and a*ainst @#es ondentA 420:/0/8 7E##8/DD8F %8#P8#/&280, +*. 2n its a eal, etitioner ar*ued that (") it had adduced the reGuisite evidence to rove the solidary lia)ility of the individual res ondents, and (2) it (as not lia)le for their counterclaims for dama*es and attorney-s fees. #ulin* of the %ourt of / eals

-,. /ffirmin* the #&%, the a ellate court ruled that the individual res ondents (ere not solidarily lia)le (ith the 4indanao 7erroalloy %or oration, )ecause they had acted merely as officers of the cor oration, (hich (as the real arty in interest. Dike(ise, the %/ held that the individual res ondents (ere not lia)le to etitioner for dama*es, sim ly )ecause (") they had not received the roceeds of the irrevoca)le Detter of %redit, (hich (as the su)ject of the :eed of /ssi*nmentH and (2) the *oods su)ject of the &rust #ecei t /*reement had )een found to )e none+istent. -+. T1e ppe22 3e 4ou53 3oo6 7u"848 2 !o384e o9 31e p5 4384e o9 : !6s !" 98! !48!; 8!s383u38o!s 3o 8!ves38; 3e, e< =8!e !" ssess 22 p5ope538es o99e5e" :> :o55o?e5s s 4o22 3e5 2s, 8! o5"e5 3o "e3e5=8!e 31e 9e s8:8283> !" "v8s :8283> o9 ;5 !38!; 2o !s. Be9o5e ;5ee8!; 3o 31e 4o!so28" 38o! o9 M8!9 4o@s 2o !s, 83 p5esu=e" 31 3 pe3838o!e5 1 " "o!e 83s 1o=e?o56. ISS$ES& $. Whether the individual res ondents are lia)le, either jointly or solidarily, (ith the 4indanao 7erroalloy %or oration. NO +,. M > : !6 p5 4384es :e 31e p5ope5 su:7e43 o9 7u"848 2 !o384eA YES HELDBRATIOBR$LING& .. No. 2n the totality of the circumstances, (e hold that #es ondents %u and =on* clearly si*ned the 0ote merely as re resentatives of 4infaco. Liability of Individual Respondents a. &he tri)unals found that, althou*h he had not si*ned any document in connection (ith the su)ject transaction, #es ondent 1uevara (as authori<ed to re resent 4infaco in ne*otiatin* for a P50 million loan from etitioner. ). /s to %u and =on*, it (as determined, amon* others, that their si*natures on the loan documents other than the :eed of /ssi*nment (ere not refaced (ith the (ord ')y,' and that there (ere no other si*natures to indicate (ho had si*ned for and on )ehalf of 4infaco, the rinci al )orro(er. c. 2n the Promissory 0ote, they si*ned a)ove the rinted name of the cor oration ,, on the s ace rovided for '4akerI3orro(er,' not on that rovided for '%o,maker.' No Personal Liability for Corporate Deeds d. &he *eneral rule that cor orate officers cannot )e held ersonally lia)le for the conseGuences of their acts, for as lon* as these are for and on )ehalf of the cor oration, (ithin the sco e of their authority and in *ood faith. e. First, it is )eyond cavil that he (as duly authori<ed to act on )ehalf of the cor oration. Second, no sufficient and s ecific evidence (as resented to sho( that he had acted in )ad faith or *ross ne*li*ence in that ne*otiation. !ird, he did not hold himself ersonally and solidarily lia)le (ith the cor oration. f. While their si*natures a ear (ithout Gualification, the inference that they si*ned in their individual ca acities is ne*ated )y the follo(in* factsJ ") the name and the address of the cor oration a eared on the s ace rovided for '4akerI3orro(er'H 2) #es ondents %u and =on* had only one set of si*natures on the instrument, (hen there should have )een t(o, if indeed they had intended to )e )ound solidarily ,, the first as re resentatives of the cor oration, and the second as themselves in their individual ca acitiesH 5) they did not si*n under the s aces rovided for '%o,maker,' and neither (ere their addresses reflected thereH and .) at the )ack of the Promissory 0ote, they si*ned a)ove the (ords '/uthori<ed #e resentative.' Solidary Liability Not Li"!tly Inferred *. 4oreover, it is a+iomatic that solidary lia)ility cannot )e li*htly inferred. ". Bnder /rticle "20> of the %ivil %ode, 'there is a solidary lia)ility only (hen the o)li*ation e+ ressly so states, or (hen the la( or the nature of the o)li*ation reGuires solidarity.' h. 2n the totality of the circumstances, (e hold that #es ondents %u and =on* clearly si*ned the 0ote merely as re resentatives of 4infaco. No Reason to Pierce t!e Corporate #eil i. &he distinct and se arate cor orate ersonality may )e disre*arded, inter alia$ (hen the cor orate identity is used to defeat u)lic convenience, justify a (ron*, rotect a fraud, or defend a crime. j. 7raud must )e esta)lished )y clear and convincin* evidenceH mere re onderance of evidence is not adeGuate. 3ad faith, on the other hand, im orts a dishonest ur ose or some moral o)liGuity and conscious doin* of a (ron*, not sim ly )ad jud*ment or ne*li*ence. k. Bnfortunately, etitioner (as una)le to esta)lish clearly and recisely ho( the alle*ed fraud (as committed. 2t failed to esta)lish that it (as deceived into *rantin* the loans )ecause of res ondents- misre resentations andIor insidious actions. k.i. Petitioner )ank (as in a osition to verify for itself the solvency and trust(orthiness of res ondent cor oration. I! 9 43, o5"8! 5> :us8!ess p5u"e!4e 5eCu85e" 83 3o "o so :e9o5e ;5 !38!; 31e =u238=8228o! 2o !s. I3 8s o9 4o==o! 6!o?2e";e

