You are on page 1of 6


si ENCARNACION E. JAVEL sa nasabing lote ay

binibigyan ko siya (ENCARNACION E. JAVEL) ng
[G.R. No. 150155. September 1, 2004] karapatan na maipagbili niya ang kanyang kaparti ng
SPOUSES RAMON and FELICISIMA DIOSO, nasabing lote na may numirong 248-A na may sukat na 111
petitioners, vs. SPOUSES TOMAS and LEONORA square meters.[if !supportFootnotes][3][endif]
CARDEO, respondents. When the respondents refused to give them the right of
DECISION way, the petitioners filed with the RTC of San Pedro,
CALLEJO, SR., J.: Laguna, Branch 31, a complaint for specific
FACTS: performance and/or easement of right of way with
The factual antecedents of the case are as follows: damages, docketed as Civil Case No. B-4515. The
Lot 248-A, the property subject of the complaint for petitioners prayed that the respondents be directed to
specific performance and/or easement of right of way, comply with or perform their obligation under the
is one of three sublots of Lot 248 located along F. Pinanumpaang Salaysay and grant the petitioners a
Gomez St., Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Lot 248-A has a total right of way, and to pay them damages.
area of 222 square meters and was originally owned In their answer to the complaint, the respondents
by Magno Eraa, the father of petitioner Felicisima Eraa specifically denied the genuineness and due execution
Dioso, respondent Leonora Eraa Cardeo and their of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay, alleging that it was
other sisters, namely, Natividad, Julieta and falsified. According to the respondents, respondent
Encarnacion. Upon Magno Eraas death, Lot 248-A was Leonora Cardeo and Encarnacion Javel could not have
adjudicated in favor of respondent Leonora Eraa claimed co-ownership over Lot 248-A to the exclusion
Cardeo, et al. of their other siblings as early as 1977 when the
Pinanumpaang Salaysay was supposedly executed,
Lot 248-A was later on partitioned into two, whereby because it was only on August 27, 1992 that the other
the outer portion along F. Gomez St. became the siblings waived or renounced their shares over the said
property of the respondents, Spouses Tomas and property in favor of respondent Leonora Cardeo and
Leonora Eraa Cardeo. The respondents built a house Encarnacion Javel. The respondents, thus, urged the
thereon sometime in 1972. The interior portion of Lot trial court to dismiss the complaint.
248-A became the property of Encarnacion Eraa Javel After due proceedings, the trial court rendered its
(now deceased), one of the sisters of respondent Decision[if !supportFootnotes][4][endif] dated April 23, 1999 and
Leonora Cardeo and petitioner Felicisima Dioso. ruled in favor of the respondents. The trial court held
Subsequently, Encarnacion sold her portion to that the petitioners evidence did not support their claim
Felicidad Legaspi who, in turn, sold the same to the that respondent Leonora Cardeo and Encarnacion
petitioners, Spouses Ramon and Felicisima Dioso. Javel executed the Pinanumpaang Salaysay or
The petitioners had also built a house of light materials entered into an agreement granting the latter, the
on the adjacent land, Lot 248-B, then owned by Frisco petitioners predecessor-in-interest, a right of way. The
Eraa. There is an existing pathway or alley on this lot trial court noted that the petitioners presented only a
which the petitioners use as their outlet to F. Gomez St. photocopy or machine copy of the purported document,
After they bought Encarnacions property, the and, during the trial, failed to lay the foundation or
petitioners wanted to construct a new house at the prepare the basis for the admission of secondary
interior portion of Lot 248-A. They then demanded that evidence to prove the contents thereof. Moreover,
they be given a right of way or an outlet to F. Gomez according to the trial court, even on the assumption that
St., claiming that they were entitled thereto under the a voluntary easement of right of way existed on the
Pinanumpaang Salaysay executed between respondents property, the petitioners were obliged to
respondent Leonora Cardeo and Encarnacion Javel, pay them indemnity therefor. Since the petitioners were
the petitioners predecessor-in-interest, on May 29, not willing to pay such indemnity, the trial court
1977. The said document states in part: concluded that their action to compel the respondents
Na, kami ang siyang nagmamay-ari ng loteng may numirong to grant them a right of way must fail. The trial court,
248-A na may sukat [na] 222 square meters. Na, ang thus, dismissed the complaint and ordered the
nasabing lote ay nasa tabi ng kamalig ni G. AVEL SILVA petitioners to pay the respondents the sum of P30,000
sa daang Gov. F. Gomez ng bayang ito; as attorneys fees.
