You are on page 1of 12

SECONDDIVISION

DEVELOPMENTBANKOFG.R.No.161397
THEPHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
versus
FELIPEP.ARCILLA,JR.,
Respondent.
xx
FELIPEP.ARCILLA,JR.,G.R.No.161426
Petitioner,
Present:
versusPUNO,J.,Chairman,
AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,CALLEJO,SR.,
TINGA,and
DEVELOPMENTBANKOFCHICONAZARIO,JJ.
THEPHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
June30,2005
xx

DECISION

CALLEJO,SR.,J.:

Atty. Felipe P. Arcilla, Jr. was employed by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in
October 1981. About five or six months thereafter, he was assigned to the legal department, and
[1]
thereafter,decidedtoavailofaloanundertheIndividualHousingProject(IHP)ofthebank. On
[2]
September12,1983,DBPandArcillaexecutedaDeedofConditionalSale overaparcelofland,as
wellasthehousetobeconstructedthereon,forthepriceofP160,000.00.Arcillaborrowedthesaid
amountfromDBPforthepurchaseofthelotandtheconstructionofaresidentialbuildingthereon.He
obliged himself to pay the loan in 25 years, with a monthly amortization of P1,417.91, with 9%
[3]
interestperannum,tobedeductedfromhismonthlysalary.

DBPobligeditselftotransferthetitleofthepropertyuponthepaymentoftheloan,including
any increments thereof. It was also agreed therein that if Arcilla availed of optional retirement, he
could elect to continue paying the loan, provided that the loan/amount would be converted into a
regular real estate loan account with the prevailing interest assigned on real estate loans, payable
[4]
withintheremainingtermoftheloanaccount.

[5]
Arcilla was notified of the periodic release of his loan. During the period of July 1984 to
December31,1986,themonthlyamortizationsforthesaidaccountweredeductedfromhismonthly
[6]
salary,forwhichhewasissuedreceipts.

ThemonthlyamortizationwasincreasedtoP1,468.92inNovember1984,andtoP1,691.51beginning
January1985.However,ArcillaoptedtoresignfromthebankinDecember1986.Conformablywith
theDeedofConditionalSale,thebankinformedhim,onJune11,1987,thatthebalanceofhisloan
accountwiththebankhadbeenconvertedtoaregularhousingloan,thus:

Amountconvertedto InterestRate RemainingTerm Monthly


PHLoan Amortization
P155,218.791 9% 22yrs.& P1,342.72
6mos
6,802.452 9% 21yrs.& 59.41
10mos.
24,342.913 9% 22yrs. 212.07
Plus:MRIatPC.41/thousandP1,614.20
76.41
[7]
P186,364.15TotalP1,690.61 ========

[8]
OnJuly24,1987,ArcillasignedthreePromissoryNotes forthetotalamountofP186,364.15.He
wasalsoobligedtopayservicechargeandinterests,asfollows:

a.1Ontheamountadvancedorbalancethereofthatremainsunpaidfor30days*orless:

i.Interestonadvancesat7%p.a.overDBPsborrowingcost:
ii.No2%servicecharge
iii.No8%penaltycharge

a.2Ontheamountadvancedorbalancethereofthatremainsunpaidformorethan30days:

i.Interestontheadvanceat7%p.a.]
overDBPsborrowingcost]
ii.Onetime2%servicecharge]Tobecomputedfrom
iii.Interestontheservicecharge]thestartofthe30day
iv.8%penaltychargeonthebalances]period
[9]
oftheadvancesandservicecharge.

ArcillaalsoagreedtopaytoDBPthefollowing:



*InsurancePremiums30dayperiodtobecomputedfromdateof
advances
OtherAdvances30dayperiodtobecomputedfromdateof
notification

b.Taxes
b.1Onetimeservicecharge2%oftheamountadvanced
b.2InterestandpenaltychargeInterest7%p.a.overborrowing
cost
Penaltycharge8%p.a.ifunpaid
after30daysfromdateofadvance

i.Interestoftheadvanceat]
7%p.a.overDBPs]
borrowingcosts]Tobecomputedfromstart
iiOnetime2%servicecharge]of30dayperiod
iiiInterestontheservicecharge]
iv.8%penaltychargeonthe]
balancesoftheadvanceand]
servicecharge.]

