Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

January 2014 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Search

ChanRobles Professional
Review, Inc.
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2014 > January 2014 Decisions
> G.R. No. 156407, January 15, 2014 - THELMA M. ARANAS, Petitioner, v.
TERESITA V. MERCADO, FELIMON V. MERCADO, CARMENCITA M. SUTHERLAND,
RICHARD V. MERCADO, MA. TERESITA M. ANDERSON, AND FRANKLIN L.
MERCADO, Respondents.:

G.R. No. 156407, January 15, 2014 - THELMA M. ARANAS, Petitioner, v.

TERESITA V. MERCADO, FELIMON V. MERCADO, CARMENCITA M. SUTHERLAND,
RICHARD V. MERCADO, MA. TERESITA M. ANDERSON, AND FRANKLIN L.
MERCADO, Respondents.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
Review

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 156407, January 15, 2014

THELMA M. ARANAS, Petitioner, v. TERESITA V. MERCADO, FELIMON V.

MERCADO, CARMENCITA M. SUTHERLAND, RICHARD V. MERCADO, MA.
TERESITA M. ANDERSON, AND FRANKLIN L. MERCADO, Respondents.

DEC ISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

The probate court is authorized to determine the issue of ownership of

properties for purposes of their inclusion or exclusion from the inventory to be
ChanRobles CPA Review
submitted by the administrator, but its determination shall only be provisional
Online
unless the interested parties are all heirs of the decedent, or the question is one
of collation or advancement, or the parties consent to the assumption of
jurisdiction by the probate court and the rights of third parties are not impaired.
Its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to the settlement and
distribution of the estate, such as the determination of the status of each heir
and whether property included in the inventory is the conjugal or exclusive
property of the deceased spouse.

Antecedents

Emigdio S. Mercado (Emigdio) died intestate on January 12, 1991, survived by his
second wife, Teresita V. Mercado (Teresita), and their five children, namely: Allan
V. Mercado, Felimon V. Mercado, Carmencita M. Sutherland, Richard V. Mercado,
and Maria Teresita M. Anderson; and his two children by his first marriage,
namely: respondent Franklin L. Mercado and petitioner Thelma M. Aranas
ChanRobles Special Lecture (Thelma).
Series
Emigdio inherited and acquired real properties during his lifetime. He owned
corporate shares in Mervir Realty Corporation (Mervir Realty) and Cebu Emerson
Transportation Corporation (Cebu Emerson). He assigned his real properties in
exchange for corporate stocks of Mervir Realty, and sold his real property in
Badian, Cebu (Lot 3353 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3252) to
Mervir Realty.

On June 3, 1991, Thelma filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City a
petition for the appointment of Teresita as the administrator of Emigdio’s estate

(Special Proceedings No. 3094–CEB).1 The RTC granted the petition considering
that there was no opposition. The letters of administration in favor of Teresita
were issued on September 7, 1992.

As the administrator, Teresita submitted an inventory of the estate of Emigdio on

December 14, 1992 for the consideration and approval by the RTC. She indicated
SPONSORED SEARCHES in the inventory that at the time of his death, Emigdio had “left no real properties

supreme court decisions but only personal properties” worth P6,675,435.25 in all, consisting of cash of
P32,141.20; furniture and fixtures worth P20,000.00; pieces of jewelry valued at
court cases in 2014 P15,000.00; 44,806 shares of stock of Mervir Realty worth P6,585,585.80; and

30 shares of stock of Cebu Emerson worth P22,708.25.2

como saber que araña es

applying for probate Claiming that Emigdio had owned other properties that were excluded from the
inventory, Thelma moved that the RTC direct Teresita to amend the inventory,
probate questions and answers and to be examined regarding it. The RTC granted Thelma’s motion through the
order of January 8, 1993.