Na, ako (ENCARNACION E. JAVEL) ay pumapayag na Aggrieved, the petitioners elevated the case to the
ang nasabing lote ay hatiin at ang harapan ng nasabing lote Court of Appeals (CA). After evaluation of the
ay pinauubaya ko na sa aking kapatid na si LEONORA E. respective pleadings filed by the parties and the
CARDEO at ang likuran ng lote ay sa akin; evidence on record, the CA rendered the Decision[if
!supportFootnotes][5][endif] dated May 9, 2001 substantially
Na, ako (LEONORA E. CARDEO) bilang pagbibigay sa
akin ng aking kapatid (ENCARNACION E. JAVEL) na affirming that of the trial courts. The appellate court,
mapunta sa akin ang harapan ng nasabing lote ay binibigyan however, deleted the attorneys fees awarded in favor
ko naman ng daang tao sa tagiliran nitong lote upang of the respondents for lack of factual and legal
madaanan ng aking kapatid patungo sa likuran ng nasabing justification.
lote na kanyang kaparte; Citing Section 3,[if !supportFootnotes][6][endif] Rule 130 of the
Dahil sa ako (LEONORA E. CARDEO) ay walang Rules of Court, the CA opined that the best evidence
kaukulang salapi para mabili ang kaparti ng aking kapatid na of the contents of a document is the original document

itself; in the absence of a clear showing that the original Magtanggol Yldeso, one of the witnesses to the
writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be Pinanumpaang Salaysay, attesting to the
produced in court, the photocopy submitted, in lieu circumstances surrounding its execution and
thereof, must be disregarded, being unworthy of any identifying the signatures appearing thereon.
probative value and being inadmissible in evidence. However, in the assailed Resolution of September 28,
The appellate court further cited Section 5[if 2001, the appellate court denied the petitioners motion
!supportFootnotes][7][endif] of the same Rule and observed that for reconsideration/new trial. In so ruling, the CA
the petitioners failed to show proof as to the reasons reasoned that the documents proffered by the
for the unavailability of the original copy of the petitioners, i.e., Tax Declaration No. 51637, Yldesos
Pinanumpaang Salaysay. The petitioners witness, affidavit and the Municipal Assessors certification,
Veneranda Legaspi, merely testified that she did not could not be considered as newly discovered evidence.
know why only a photocopy of the said document was According to the CA, had the petitioners exercised due
given to her by her mother, Felicidad Legaspi, from diligence in securing these documents, they could have
whom the petitioners acquired the interior one-half easily been made available at the time of the filing of
portion of Lot 248-A. the complaint or even before the case was elevated to
The CA thus affirmed the finding of the RTC that the it. The dispositive portion of the assailed CA resolution
petitioners claim of a right of way had no legal basis, in reads:
view of their failure to prove the due execution of the WHEREFORE, premises above considered, the motion for
Pinanumpaang Salaysay under which respondent reconsideration/new trial is hereby DENIED and our May 9,
Leonora Cardeo allegedly granted a right of way in 2001 Decision is REITERATED and AFFIRMED.
favor of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest. SO ORDERED.[if !supportFootnotes][10][endif]
Moreover, by the petitioners refusal to pay indemnity to The petitioners now seek relief from this Court, alleging
the respondents, the latter could not be compelled to that the appellate court erred in denying their motion
grant them the voluntary easement of right of way. The for reconsideration/new trial. They maintain that the CA
dispositive portion of the appellate courts decision should have admitted in evidence the photocopy of the
reads: Pinanumpaang Salaysay which was duly certified by
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered and pursuant the Municipal Assessor of Sta. Rosa as a faithful
to applicable jurisprudence and law on the matter, the reproduction of the original document. After all,
decision dated April 23, 1999 of the court a quo is according to the petitioners, this document merely
AFFIRMED with modification. The award of damages and confirms the existence and due execution of the
attorneys fees is deleted. No costs. Pinanumpaang Salaysay, a photocopy of which was
SO ORDERED.[if !supportFootnotes][8][endif] already made part of the records of the proceedings in
Thereafter, the petitioners filed with the appellate court the trial court.