*InsurancePremiums30dayperiodtobecomputedfromdateof
advances.
OtherAdvances30dayperiodtobecomputedfromdateof
notification.
b.Taxes
b.1Onetimeservicecharge2%oftheamountadvanced
b.2InterestandpenaltychargeInterest7%p.a.overborrowing
cost
Penaltycharge8%p.a.ifunpaid
after30daysfromdateofadvance

However,ArcillaalsoagreedtothereservationbytheDBPofitsrighttoincrease(withnotice
tohim)therateofinterestontheloan,aswellasallotherfeesandchargesonloansandadvances
pursuanttosuchpolicyasitmayadoptfromtimetotimeduringtheperiodoftheloanProvided,that
therateofinterestontheloanshallbereducedbylaworbytheMonetaryBoardProvided,further,
thattheadjustmentintherateofinterestshalltakeeffectonoraftertheeffectivityoftheincreaseor
[10]
decreaseinthemaximumrateofinterest.

Upon his request, DBP agreed to grant Arcilla an additional cash advance of P32,000.00.
Thereafter,onMay23,1984,aSupplementtotheConditionalSaleAgreementwasexecutedinwhich
DBPandArcillaagreedonthefollowingtermsoftheloan:

AmountInterestRatePerAnnumTermsAmortization

P32,000.00Nine(9%)percentMRI24yearsP271.57
forP32,000.00atP0.40/
1,000.0012.80
P32,000.00sametobeconsolidatedwiththe(Est.P284.37
originaladvanceinaccordanceAmort.)=======
[11]
withConditionNo.8hereof.

The additional advance was, thus, consolidated to the outstanding balance of Arcillas original
advance,payablewithintheremainingtermthereofat9%perannum.However,hefailedtopayhis
loan account, advances, penalty charges and interests which, as of October 31, 1990, amounted to
[12]
P241,940.93. DBPrescindedtheDeedofConditionalSalebynotarialactonNovember27,1990.
[13]
Nevertheless, it wrote Arcilla, on January 3, 1992, giving him until October 24, 1992, within
which to repurchase the property upon full payment of the current appraisal or updated total,
[14]
whicheverislesserincaseoffailuretodoso,thepropertywouldbeadvertisedforbidding. DBP
[15]
reiteratedthesaidofferonOctober7,1992. Arcillafailedtorespond.Consequently,theproperty
[16]
wasadvertisedforsaleatpublicbiddingonFebruary14,1994.

ArcillafiledacomplaintagainstDBPwiththeRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofAntipolo,Rizal,
on February 21, 1994. He alleged that DBP failed to furnish him with the disclosure statement
required by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3765 and Central Bank (CB) Circular No. 158 prior to the
executionofthedeedofconditionalsaleandtheconversionofhisloanaccountwiththebankintoa
regularhousingloanaccount.Despitethis,DBPimmediatelydeductedtheaccountfromhissalaryas
early as 1984. Moreover, the bank applied its own formula and imposed its usurious interests,
penaltiesandchargesonhisloanaccountandadvances.Hefurtheralleged,thus:

13.Thatwhenplaintiffcouldnolongercopeupwithdefendantsillegalandusuriousimpositions,
the DBP unilaterally increased further the rate of interest, without notice to the latter, and heapedup
usuriousinterests,penaltiesandcharges

14. That to further bend the back of the plaintiff, defendant rescinded the subject deed of conditional
saleon4December1990withoutgivingduenoticetoplaintiff
15. That much later, on 10 October 1993, plaintiff received a letter from defendant dated 19
September1993,informingplaintiffthatthesubjectdeedofconditionalsalewasalreadyrescindedon4
December1990(xeroxcopyofthesameisheretoattachedandmadeanintegralparthereofasAnnex
[17]
C

Initsanswertothecomplaint,theDBPallegedthatitsubstantiallycompliedwithR.A.No.3765and
CBCircularNo.158becausethedetailsrequiredinsaidstatementswereparticularlydisclosedinthe
promissorynotes,deedofconditionalsaleandtherequirednoticessenttoArcilla.Inanyevent,its
failure to comply strictly with R.A. No. 3765 did not affect the validity and enforceability of the
subjectcontractsortransactions.DBPinterposedacounterclaimforthepossessionoftheproperty.