31 3, s = 33e5 o9 p5 4384e, : !6s 4o!"u43 e<1 us38ve 8!ves38; 38o!s o9 31e 98! !48 2 s3 !"8!; o9 ! pp284 !3 "e:3o5, s ?e22 s pp5 8s 2s o9 4o22 3e5 2s o99e5e" s se4u5838es 9o5 2o !s 3o e!su5e 31e85 p5o=p3 !" s 38s9 43o5> p >=e!3. &o u hold etitioner-s cry of fraud (hen it failed to verify the e+istence of the *oods covered )y the &rust #ecei t /*reement and the ?uedan is to condone its ne*li*ence. /. Fes. While a court is not mandated to take judicial notice of this ractice under !ection " of #ule "2$ of the #ules of %ourt, it nevertheless may do so under !ection 2 of the same #ule.

Judicial Notice of Bank Practices l. While a court is not mandated to take judicial notice of this ractice under !ection " of #ule "2$ of the #ules of %ourt, it nevertheless may do so under !ection 2 of the same #ule. &he latter #ule rovides that a court, in its discretion, may take judicial notice of 'matters (hich are of u)lic kno(led*e, or ou*ht to )e kno(n to jud*es )ecause of their judicial functions.' m. &hus, the %ourt has taken judicial notice of the ractices of )anks and other financial institutions. Precisely, it has noted that it is their uniform ractice, )efore a rovin* a loan, to investi*ate, e+amine and assess (ould,)e )orro(ers- credit standin* or real estate offered as security for the loan a lied for. DISPOSITION& WHEREFORE, this Petition is P%R I%LL& 'R%N (D. &he assailed :ecision is %FFIR)(D$ )ut the a(ard of moral and e+em lary dama*es as (ell as attorney-s fees is D(L( (D. 0o costs. %OTE& &=2#: :2C2!280H !andoval,1utierre<, %orona, %ar io,4orales, and 1arcia, JJ., concur.