a motion for reconsideration/new trial, alleging that it According to the petitioners, the fact that respondent
erred in adopting the factual findings of the court a quo. Leonora Cardeos 1992 Tax Declaration which
According to the petitioners, the CA should have made contained the annotation on the existence of the
its own findings of facts. The petitioners, likewise, Pinanumpaang Salaysay was not presented as
submitted to the appellate court Tax Declaration No. evidence during trial was excusable negligence on the
51637 for the year 1992 covering Lot 248-A in the part of their former counsel. The petitioners pray that
name of respondent Leonora Cardeo where, at the this omission be excused and that they not be held
dorsal portion thereof, the following annotation was bound thereby. Finally, the petitioners insist that they
written: were able to establish by secondary evidence during
Revision of T.D. No. 15976 based in PINANUMPAANG trial the existence of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay and
SALAYSAY NG PAGHAHATI pagbabahaging labas sa the fact of its loss or unavailability.
hukuman na may pagtalikod sa kabahagi.[if The preliminary issue that needs to be resolved by this
!supportFootnotes][9][endif] Court is whether the appellate court committed a
The petitioners alleged that this document was newly reversible error in denying the petitioners motion for
discovered evidence, the consideration of which could reconsideration/new trial.
alter the outcome of the case. They also averred that On this score, we affirm the ruling of the Court of
the document proved the existence of the Appeals.
Pinanumpaang Salaysay. In their supplement to the For newly-discovered evidence to be a ground for new
motion for new trial, the petitioners additionally trial, the concurrence of the following requisites must
submitted a photocopy of the Pinanumpaang be established: (a) the evidence is discovered after
Salaysay, this time certified by the Municipal Assessor trial; (b) the evidence could not have been discovered
of Sta. Rosa, Laguna as having been verified with the and produced during trial even with the exercise of
original document kept by Encarnacion Javel. The reasonable diligence; and (c) the evidence is material
Municipal Assessor, likewise, certified that the and not merely corroborative, cumulative or
Pinanumpaang Salaysay had been presented to the impeaching and is of such weight that if admitted,
Office of the Municipal Assessor in connection with the would probably change the judgment.[if
!supportFootnotes][11][endif] In order that a particular piece of
issuance of respondent Leonora Cardeos Tax
Declaration Nos. 51637 and 51638 covering Lot 248- evidence may be regarded as newly discovered for
A. Also submitted by the petitioners was the affidavit of purposes of granting a new trial, it is essential to show

that the offering party exercised reasonable diligence document. Specifically, the existence and due
in seeking to locate such evidence before or during execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay was
trial, but had nonetheless failed to secure it.[if established by Yldeso, one of the petitioners
!supportFootnotes][12][endif] witnesses, who testified that he was one of the
The newly discovered evidence submitted by the witnesses to the execution thereof and that his
petitioners to the CA does not satisfy the foregoing signature appears thereon:
requisites. Respondent Leonora Cardeos 1992 Tax Q Mr. Witness, on May 29, 1977, do you recall if you
Declaration already existed long before the petitioners reported for duty?
filed their complaint in 1997. It must be stressed that A Yes, Sir.
the said tax declaration is a public document, and as Q Where did you report for duty on that day?
such, the petitioners could have easily obtained a copy A Police Department of Sta. Rosa, Laguna then I went
of the same and presented it during trial. The same to the Office of the Mayor as security, Sir.
holds true for the copy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay Q Are you telling us that as a policeman you were
which was certified by the Municipal Assessor of Sta. likewise detailed as security of the mayor?
Rosa as a faithful reproduction of the original document A Yes, Sir, on that day.
kept by Encarnacion Javel. Q Who was the mayor that you are referring to?
Thus, the petitioners failed to establish the second A Mayor Angel Tiongco, Sir.
requisite of the rule on newly discovered evidence. The Q He was then at that time Mayor of Sta. Rosa?
documents belatedly submitted to the appellate court A You said that you reported on May 29, 1977 and you
were already in existence at the time of trial. Had they went to the office of the mayor as part of your additional
exercised reasonable diligence, the petitioners could job as a policeman, do you recall anything unusual that
have discovered them and produced them during trial. happened on that day, if you recall?