On April 27, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Arcilla and nullified the
notarialrescissionofthedeedsexecutedbytheparties.Thefalloofthedecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffand
againstthedefendant.Defendantisherebydirectedtofurnishthedisclosurestatementtotheplaintiff
withinfive(5)daysuponreceipthereofinthemannerandformprovidedbyR.A.No.3765andsubmit
tothisCourtforapprovalthetotalobligationoftheplaintiffasofthisdate,withinten(10)daysfrom
receipt of this order.The Notarial Rescission (Exh. 16) dated November 27, 1990 is hereby declared
nullandvoid.Costsagainstthedefendant.
[18]
SOORDERED.

DBP appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) wherein it made the following
assignmentoferrors:

4.1.Thetrialcourterredinrulingthattheprovisionofthedetailsoftheloanwithouttheissuanceofa
DisclosureStatementisnotcompliancewiththeTruthinLendingAct

4.2.ThetrialcourterredindeclaringtheNotarialRescissionnullandvoidand

4.3.ThetrialcourterredindenyingDBPscounterclaimsforrecoveryofpossession,backrentalsand
[19]
litigationexpenses.

OnMay29,2003,theCArenderedjudgmentsettingasideandreversingthedecisionoftheRTC.In
ordering the dismissal of the complaint, the appellate court ruled that DBP substantially complied
with R.A. No. 3765 and CB Circular No. 158. Arcilla filed a motion for reconsideration of the
decision. For its part, DBP filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the decision, praying that
Arcillabeorderedtovacatetheproperty.However,theappellatecourtdeniedbothmotions.

ThepartiesfiledseparatepetitionsforreviewoncertiorariwiththisCourt.Thefirstpetition,entitled
Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, was docketed as G.R. No. 161397 the
secondpetition,entitledFelipeArcilla,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,wasdocketedasG.R.No.161426.The
Courtresolvedtoconsolidatethetwocases.

Theissuesraisedinthetwopetitionsarethefollowing:a)whetherornotpetitionerDBPcomplied
with the disclosure requirement of R.A. No. 3765 and CB Circular No. 158, Series of 1978, in the
execution of the deed of conditional sale, the supplemental deed of conditional sale, as well as the
promissory notes and b) whether or not respondent Felipe Arcilla, Jr. is mandated to vacate the
property and pay rentals for his occupation thereof after the notarial rescission of the deed of
conditionalsalewasrescindedbynotarialact,aswellasthesupplementexecutedbyDBP.

Onthefirstissue,ArcillaaversthatunderR.A.No.3765andCBCircularNo.158,theDBP,as
thecreditorbank,wasmandatedtofurnishhimwiththerequisiteinformationinsuchformprescribed
bytheCentralBankbeforethecommutationoftheloantransaction.Heaversthatthedisclosureof
the details of the loan contained in the deed of conditional sale and the supplement thereto, the
promissorynotesandreleasesheet,do
not constitute substantial compliance with the law and the CB Circular. He avers that the required
disclosuredidnotincludethefollowing:

[T]hepercentageofFinanceChargestoTotalAmountFinanced(ComputedinaccordancewithSec.2(i)
ofCBCircular158theAdditionalChargesincasecertainstipulationsinthecontractarenotmetbythe
[20]
debtorTotalNonFinanceChargesTotalFinanceCharges,EffectiveInterestRate,etc.

ArcillafurtherpositsthatthefailureofDBPtocomplywithitsobligationunderR.A.No.3765and
CB Circular No. 158 forecloses its right to rescind the transaction between them, and to demand
complianceofhisobligationarisingfromsaidtransaction.Moreover,thebankhadnorighttodeduct
themonthlyamortizationsfromhissalarywithoutfirstcomplyingwiththemandateofR.A.No.3765.

