You are on page 1of 12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477

VOL. 477, DECEMBER 9, 2005

245

Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. vs. Colarina


*

G.R. No. 158635. December 9, 2005.

MAGNA FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP,


petitioner, vs. ELIAS COLARINA, respondent.

INC.,

Civil Law Mortgages Foreclosures Act 4122 amending Art.


1454, Civil Code of 1889 prevents mortgagees from seizing the
mortgaged property, buying it at foreclosure sale for a low price
and then bringing the suit against the mortgagor for a deficiency
judgment.Our Supreme Court in Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v.
Millan held: Undoubtedly the principal object of the above
amendment (referring to Act 4122 amending Art. 1454, Civil Code
of 1889) was to remedy the abuses committed in connection with
the foreclosure of chattel mortgages. This amendment prevents
mortgagees from seizing the mortgaged property, buying it at
foreclosure sale for a low price and then bringing the suit against
the mortgagor for a deficiency judgment. The almost invariable
result of this procedure was that the mortgagor found himself
minus the property and still owing practically the full amount of
his original indebtedness.
Same Same Same In all proceedings for the foreclosure of
chattel mortgages executed on chattels which have been sold on the
installment plan, the mortgagee is limited to the property included
in the mortgage.Article 1484, paragraph 3, provides that if the
vendor has availed himself of the right to foreclose the chattel
mortgage, he shall have no further action against the purchaser
to recover any unpaid balance of the purchase price. Any
agreement to the contrary shall be void. In other words, in all
proceedings for the foreclosure of chattel mortgages executed on
_______________
*

SECOND DIVISION.

246

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

1/12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477

246

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. vs. Colarina

chattels which have been sold on the installment plan, the


mortgagee is limited to the property included in the mortgage.
Same Same Same Foreclosure may be effected either
judicially or extrajudicially that is by ordinary action or by
foreclosure under power of sale contained in the mortgage.A
contract of chattel mortgage, which is the transaction involved in
the present case, is in the nature of a conditional sale of personal
property given as a security for the payment of a debt, or the
performance of some other obligation specified therein, the
condition being that the sale shall be void upon the seller paying
to the purchaser a sum of money or doing some other act named.
If the condition is performed according to its terms, the mortgage
and sale immediately become void, and the mortgagee is thereby
divested of his title. On the other hand, in case of non payment,
foreclosure is one of the remedies available to a mortgagee by
which he subjects the mortgaged property to the satisfaction of
the obligation to secure that for which the mortgage was given.
Foreclosure may be effected either judicially or extrajudicially,
that is, by ordinary action or by foreclosure under power of sale
contained in the mortgage. It may be effected by the usual
methods, including sale of goods at public auction. Extrajudicial
foreclosure, as chosen by the petitioner, is attained by causing the
mortgaged property to be seized by the sheriff, as agent of the
mortgagee, and have it sold at public auction in the manner
prescribed by Section 14 of Act No. 1508, or the Chattel Mortgage
Law. This rule governs extrajudicial foreclosure of chattel
mortgage.
Same Same Same It is deemed that there has been
foreclosure of the mortgage when all the proceedings of the
foreclosure including the sale of the property at public auction
have been accomplished.Where the mortgagee elects a remedy
of foreclosure, the law requires the actual foreclosure of the
mortgaged chattel. Thus, in Manila Motor Co. v. Fernandez, our
Supreme Court said that it is actual sale of the mortgaged chattel
in accordance with Sec. 14 of Act No. 1508 that would bar the
creditor (who chooses to foreclose) from recovering any unpaid
balance. And it is deemed that there has been foreclosure of the
mortgage when all the proceedings of the foreclosure, including
the sale of the property at public auction, have been
accomplished.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the


Court of Appeals.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

2/12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.


247

VOL. 477, DECEMBER 9, 2005

247

Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. vs. Colarina

Armand A. Duran for petitioner.


Reynaldo L. Herrera for respondent.
CHICONAZARIO, J.:
The undisputed facts of this case show that on 11 June
1997, Elias Colarina bought on installment from Magna
Financial Services Group, Inc., one (1) unit of Suzuki
Multicab, more particularly described as follows:
MAKE

SUZUKI MULTICAB

MODEL

ER HT

ENGINE NO.