Instead, they attribute the omission to the mistake or ATTY. ZARATE:
excusable negligence of their former counsel. The question is very general.
Unfortunately for the petitioners, clients are generally COURT:
bound by the mistakes, negligence and omission of Let us see.
their counsel.[if !supportFootnotes][13][endif] A Yes, Sir.
The petitioners argue that they were able to establish COURT:
the existence of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay by What is that unusual incident?
secondary evidence, and the fact of the loss or A The family of Encarnacion went to me at my office at
unavailability of the original copy thereof despite the the police department, Sir.
non-admission of the copy certified by the municipal Q Do you consider that as [an] unusual incident?
assessor. A Yes, Maam. That is an unusual incident event (sic)
Anent this issue, we rule in favor of the petitioners. because my grandmother who is their Aunt told me that
Section 3,[if !supportFootnotes][14][endif] Rule 130 of the Rules they will come and see (sic), Maam.
of Court, indeed, provides that when the subject of Q When you said they, you are referring to whom?
inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall A Leonora Eraa and Encarnacion Eraa, Maam.
be admissible other than the original document itself. Q So you considered that as unusual?
This rule, however, admits of exceptions, as Section 5 A Yes, Maam.
thereof further states that [W]hen the original document ATTY. FUENTES:
has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in Who is that godmother that you are referring to?
court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or A Felicidad Eraa, Sir.
existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad Q Did your godmother Felicidad tell you that the Eraa
faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or sisters is (sic) going to see you at that time?
by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, A Yes, Sir, that is why I considered that as [an] unusual
or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. event.
The admission of secondary evidence in case of the Q And what was the purpose if Felicidad told you in
loss or unavailability of the original document is thus coming (sic) the Eraa sisters?
warranted upon satisfactory proof of the following: (1) A To prepare the Deed of Sale and the right of way
execution or existence of the original; (2) loss and which is located at the back, Sir.
destruction of the original or its non-production in court; COURT:
and (3) unavailability of the original is not due to bad At the back of what?
faith on the part of the offeror.[if !supportFootnotes][15][endif] A At the back of Leonora (sic), Maam.
Proof of the due execution of the document and its ATTY. FUENTES:
subsequent loss would constitute the foundation for the Did, in fact, the Eraa sisters (sic) see you on that day?
introduction of secondary evidence.[if A Yes, Sir, they went there and that they had caused
!supportFootnotes][16][endif] the preparation of [the] Sinumpaang (sic) Salaysay
Admittedly, in this case, the original document of the relative to their agreement.
Pinanumpaang Salaysay was not presented during Q You mentioned the name of Leonora Eraa, do you
trial. However, the petitioners presented a photocopy know her?
thereof, as well as testimonial evidence to prove its due A Yes, Sir.
execution and the loss or unavailability of the original Q If she is in court, will you please point to her?

A (Witness pointing to a woman inside the courtroom identify.

who when asked his (sic) name identified her name COURT:
(sic) as Leonora Eraa Cardeo). Subject to that observation. Answer.
Q You likewise mentioned the name Encarnacion A Yes, Sir.
A Yes, Sir. You mentioned that you have your signature in this
Q Please look around the courtroom and point to us if document, can you point in this Pinanumpaang
she is around? Salaysay?
A What I know [is that] she is already dead, Sir. ATTY. ZARATE:
Q What was the request made to you by your General and continuing objection, Your Honor.
godmother if any why the Eraa sisters wanted to see A (Witness is pointing to a signature below the
you on that day? typewritten word Nilagdaan which [is] marked as
A They asked me and told me that they are going to Exhibit A for the plaintiff[s], xerox copy of
prepare a Sinumpaang (sic) Salaysay relative to their Pinanumpaang Salaysay).
agreement, Sir. ATTY. FUENTES:
Q Did your godmother tell you who were these sisters When this document was prepared, do you recall if the
who were supposed to prepare that document? parties therein signed or affixed their signature[s]?
A Yes, Sir. Leonora and Encarnacion. A Yes, Sir.