DBP,ontheotherhand,aversthatalltheinformationrequiredbyR.A.No.3765wasalready
containedintheloantransactiondocuments.Itpositsthatevenifitfailedtocomplystrictlywiththe
disclosurerequirementofR.A.No.3765,nevertheless,underSection6(b)ofthelaw,thevalidityand
enforceability of any action or transaction is not affected. It asserts that Arcilla was estopped from
invokingR.A.No.3765becausehefailedtodemandcompliancewithR.A.No.3765fromthebank
beforetheconsummationoftheloantransaction,untilthetimehiscomplaintwasfiledwiththetrial
court.

InitspetitioninG.R.No.161397,DBPassertsthattheRTCerredinnotrenderingjudgmentonits
counterclaimforthepossessionofthesubjectproperty,andtheliabilityofArcillaforrentalswhilein
the possession of the property after the notarial rescission of the deeds of conditional sale. For his
part, Arcilla (in G.R. No. 161426) insists that the respondent failed to comply with its obligation
underR.A.No.3765hence,thenotarialrescissionofthedeedofconditionalsaleandthesupplement
thereofwasnullandvoid.UntilDBPcomplieswithitsobligation,heisnotobligedtocomplywith
his.

ThepetitionofArcillahasnomerit.

Section1ofR.A.No.3765providesthatpriortotheconsummationofaloantransaction,thebank,as
creditor, is obliged to furnish a client with a clear statement, in writing, setting forth, to the extent
applicableandinaccordancewiththerulesandregulationsprescribedbytheMonetaryBoardofthe
CentralBankofthePhilippines,thefollowinginformation:
(1)thecashpriceordeliveredpriceofthepropertyorservicetobeacquired

(2)theamounts,ifany,tobecreditedasdownpaymentand/ortradein

(3)thedifferencebetweentheamountssetforthunderclauses(1)and(2)

(4)thecharges,individuallyitemized,whicharepaidortobepaidbysuchpersoninconnectionwith
thetransactionbutwhicharenotincidenttotheextensionofcredit

(5)thetotalamounttobefinanced

(6)thefinancechargesexpressedintermsofpesosandcentavosand
(7)thepercentagethatthefinancechargebearstothetotalamounttobefinancedexpressedasasimple
annualrateontheoutstandingunpaidbalanceoftheobligation.

UnderCircularNo.158oftheCentralBank,theinformationrequiredbyR.A.No.3765shall
beincludedinthecontractcoveringthecredittransactionoranyotherdocumenttobeacknowledged
andsignedbythedebtor,thus:

The contract covering the credit transaction, or any other document to be acknowledged and
signed by the debtor, shall indicate the above seven items of information. In addition, the contract or
documentshallspecifyadditionalcharges,ifany,whichwillbecollectedincasecertainstipulationsin
thecontractarenotmetbythedebtor.

Furthermore, the contract or document shall specify additional charges, if any, which will be
[21]
collectedincasecertainstipulationsinthecontractarenotmetbythedebtor.

Iftheborrowerisnotdulyinformedofthedatarequiredbythelawpriortotheconsummation
of the availment or drawdown, the lender will have no right to collect such charge or increases
[22]
thereof, even if stipulated in the promissory note. However, such failure shall not affect the
[23]
validityorenforceabilityofanycontractortransaction.

Inthepresentcase,DBPfailedtodisclosetherequisiteinformationinthedisclosurestatement
form authorized by the Central Bank, but did so in the loan transaction documents between it and
Arcilla.ThereisnoevidenceonrecordthatDBPsoughttocollectorcollectedanyinterest,penaltyor
othercharges,fromArcillaotherthanthosedisclosedinthesaiddeeds/documents.