834963

FRAME NO

LTO 067886RO7C

COLOR

WHITE

After making a down payment, Colarina executed a


promissory note for the balance of P229,284.00 payable in
thirtysix (36) equal monthly installments at P6,369.00
monthly, beginning 18 July 1997. To secure payment
thereof, Colarina executed an integrated promissory note
and deed of chattel mortgage over the motor vehicle.
Colarina failed to pay the monthly amortization
beginning January 1999, accumulating an unpaid balance
of P131,607.00. Despite repeated demands, he failed to
make the necessary payment. On 31 October 2000 Magna
Financial Services Group, Inc. filed a Complaint
for
2
Foreclosure of Chattel Mortgage with Replevin before the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
Branch 2, Legaspi
3
City, docketed as Civil Case No. 4822. Upon the filing of a
Replevin Bond, a Writ of Replevin was issued by the
MTCC. On 27 December 2000, summons, together with a
copy of the Writ of Replevin, was served on Colarina who
voluntarily surrendered physical possession of the vehicle
to the Sheriff, Mr. Antonio
_______________
1

Rollo, p. 50.

Annex A, CA Rollo, p. 23.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

3/12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477
3

Annex I, Rollo, p. 50.


248

248

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. vs. Colarina

Lozano. On 02 January 2001, the aforesaid motor vehicle


was turned 4over by the sheriff to Magna Financial Services
Group, Inc. On 12 July 2001, Colarina was declared in
default for having filed his answer after more than six (6)
months from the service of summons upon him. Thereupon,
the trial court rendered judgment based on the facts
alleged5 in the Complaint. In a decision dated 23 July 2001,
it held:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff
Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. and against the defendant
Elias Colarina, ordering the latter:
a) to pay plaintiff the principal sum of one hundred thirty
one thousand six hundred seven (P131,607.00) pesos plus
penalty charges at 4.5% per month computed from
January, 1999 until fully paid
b) to pay plaintiff P10,000.00 for attorneys fees and
c) to pay the costs.
The foregoing money judgment shall be paid within ninety (90)
days from the entry of judgment. In case of default in such
payment, the one (1) unit of Suzuki Multicab, subject of the writ
of replevin and chattel mortgage,
shall be sold at public auction to
6
satisfy the said judgment.

Colarina appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of


Legazpi City, Branch 4, where the case was docketed as
Civil Case No. 10013. During the pendency of his appeal
before the RTC, 7Colarina died and was substituted in the
case by his heirs. In a decision dated 30 January
2002, the
8
RTC affirmed in toto the decision of the MTCC.
_______________
4

CA Rollo, p. 39.

CA Rollo, pp. 4041.

CA Rollo, p. 41.

CA Rollo, p. 15.

Annex H, CA Rollo, pp. 4347.


249

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

4/12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477

VOL. 477, DECEMBER 9, 2005

249

Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. vs. Colarina

Colarina filed a Petition for Review before the Court of


Appeals, docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 69481. On 219
January 2003, the Court of Appeals rendered its decision
holding:
. . . We find merit in petitioners assertion that the MTC and the
RTC erred in ordering the defendant to pay the unpaid balance of
the purchase price of the subject vehicle irrespective of the fact
that the instant complaint was for the foreclosure of its chattel
mortgage. The principal error committed by the said courts was
their immediate grant, however erroneous, of relief in favor of the
respondent for the payment of the unpaid balance without
considering the fact that the very prayer it had sought was
inconsistent with its allegation in the complaint.
Verily, it is beyond cavil that the complaint seeks the judicial
foreclosure of the chattel mortgage. The fact that the respondent
had unconscionably sought the payment of the unpaid balance
regardless of its complaint for the foreclosure of the said mortgage
is glaring proof that it intentionally devised the same to deprive
the defendant of his rights. A judgment in its favor will in effect
allow it to retain the possession and ownership of the subject
vehicle and at the same time claim against the defendant for the
unpaid balance of its purchase price. In such a case, the
respondent would luckily have its cake and eat it too.
Unfortunately for the defendant, the lower courts had readily,
probably unwittingly, made themselves abettors to respondents
devise to the detriment of the defendant.
...
WHEREFORE, finding error in the assailed decision, the
instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed decision is
hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Let the records be
remanded to the court of origin. Accordingly, the foreclosure of the
chattel mortgage over the subject vehicle as prayed for by the
respondent in its complaint without any right to seek the
payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price or any
deficiency judgment against the petitioners pursuant to Article
10
1484 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, is hereby ORDERED.
_______________
9