Q Do you know, if indeed, that document was Q When you said yes, which parties you are (sic)
prepared? referring to who signed this document?
A Yes, Sir. A Encarnacion Eraa and Leonora Eraa, Sir.
Q Do you know the reason why you were requested to Q I am showing to you a signature over the typewritten
be around in the preparation of that document? name Encarnacion Eraa Javel, tell us if that is the
A My godmother asked me to accompany then (sic) signature of Encarnacion Eraa Javel?
that is (sic) the reason why I accompany (sic) them, Sir. A Yes, Sir. They signed this in my presence but I am
Q To where did you accompany them? not ascertain (sic) if this is the way they signed but it
A To the Office of the Mayor, Sir. was in my presence.
Q And you are referring to Mayor Tiongco? Q Likewise, over the typewritten name Leonora Cardeo
A Yes, Sir. is a signature, do you know whose signature is that?
Q What happened to the office of the mayor? A Yes, Sir. This is the signature of Leonora Cardeo.
A The document was prepared which was signed by Q Why do you know that this is her signature or
them in my presence, in fact, I was a witness on that Leonora (sic)?
and I also signed the document, Sir. A She signed in my presence, Sir.
Q Your (sic) claimed Mr. witness that you are a witness Q Aside from you, do you recall if there are other
to that document, if that document will be shown to you, witness who was called to be a witness?
will you be able to identify it? A Yes, Sir.
A If my name is there I would be able to identify it, Sir. Q Who is the other witness?
COURT: A Tomas Cardeo, Sir.
Show the document. Q Did you see Tomas Cardeo affix his signature in that
ATTY. FUENTES: document?
I am showing to you Mr. Yldeso a Sinumpaang (sic) A After I signed he signed, Sir.
Salaysay dated May 29, 1977 previously marked as Q I am showing to you a signature, under your oath will
Exhibit A, please go over and tell us if this is the you tell us if this is the signature of Tomas Cardeo?
document you are referring to? A Yes, Sir.
ATTY. ZARATE: Q Can you tell us Mr. witness, where was this
The witness will be incompetent, the document be[ing] document executed?
presented is [a] different document being a xerox copy. A They signed that before Mayor Tiongco, Sir.
ATTY. FUENTES: Q Do you know if Mayor Tiongco affix (sic) his
This is a xerox copy, we admit that, Your Honor, but we signature in this document?
are presenting that as a secondary evidence. A Yes, Sir, that is why a copy was given to them.
ATTY. ZARATE: Q Given copy to whom?
Therefore, the question has no basis. A To Leonora and Encarnacion, Sir.
ATTY. FUENTES: Q Who gave Leonora and Encarnacion?
Yes, Your Honor, but the second witness we A The document was given to me by the Mayor and it
presented, it was explained. was distributed to the parties, Sir.
COURT: Q Why did you give copies to them, to Leonora and
Well, anyway, that is not being offered yet, you just Encarnacion?
make an objection. A Because they were the one[s] who executed that, so
ATTY. ZARATE: they have to receive a copy, Sir.
Yes, but we have an objection that the witness is Q Do you recall if Mayor Tiongco at that time
incompetent in any identity (sic) as to the signature subscribed or sign (sic) the document?
would case (sic) only a suggestive device for him to A Yes, Sir.

