HeirsofGabatanv.

CA
Facts:LourdesEveroPacana,respondent,wantedtorepossessa1.1062hectareparcelof
landthatshesupposedlyinheritedfromherfatherJuanGabatan,fromthepetitioners,the
heirsofTeofiloGabatan.ThesaidparceloflandwasownedbyJuanGabatan.The
respondentallegesthatsheinheritedtheparceloflandfromherdeceasedmother,
HermogenaClaritoGabatan,whowassaidtobetheonlychildofJuanGabatanandhis
wifeLaureanaClarito.WhenJuanGabatandied,thelotwasentrustedtohisbrother,
TeofiloGabatanandhiswifeRita.Teofilossideofthefamilyhasbeenadministeringthe
parceloflandeversince.
ToascertainherlegalityasthesoleheirofJuanGabucan,Itwasincumbentuponherto
presentpreponderantevidenceinsupportofhercomplaint.However,duringpresentation
ofevidence,therewere2birthcertificatespresenteduponthecourt.Onefromthe
respondent,andonefromthepetitioners
Respondent,duringherdirecttestimony,presentedandidentifiedapurportedcertified
truecopyofhertypewrittenbirthcertificatewhichindicatedthathermother'smaiden
namewas"HermogenaClaritoGabatan".
Petitioners,ontheotherhand,presentedacertifiedtruecopyofrespondent'shandwritten
birthcertificatewhichdifferedfromthecopypresentedbyrespondent.Amongthe
differenceswasrespondent'smother'sfullmaidennamewhichwasindicatedas
"HermogenaClarito"inthehandwrittenbirthcertificate.
Issue:WhetherornotHermogenaClaretoGABATANisthechildandsoleheriofJuan
Gabatan
Ruling:NO.ourlawsdictatethatthebestevidenceofsuchfamilialtiewastherecordof
birthappearingtheCivilRegister,oranauthenticdocumentorafinaljudgmentinthe
absenceofthese,anyproofthatthechildenjoyedthecontinuouspossessionofthestatus
ofalegitimatechildonlyintheabsenceofthesetwoclassesofevidenceistheanyone
allowedtopresentotherproofadmissibleundertheRulesofCourtoftheproofof
paternityandfiliation
Allinall,thisCourtfindsthatrespondentdismallyfailedtosubstantiate,with
convincing,credibleandindependentlyverifiableproof,herassertionthatsheisthesole
heirofJuanGabatanandthus,entitledtothepropertyunderlitigation.Aggravatingthe
weaknessofherevidencewerethecircumstancesthatshedidnotcometocourt
withcleanhandsforshepresentedatampered/altered,ifnotoutrightspurious,copyof
hercertificateoflivebirth

Pantaleonv.AmericanExpress
G.R.No.174269.
August25,2010|||
Facts:AftertheAmsterdamincidentthathappenedinvolvingthedelayofAmerican
ExpressCardtoapprovehiscreditcardpurchasesworthUS$13,826.00attheCoster
store,Pantaleoncommencedacomplaintformoralandexemplarydamagesbeforethe
RTCagainstAmericanExpress.Hesaidthatheandhisfamilyexperienced
inconvenienceandhumiliationduetothedelaysincreditauthorization.RTCrendereda
decisioninfavorofPantaleon.CAreversedtheawardofdamagesinfavorofPantaleon,
holdingthatAmExhadnotbreacheditsobligationstoPantaleon,asthepurchaseat
CosterdeviatedfromPantaleon'sestablishedchargepurchasepattern.
Issues:
1.WhetherornotAmExhadcommittedabreachofitsobligationstoPantaleon.
2.WhetherornotAmExisliablefordamages.
Ruling:
1.No,thereisnoprovisioninthisagreementthatobligatesAMEXtoactonall
cardholderpurchaserequestswithinaspecificallydefinedperiodoftime.Thus,
regardlessofwhethertheobligationiswordedwasto"actinamatterofseconds"orto
"actintimelydispatch,"thefactremainsthatnoobligationexistsonthepartofAMEXto
actwithinaspecificperiodoftime
2.No.ApplicationofCleanHandsDoctrine:Panteleonknewthatbydecidingtowaitfor
hispurchasetobefinalized,theCosterwouldbewaitingforhim.hiswasthenatural,
foreseeableconsequenceofhisdecisiontomakethemallwait.