Penned by Associate Justice Josefina GuevaraSalonga with

Associate Justices Marina L. Buzon and Danilo B. Pine, concurring CA


Rollo, pp. 6673.
10

CA Rollo, pp. 7173.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

5/12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477

250

250

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. vs. Colarina
11

A Motion for Reconsideration dated 11 February 2003


filed by Magna Financial Services Group, Inc., was denied
by the
Court of Appeals in a resolution dated 22 May
12
2003. Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari based
on the sole issue:

WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE OF A FORECLOSURE OF


CHATTEL MORTGAGE, EXTRAJUDICIAL OR JUDICIAL, AS
AN EXERCISE OF THE 3RD OPTION UNDER ARTICLE 1484,
PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE CIVIL CODE.

In its Memorandum, petitioner assails the decision of the


Court of Appeals and asserts that a mortgage is only an
accessory obligation, the principal one being the
undertaking to pay the amounts scheduled in the
promissory note. To secure the payment of the note, a
chattel mortgage is constituted on the thing sold. It argues
that an action for foreclosure of mortgage is actually in the
nature of an action for sum of money instituted to enforce
the payment of the promissory note, with execution of the
security. In case of an extrajudicial foreclosure of chattel
mortgage, the petition must state the amount due on the
obligation and the sheriff, after the sale, shall apply the
proceeds to the unpaid debt. This, according to petitioner,
is the true nature of a foreclosure proceeding13 as provided
under Rule 68, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.
_______________
11

Rollo, pp. 2730.

12

Rollo, p. 39.

13

Memorandum for the Petitioner, p. 3 Rollo, p. 87.

Rule 68, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Court on Foreclosure of Real


Estate Mortgage provides:
SEC. 2. Judgment on foreclosure for payment or sale.If upon the trial
in such action the court shall find the facts set forth in the complaint to be
true, it shall ascertain the amount due to the plaintiff upon the mortgage
debt or obligation, including interest and other charges as approved by the
court, and costs, and shall render judgment for the sum so found due and
order that the same be paid to the court or to the judgment obligee within
a period of not less than ninety (90) days nor more than one hundred
twenty (120) days from the entry of judgment, and that in default of such

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

6/12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477

payment the property shall be sold at public auction to satisfy the


judgment.
251

VOL. 477, DECEMBER 9, 2005

251

Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. vs. Colarina

On the other hand, respondent countered that the Court of


Appeals correctly set aside the trial courts decision due to
the inconsistency of the remedies or reliefs sought by the
petitioner in its Complaint where it prayed for the custody
of the chattel mortgage and at the same time asked 14for the
payment of the unpaid balance on the motor vehicle.
Article 1484 of the Civil Code explicitly provides:
ART. 1484. In a contract of sale of personal property the price of
which is payable in installments, the vendor may exercise any of
the following remedies:
(1) Exact fulfillment of the obligation, should the vendee fail
to pay
(2) Cancel the sale, should the vendees failure to pay cover
two or more installments
(3) Foreclose the chattel mortgage or the thing sold, if one has
been constituted, should the vendees failure to pay cover
two or more installments. In this case, he shall have no
further action against the purchaser to recover any unpaid
balance of the price. Any agreement to the contrary shall
be void.
15

Our Supreme Court in Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. v. Millan


held: Undoubtedly the principal object of the above
amendment (referring to Act 4122 amending Art. 1454,
Civil Code of 1889) was to remedy the abuses committed in
connection with the foreclosure of chattel mortgages. This
amendment prevents mortgagees from seizing the
mortgaged property, buying it at foreclosure sale for a low
price and then bringing the suit against the mortgagor for
a deficiency judgment. The almost invariable result of this
procedure was that the mortgagor found himself minus the
property and still owing practically the full amount of his
original indebtedness.
In its Complaint, Magna Financial Services Group, Inc.
made the following prayer:
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

7/12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477
14

Rejoinder, Rollo, p. 95.

15

61 Phil. 409, 415 (1935).


252

252

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. vs. Colarina

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment render


ordering defendant:
1. To pay the principal sum of P131,607.00 with penalty
charges at 4.5% per month from January 1999 until paid
plus liquidated damages.
2. Ordering defendant to reimburse the plaintiff for
attorneys fee at 25% of the amount due plus expenses of
litigation at not less than P10,000.00.
3. Ordering defendant to surrender to the plaintiff the
possession of the Multicab described in paragraph 2 of the
complaint.
4. Plaintiff prays for other reliefs just and equitable in the
premises.
It is further prayed that pendente lite, an Order of Replevin
issue commanding the Provincial Sheriff at Legazpi City or any of
his deputies to take such multicab into his custody and, after
judgment, upon default in the payment of the amount adjudged
due to the plaintiff, to sell said chattel16 at public auction in
accordance with the chattel mortgage law.