The Court is convinced that Arcillas claim of not having been furnished the data/information
required by R.A. No. 3765 and CB Circular No. 158 was but an afterthought. Despite the notarial
rescission of the conditional sale in 1990, and DBPs subsequent repeated offers to repurchase the
property,thelattermaintainedhissilence.ArcillafiledhiscomplaintonlyonFebruary21,1994,or
fouryearsafterthesaidnotarialrescission.TheCourtfindsandsoholdsthatthefollowingfindings
andratiocinationsoftheCAarecorrect:

Afteracarefulperusaloftherecords,Wefindthattheappelleehadbeensufficientlyinformedofthe
terms and the requisite charges necessarily included in the subject loan. It must be stressed that the
Truth in Lending Act (R.A. No. 3765), was enacted primarily to protect its citizens from a lack of
awarenessofthetruecostofcredittotheuser

by using a full disclosure of such cost with a view of preventing the uninformed use of credit to the
detriment of the national economy (Emata vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 174, SCRA 464 [1989]
Sec.2,R.A.No.3765).Contrarytoappelleesclaimthathewasnotsufficientlyinformedofthedetailsof
the loan, the records disclose that the required informations were readily available in the three (3)
promissorynotesheexecuted.Precisely,thesaidpromissorynoteswereexecutedtoappriseappelleeof
theremainingbalanceonhisloanwhenthesamewasconvertedintoaregularhousingloan.Andonits
face,thepromissorynotessignedbynolessthantheappelleereadilyshowsallthedatarequiredbythe
TruthinLendingAct(R.A.No.3765).

Apropos,Weagreewiththeappellantthatappellee,alawyer,wouldnotbesogullibleornegligentasto
signdocumentswithoutknowingfullywellthelegalimplicationsandconsequencesofhisactions,and
that appellee was a former employee of appellant. As such employee, he is as well presumed
knowledgeablewithmattersrelatingtoappellantsbusinessandfullycognizantofthetermsoftheloan
heappliedfor,includingthechargesthathadtobepaid.

Itmighthavebeendifferentiftheborrowerwas,say,anordinaryemployeeeagertobuyhisfirst
houseandiseasilyluredintoacceptingoneroustermssolongasthesameispayableoninstallments.In
suchcases,theCourtwouldbedisposedtobestricterintheapplicationoftheTruthinLendingAct,
insisting that the borrower be fully informed of what he is entering into. But in the case at bar,
consideringappelleeseducationandtraining,Wemusthold,inthelightoftheevidenceathand,thathe
was duly informed of the necessary charges and fully understood their implications and effects.
[24]
Consequently,thetrialcourtsannulmentoftherescissionanchoredonthisgroundwasunjustified.


AnenttheprayerofDBPtoorderArcillatovacatethepropertyandpayrentalsthereforfrom
1990,areviewoftherecordshasshownthatitfailedtoadduceevidenceonthereasonableamountof
rentals for Arcillas occupancy of the property. Hence, the Court orders a remand of the case to the
courtoforigin,forthepartiestoadducetheirrespectiveevidenceonthebankscounterclaim.

INLIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING, the petition in G.R. No. 161426 is DENIED for
lackofmerit.ThepetitioninG.R.No.161397is
PARTIALLY GRANTED. The case is hereby REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of
Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 73, for it to resolve the counterclaim of the Development Bank of the
Philippines for possession of the property, and for the reasonable rentals for Felipe P.Arcilla, Jr.s
occupancythereofafterthenotarialrescissionoftheDeedofConditionalSalein1990.

CostsagainstpetitionerFelipeP.Arcilla,Jr.

SOORDERED.
ROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:


REYNATOS.PUNO
AssociateJustice
Chairman

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZDANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice



MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice


ATTESTATION


Iattestthattheconclusionsintheabovedecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecase
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


REYNATOS.PUNO
AssociateJustice
Chairman,SecondDivision





CERTIFICATION


PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionChairmansAttestation,
itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsintheabovedecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethe
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