HaciendaLuisitav.PARC
G.R.No.171101
November22,2011
Facts: On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc voted unanimously (110) to
DISMISS/DENYthepetitionfiledbyHLIandAFFIRMwithMODIFICATIONSthe
resolutionsofthePARCrevokingHLIsStockDistributionPlan(SDP)andplacingthe
subject lands in Hacienda Luisita under compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive
AgrarianReformProgram(CARP)ofthegovernment.
TheCourthoweverdidnotorderoutrightlanddistribution.Voting65,theCourt
notedthatthereareoperativefacts thatoccurredintheinterimandwhichtheCourt
cannotvalidlyignore.Thus,theCourtdeclaredthattherevocationoftheSDPmust,by
applicationoftheoperativefactprinciple,givewaytotherightoftheoriginal6,296
qualifiedfarmworkersbeneficiaries(FWBs)tochoosewhethertheywanttoremainas
HLIstockholdersor[chooseactuallanddistribution].ItthusorderedtheDepartmentof
AgrarianReform(DAR)toimmediatelyschedulemeetingswiththesaid6,296FWBs
andexplaintothemtheeffects,consequencesandlegalorpracticalimplicationsoftheir
choice,afterwhichtheFWBswillbeaskedtomanifest,insecretvoting,theirchoicesin
theballot,signingtheirsignaturesorplacingtheirthumbmarks,asthecasemaybe,over
their printed names. The parties thereafter filed their respective motions for
reconsiderationoftheCourtdecision.
Issue:Shouldtheoperativefactdoctrinebeapplicableinthiscase?
Ruling:YES,theoperativefactdoctrineisapplicableinthiscase.TheCourtmaintained
itsstancethattheoperativefactdoctrineisapplicableinthiscasesince,contrarytothe
suggestionoftheminority,thedoctrineisnotlimitedonlytoinvalidorunconstitutional
lawsbutalsoappliestodecisionsmadebythePresidentortheadministrativeagencies
thathavetheforceandeffectoflaws.Priortothenullificationorrecallofsaiddecisions,
theymayhaveproducedactsandconsequencesthatmustberespected.Itisonthisscore
thattheoperativefactdoctrineshouldbeappliedtoactsandconsequencesthatresulted
from the implementation of the PARC Resolution approving the SDP of HLI.The
majoritystressedthattheapplicationoftheoperativefactdoctrinebytheCourtinitsJuly
5,2011decisionwasinfactfavorabletotheFWBsbecausenotonlyweretheyallowed
toretainthebenefitsandhomelotstheyreceivedunderthestockdistributionscheme,
theywerealsogiventheoptiontochooseforthemselveswhethertheywanttoremainas
stockholdersofHLIornot.
ApplicationofCleanHandsDoctrine:
However,inJusticeCoronasconcurringanddissentingopinion,hesaysIbelievethat
theoperativefactdoctrineshouldnotbeapplied.Theoperativefactdoctrineisa
principlefundamentallybasedonequity.Thebasisoftheapplicationofthesaiddoctrine

inthiscasewasthesupposedstatusofthestockdistributionoptionagreementashaving
beenalreadyimplemented.However,equityisextendedonlytoonewhocomestocourt
withcleanhands.Equityshouldberefusedtotheiniquitousandguiltyofinequity.For
thisreason,petitionerHLImaynotbenefitonthegroundofequityfromitsinvalidstock
distributionoptionagreementwiththefarmworkerbeneficiariesasitwasfoundguiltyof
breachofseveralmaterialtermsandconditionsofthesaidagreement

Marquezv.Espejo
G.R.No.168387
August25,2010
Facts:RespondentsEspejosweretheoriginalregisteredownersoftwoparcelsofinBrgy
Lantap.PetitionerswereownersofaparceloflandinBrgyMurong,bothinNueve
Vizcaya.TheEspejosmortgagedbothparcelsoflandtoRuralBankofBayombong,Inc.
(RBBI)tosecurecertainloans.Uponfailuretopaytheloans,themortgagedproperties
wereforeclosedandsoldtoRBBI.RBBIeventuallyconsolidatedtitletotheproperties
andtransfercertificatesoftitle(TCTs)wereissuedinthenameofRBBI.Subsequently,a
TCTwasalsoissuedtotheMurongland
RespondentsEspejosboughtbackone,andlateronboth,oftheirlotsfromRBBIand
resumedoperation.Unknowntothem,however,wasthattheirtitleswereinterchanged
withthatoftheMurongproperty.
InappealingtotheCA,therespondentsinsistedthattheDepartmentofAgrarianReform
AdjudicationBoarderredinrulingthattheyrepurchasedtheLantapproperty,whilethe
petitionerswereawardedtheMurongproperty.Theywereadamantthatthetitlenumbers
indicatedintheirrespectivedeedsofconveyanceshouldcontrolindeterminingthe
subjectsthereof.Sincerespondents'DeedofSaleexpressedthatitssubjectistheproperty
withtheMurongproperty,thenwhatwassoldtothemwastheMurongproperty.Onthe
otherhand,documentssaythattheycoverthepropertywithLantap;thusitshouldbe
understoodthattheywereawardedtheLantapproperty.
RBBIfiledaseparatePetitionforReviewonCertiorariwithSC.RBBIraisedtheissue
thattheCAfailedtoappreciatethatrespondentsdidnotcometocourt
withcleanhandsbecausetheymisledRBBItobelieveatthetimeofthesalethatthetwo
lotswerenottenanted.RBBIalsoaskedthattheybedeclaredfreefromanyliabilityto
thepartiesasitdidnotenrichitselfatanyone'sexpense.RBBI'spetitionwasdismissed

Issue:DismissalofRBBI'sappealtoSC
Ruling:SCisnotpersuaded.ThisCourtdismissedRBBI'searlierbecausedidnot
convincinglydemonstratetheallegederrorsintheCADecision.Thebankdidnotpoint
outtheinadequaciesanderrorsintheappellatecourt'sdecisionbutsimplyplacedthe
responsibilityfortheconfusionontherespondentsforallegedlymisleadingthebankas
totheidentityofthepropertiesandformisrepresentingthatthetwolotswerenot
tenanted.Thus,RBBIarguedthatrespondentsdidnotcometocourt
withcleanhands.However,theseargumentswereineffectualinconvincingtheCourtto
reviewtheappellatecourt'sDecision.Itistheappellant'sresponsibilitytopointoutthe
perceivederrorsintheappealeddecision.Whenapartymerelyraisesequitable

considerationssuchasthe"cleanhands"doctrinewithoutaclearcutlegalbasisand
cogentargumentstosupporthisclaim,thereshouldbenosurpriseiftheCourtisnot
swayedtoexerciseitsappellatejurisdictionandtheappealisdismissedoutright.