In its Memorandum before us, petitioner resolutely


declared that it has opted for the17 remedy provided under
Article 1484(3) of the Civil Code, that is, to foreclose the
chattel mortgage.
It is, however, unmistakable from the Complaint that
petitioner preferred to avail itself of the first and third
remedies under Article 1484, at the same time suing for
replevin. For this reason, the Court of Appeals justifiably
set aside the decision of the RTC. Perusing the Complaint,
the petitioner, under its prayer number 1, sought for the
payment of the unpaid amortizations which is a remedy
that is provided under Article 1484(1) of the Civil Code,
allowing an unpaid vendee to exact fulfillment of the
obligation. At the same time, petitioner prayed that
Colarina be ordered to surrender possession of the vehicle
so that it may ultimately be sold at public auction, which
remedy is contained under Article 1484(3). Such a scheme
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

8/12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477

is not only irregular but is a flagrant circumvention of the


prohibition of the law. By praying for the foreclosure of the
_______________
16

CA Rollo, pp. 2425.

17

Rollo, p. 88.
253

VOL. 477, DECEMBER 9, 2005

253

Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. vs. Colarina

chattel, Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. renounced


18
whatever claim it may have under the promissory note.
Article 1484, paragraph 3, provides that if the vendor
has availed himself of the right to foreclose the chattel
mortgage, he shall have no further action against the
purchaser to recover any unpaid balance of the purchase
price. Any agreement to the contrary shall be void. In
other words, in all proceedings for the foreclosure of chattel
mortgages executed on chattels which have been sold on
the installment plan, the mortgagee
is limited to the
19
property included in the mortgage.
Contrary to petitioners claim, a contract of chattel
mortgage, which is the transaction involved in the present
case, is in the nature of a conditional sale of personal
property given as a security for the payment of a debt, or
the performance of some other obligation specified therein,
the condition being that the sale shall be void upon the
seller paying to the purchaser
a sum of money or doing
20
some other act named. If the condition is performed
according to its terms, the mortgage and sale immediately
become
void, and the mortgagee is thereby divested of his
21
title. On the other hand, in case of non payment,
foreclosure is one of the remedies available to a mortgagee
by which he subjects the mortgaged property to the
satisfaction of the obligation to secure that for which the
mortgage was given. Foreclosure may be effected either
judicially or extrajudicially, that is, by ordinary action or
by foreclosure un
_______________
18

Luneta Motor Co. v. Dimagiba, 113 Phil. 864 3 SCRA 884 (1961).

19

Macondray and Co., Inc. v. Benito, et al., 62 Phil. 137, 142 (1935).

20

Act No. 1508An Act providing for the Mortgaging of personal

property and for the registration of the mortgages so executed.


http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

9/12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477

Section 3. A chattel mortgage is a conditional sale of personal property


as security for the payment of a debt, or the performance of some other
obligation specified therein, the condition being that the sale shall be void
upon the sellers paying to the purchaser a sum of money or doing some
other act named. If the condition is performed according to its terms the
mortgage and sale immediately become void, and the mortgagee is thereby
divested of his title.
21

Bachrach Motor Co. v. Summers, 42 Phil. 3 (1921).


254

254

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. vs. Colarina

der power of sale contained in the mortgage. It may be


effected by the22 usual methods, including sale of goods at
public auction. Extrajudicial foreclosure, as chosen by the
petitioner, is attained by causing the mortgaged property to
be seized by the sheriff, as agent of the mortgagee, and
have it sold at public auction in the manner prescribed by
23
Section 14 of Act No. 1508, or the Chattel Mortgage Law.
This rule governs extrajudicial foreclosure of chattel
mortgage.
In sum, since the petitioner has undeniably elected a
remedy of foreclosure under Article 1484(3) of the Civil
Code, it is bound by its election and thus may not be
allowed to change what it has opted for nor to ask for more.
On this point, the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the
trial courts decision and instead rendered a judgment of
foreclosure as prayed for by the petitioner.
The next issue of consequence is whether or not there
has been an actual foreclosure of the subject vehicle.
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that the subject
vehicle is already in the possession of the petitioner, Magna
Financial Ser
_______________
22