HILARIOG.DAVIDE,JR.
ChiefJustice

[1]
TSN,10September1996,p.4TSN,21November1995,p.10.
[2]
ExhibitD,FolderofExhibits.
[3]
ExhibitD2,Id.
[4]
Exhibit7A&ExhibitD1,Id.
[5]
Exhibits1to6,Id.
[6]
ExhibitsFtoF27,Id.
[7]
ExhibitG,FolderofExhibits.
[8]
ExhibitsA,BandC
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
ExhibitsA,B,andC.
[11]
Exhibit8,FolderofExhibits.
[12]
ExhibitsHand16,Id.
[13]
ExhibitsH,16and16A,Id.
[14]
Exhibit18,Id.
[15]
Exhibit17,Id.
[16]
ExhibitI,Id.
[17]
Records,p.7.
[18]
Records,p.202.
[19]
CARollo,p.16.
[20]
Rollo,p.14.(G.R.No.161426)
[21]
CentralBankCircularNo.158definesthedetailsmentionedinSection1ofR.A.No.3765,thus:
(c)Cashpriceordeliveredprice,incaseoftradetransactions,istheamountofmoneywhichwouldconstitutefullpaymentupondeliveryof
theproperty(exceptmoney)orservicepurchasedatthecreditorsplaceofbusiness.Inthecaseoffinancialtransactions,cashpricerepresents
theamountofmoneyreceivedbythedebtoruponconsummationofthecredittransaction,netoffinancechargescollectedatthetimethecredit
isextended(ifany).
(d) Down Payment represents the amount paid by the debtor at the time of the transaction in partial payment for the property or service
purchased.
(e)Tradeinrepresentsthevalueofanasset,agreeduponbythecreditoranddebtor,givenatthetimeofthetransactioninpartialpaymentfor
thepropertyorservicepurchased.
(f)Nonfinancechargescorrespondtotheamountsadvancedbythecreditorforitemsnormallyassociatedwiththeownershipoftheproperty
oroftheavailmentoftheservicepurchasedwhicharenotincidenttotheextensionofcredit.Forexample,inthecaseofthepurchaseofan
automobileoncredit,thecreditormayadvancetheinsurancepremiumaswellastheregistrationfeefortheaccountofthedebtor.
(g)Amounttobefinancedconsistsofthecashpriceplusnonfinancechargeslesstheamountofthedownpaymentandvalueofthetradein.
(h)Financechargerepresentstheamounttobepaidbythedebtorincidenttotheextensionofcreditsuchasinterestordiscounts,collection
fees, credit investigation fees, attorneys fees, and other service charges. The total finance charge represents the difference between (1) the
aggregateconsideration(downpaymentplusinstallments)onthepartofthedebtor,and(2)thesumofthecashpriceandnonfinancecharges.
(i)Simpleannualrateistheuniformpercentagewhichrepresentstheratio,onanannualbasis,betweenthefinancechargesandtheamountto
befinanced.
Inthecaseofasinglepaymentuponmaturity,thesimpleannualrateinpercentisdeterminedbythefollowingmethod:

(amounttobefinanced)(12)
R=xx100%
(financecharge)(maturityperiodinmonths)

Incaseofthenormalinstallmenttypeofcreditofatleaseoneyearinduration,whereinstallmentpaymentsofequalamountsare
made in regular time periods spaced not more than one year apart, the simple annual rate (R), in per cent, is computed by the
followingmethod:

(financecharge)(numberofpaymentsinayear)
R=2xxx100%
(amounttobefinanced)(totalnumberofpaymentsplusone)

Incaseswherethecreditmaturesinlessthanoneyear(e.g.,installmentpaymentsarerequiredeverymonthforsixmonths),thesame
formulawillapplyexceptthat:thenumberofpaymentsinayearwouldrefertothenumberofinstallmentperiods,asdefinedinthecredit
contract,ifthecreditmaturesinoneyear.Forexample,thenumberofpaymentsayearwouldbetwelveforthispurposeincaseswheresix
monthlyinstallmentpaymentsarecalledforinthecredittransaction.
Incaseswherecredittermsprovideforpremiumorpenaltychargesdependingon,say:thetimelinessofthedebtorspayments,theannualrate
to be disclosed in writing shall be the rate for regular payments, i.e., the premium and penalty need not be taken into account in the
determinationoftheannualrate.Suchpremiumorpenaltychargesshall,however,beindicatedinthecreditcontract.
[22]
NewSampaguitaBuildersConstruction,Inc.v.PNB,G.R.No.148753,30July2004,435SCRA565.
[23]
Section6,RepublicActNo.3765.
[24]
Rollo,pp.4142.(G.R.No.161397)