Q Do you know where Mayor Tiongco affix (sic) his unable to buy my aliquot share of the said property and
signature? having authorized me to sell the same to my aunt
A Yes, Sir. FELICIDAD ERAA-LEGASPI as per written affidavit
Q Can you point? executed by me and the said Leonora Eraa-Cardeo on May
A (Witness pointing to a bottom part of this Exhibit A 29, 1977 at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, subscribed before the
which is not legible.) Municipal Mayor Angel Z. Tiongco; NOW, THEREFORE,
ATTY. FUENTES: for and in consideration of the sum of TEN THOUSAND
At this point, Your Honor, we request that this PESOS (P10,000.) I do hereby sell, transfer and convey in a
document be marked, the signatures of the witnesses, manner absolute my share of the above-described property
Encarnacion Javel, Leonora Cardeo, Tomas Cardeo which is One Hundred Eleven (111) square meters, more or
and that of the mayor be marked as Exhibits A-1, A-2, less in the manner of partition illustrated in the said affidavit
A-3, A-4 and A-5. annexed hereto forming part and parcel of this deed to be
Q When you said Mr. witness that one of the signatory known as Annex A; to FELICIDAD ERAA-LEGASPI, her
(sic) is Tomas Cardeo, do you know him personally? heirs, successors-in-interest and assigns.[if
A Yes, Sir. !supportFootnotes][19][endif]

Q If he is inside the courtroom, will you please point to Clearly then, since there was proof of the due
him? execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay, and that,
A (Witness pointing to a man who when asked despite earnest efforts on their part, the petitioners
identified himself as Tomas Pablo Cardeo). could not produce the original thereof, the presentation
ATTY. FUENTES: of secondary evidence to prove the contents of the said
That would be all for the witness, Your Honor. [if document was justified. Furthermore, contrary to the
!supportFootnotes][17][endif] trial courts findings, the petitioners had sufficiently laid
Moreover, the unavailability of the original document down the basis for the introduction of secondary
was established by Veneranda Legaspi, daughter of evidence.
Felicidad Legaspi, who bought Encarnacion Eraas The rule on the admission of secondary evidence
portion of Lot 248-A and eventually sold it to the provides that the contents of the original document may
petitioners. She testified that they exerted efforts to be proved (1) by a copy; (2) by a recital of its contents
locate the original Pinanumpaang Salaysay, to no in some authentic document; or (3) by the recollection
avail: of the witnesses, in the order stated.[if
!supportFootnotes][20][endif] The trial court and the CA,
This is a certified xerox copy, can you tell us where is therefore, erred in denying the admission of a
the original or duplicate original of this document? photocopy of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay,[if
!supportFootnotes][21][endif] when the same may be properly
A We have exerted effort to locate the original but this
is the only copy given to me by my mother, the xerox considered as secondary evidence to prove the
copy, Sir. contents thereof.
Q Are you telling us that the one that was given to you Interestingly, except for the perfunctory denial of the
by your mother is a xerox copy already? due execution of the Pinanumpaang Salaysay
A Yes, Sir. contained in their answer to the complaint, the
Q Did you not ask why that is a xerox copy? respondents never categorically denied the existence
A No, Sir. or the presence of their signatures thereon when they
Q And that same xerox copy that you turn over (sic) took the witness stand. In fact, when the petitioners
Mrs. Dioso when you sold the property? filed their motion for reconsideration/new trial with the
A Yes, Sir. CA, submitting therewith a copy of the Pinanumpaang
Q Did not Mrs. Dioso ask you why you turn-over (sic) Salaysay, certified by the Municipal Assessor of Sta.
this Pinanumpaang Salaysay to her? Why this is only Rosa as a faithful reproduction of the original document
a xerox copy? kept by Encarnacion Javel, the respondents did not
ATTY. ZARATE: refute the same. Even in their comment and
Asking for opinion, Your Honor. memorandum filed with this Court, the respondents did
COURT: not categorically deny the existence and execution of
Reform. the said document. To the Courts mind, this is an
ATTY. FUENTES: indication of the genuineness of the Pinanumpaang
What was the reaction of Mrs. Dioso when you turn Salaysay.
over (sic) to her this document? Having established the existence and due execution of
A She asked me about the original but I told her I do the Pinanumpaang Salaysay, the respondents are
not know, Sir.[if !supportFootnotes][18][endif] obliged to grant the petitioners, as successors-in-
Further, the Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 13, interest of Encarnacion Eraa Javel, a right of way in
1984, executed between Encarnacion Eraa Javel and accordance with the terms thereof.[if
Felicidad Eraa Legaspi, covering the formers portion of
Lot 248-A, Annex B for the petitioners and admitted in WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
evidence by the trial court, expressly mentioned the assailed CA Decision dated May 9, 2001 and
Pinanumpaang Salaysay, to wit: Resolution dated September 28, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV
That my co-owner LEONORA ERAA-CARDEO being No. 63265 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The

respondents, Spouses Tomas and Leonora Cardeo,

are DIRECTED to grant the petitioners, Spouses
Ramon and Felicisima Dioso, an easement of right of
way in accordance with the Pinanumpaang Salaysay
dated May 29, 1977.