59 C.J.S. 482 cited in De Leon, Credit Transaction, 1995 Ed., p. 384.

23

Bataan Hardwood Corporation v. Dy Pac and Co., G.R. No. L29492,

29 February 1972, 43 SCRA 450.


Section 14, Act No. 1508 of the Chattel Mortgage Law provides:
SEC. 14. The mortgagee, his executor, administrator, or assign, may,
after thirty days from the time of condition broken, cause the mortgaged
property, or any part thereof, to be sold at public auction by a public
officer at a public place in the municipality where the mortgagor resides,
or where the property is situated, provided at least ten days notice of the
time, place, and purpose of such sale has been posted at two or more
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

10/12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477

public places in such municipality, and the mortgagee, his executor,


administrator, or assign, shall notify the mortgagor or person holding
under him and the persons holding subsequent mortgages of the time and
place of sale, either by notice in writing directed to him or left at his
abode, if within the municipality, or sent by mail if he does not reside in
such municipality, at least ten days previous to the sale.
255

VOL. 477, DECEMBER 9, 2005

255

Magna Financial Services Group, Inc. vs. Colarina

vices Group, Inc. However, actual foreclosure has not been


pursued, commenced or concluded by it.
Where the mortgagee elects a remedy of foreclosure, the
law requires the actual foreclosure of the mortgaged
24
chattel. Thus, in Manila Motor Co. v. Fernandez, our
Supreme Court said that it is actual sale of the mortgaged
chattel in accordance with Sec. 14 of Act No. 1508 that
would bar the creditor (who chooses
to foreclose) from
25
recovering any unpaid balance. And it is deemed that
there has been foreclosure of the mortgage when all the
proceedings of the foreclosure, including the sale26 of the
property at public auction, have been accomplished.
That there should be actual foreclosure of the mortgaged
vehicle was reiterated in the case of De la Cruz
v. Asian
27
Consumer and Industrial Finance Corporation:
It is thus clear that while ASIAN eventually succeeded in taking
possession of the mortgaged vehicle, it did not pursue the
foreclosure of the mortgage as shown by the fact that no auction
sale of the vehicle was ever conducted. As we ruled in Filinvest
Credit Corp. v. Phil. Acetylene Co., Inc. (G.R. No. 50449, 30
January 1982, 111 SCRA 421)Under the law, the delivery of
possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee, the herein
appellee, can only operate to extinguish appellants liability if the
appellee had actually caused the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged
property when it recovered possession thereof (Northern Motors,
Inc. v. Sapinoso, 33 SCRA 356 [1970] Universal Motors Corp. v.
Dy Hian Tat, 28 SCRA 161 [1969] Manila Motors Co., Inc. v.
Fernandez, 99 Phil. 782 [1956]).

Be that as it may, although no actual foreclosure as


contemplated under the law has taken place in this case,
since the vehicle
_______________

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

11/12

8/18/2016

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME477
24

99 Phil. 782, 786 (1956).

25

Pacific Commercial Co. v. De la Rama, 72 Phil. 380 (1941).

26

Macondray & Co., Inc. v. Tan, 38 O.G. 2606 see also Radiowealth,

Inc. v. Lavin, L18563, 27 April 1963, 7 SCRA 804 Vda. de Quiambao, et


al. v. Manila Motor Co., Inc., G.R. No. L17334, 31 October 1961, 3 SCRA
444, 448449.
27

G.R. No. 94828, 18 September 1992, 214 SCRA 103, 107.


256

256

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED


Saguid vs. Security Finance, Inc.

is already in the possession of Magna Financial Services


Group, Inc. and it has persistently and consistently avowed
that it elects the remedy of foreclosure, the Court of
Appeals, thus, ruled correctly in directing the foreclosure of
the said vehicle without more.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition
is DENIED for lack of merit and the decision of the Court
of Appeals dated 21 January 2003 is AFFIRMED. Costs
against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), AustriaMartinez, Callejo, Sr.
and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed.
Note.In extrajudicial foreclosure sales, personal
notice to the mortgagor is not necessary. (Philippine
National Bank vs. Rabat, 344 SCRA 706 [2000])
o0o

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015699c5d4346db6c8b6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False

12/12