On January 21, 1993, Teresita filed a compliance with the order of January 8,

1993,3 supporting her inventory with copies of three certificates of stocks

covering the 44,806 Mervir Realty shares of stock;4 the deed of assignment
executed by Emigdio on January 10, 1991 involving real properties with the
SPONSORED SEARCHES
supreme court decisions
court cases in 2014
como saber que araña es
applying for probate
probate questions and answers
SPONSORED SEARCHES
supreme court decisions
court cases in 2014
como saber que araña es
applying for probate
probate questions and answers
January-2014 Jurisprudence
A.C. No. 10135, January 15,
2014 - EDGARDO AREOLA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. MARIA
VILMA MENDOZA, Respondent.
A.C. No. 5581, January 14,
2014 - ROSE BUNAGAN-
market value of P4,440,651.10 in exchange for 44,407 Mervir Realty shares of
stock with total par value of P4,440,700.00;5 and the certificate of stock issued
on January 30, 1979 for 300 shares of stock of Cebu Emerson worth
P30,000.00.6
On January 26, 1993, Thelma again moved to require Teresita to be examined
under oath on the inventory, and that she (Thelma) be allowed 30 days within
which to file a formal opposition to or comment on the inventory and the
supporting documents Teresita had submitted.
On February 4, 1993, the RTC issued an order expressing the need for the
parties to present evidence and for Teresita to be examined to enable the court
to resolve the motion for approval of the inventory.7
c ra la wre d
On April 19, 1993, Thelma opposed the approval of the inventory, and asked
leave of court to examine Teresita on the inventory.
With the parties agreeing to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the court on
the issue of what properties should be included in or excluded from the
inventory, the RTC set dates for the hearing on that issue.8 c ra la wla wlib ra ry
Ruling of the RTC
After a series of hearings that ran for almost eight years, the RTC issued on
March 14, 2001 an order finding and holding that the inventory submitted by
Teresita had excluded properties that should be included, and accordingly ruled:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing premises and considerations,
the Court hereby denies the administratrix’s motion for approval of
inventory. The Court hereby orders the said administratrix to re–do
the inventory of properties which are supposed to constitute as the
BANSIG, Complainant, v. ATTY. estate of the late Emigdio S. Mercado by including therein the
ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA, properties mentioned in the last five immediately preceding
Respondent. paragraphs hereof and then submit the revised inventory within sixty
(60) days from notice of this order.
A.M. No. P-12-3043, January
15, 2014 - (Formerly OCA I.P.I. The Court also directs the said administratrix to render an account of
No. 08-2953-P] - ATTY. her administration of the estate of the late Emigdio S. Mercado which
MARCOS R. SUNDIANG, had come to her possession. She must render such accounting within
Complainant, v. ERLITO DS. sixty (60) days from notice hereof.
BACHO, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 124, Caloocan SO ORDERED.9 Ch a n Ro b le s Virtu a la wlib ra ry

City, Respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-14-2367, On March 29, 2001, Teresita, joined by other heirs of Emigdio, timely sought the
January 13, 2014 - (Formerly reconsideration of the order of March 14, 2001 on the ground that one of the
OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3879-RTJ) - real properties affected, Lot No. 3353 located in Badian, Cebu, had already been
SR. REMY ANGELA JUNIO, SPC sold to Mervir Realty, and that the parcels of land covered by the deed of
and JOSEPHINE D. LORICA, assignment had already come into the possession of and registered in the name
Complainants, v. JUDGE of Mervir Realty.10 Thelma opposed the motion.
MARIVIC A. CACATIAN-
BELTRAN, BRANCH 3, On May 18, 2001, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration,11 stating that
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT there was no cogent reason for the reconsideration, and that the movants’
TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN, agreement as heirs to submit to the RTC the issue of what properties should be
Respondent. included or excluded from the inventory already estopped them from questioning
its jurisdiction to pass upon the issue.
G.R. No. 160600, January
15, 2014 - DOMINGO Decision of the CA
GONZALO, Petitioner, v. JOHN
TARNATE, JR., Respondent. Alleging that the RTC thereby acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to
approve the inventory, and in ordering her as administrator to include real
G.R. No. 161106, January properties that had been transferred to Mervir Realty, Teresita, joined by her four
13, 2014 - WORLDWIDE WEB children and her stepson Franklin, assailed the adverse orders of the RTC
CORPORATION and CHERRYLL promulgated on March 14, 2001 and May 18, 2001 by petition for certiorari,
L. YU, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF stating:
THE PHILIPPINES and
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE
I
TELEPHONE COMPANY,
Respondents.; G.R. No. 161266
THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE HAS COMMITTED GRAVE
- PLANET INTERNET
ABUSE OF JURISDICTION (sic) AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
CORP.,Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE
JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT THE REAL PROPERTY WHICH WAS
LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE
SOLD BY THE LATE EMIGDIO S. MERCADO DURING HIS LIFETIME TO
COMPANY, Respondent.
A PRIVATE CORPORATION (MERVIR REALTY CORPORATION) BE
INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE EMIGDIO
G.R. No. 164246, January
S. MERCADO.
15, 2014 - HERMINIA ACBANG,
Petitioner, v. HON. JIMMY H.F.
II
LUCZON, JR., PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE HAS COMMITTED GRAVE
COURT, BRANCH 01, SECOND
ABUSE OF JURISDICTION (sic) AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JUDICIAL REGION,
JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT REAL PROPERTIES WHICH ARE IN
TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN,
THE POSSESSION OF AND ALREADY REGISTERED IN THE NAME (OF)
and SPOUSES MAXIMO LOPEZ
PRIVATE CORPORATION (MERVIR REALTY CORPORATION) BE
and HEIDI L. LOPEZ,
INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE EMIGDIO
Respondents.
S. MERCADO.

G.R. No. 164985, January

III
15, 2014 - FIRST UNITED
CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION
THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT JUDGE HAS COMMITTED GRAVE
and BLUE STAR
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
JURISDICTION IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS ARE NOW ESTOPPED
Petitioners, v. BAYANIHAN
FROM QUESTIONING ITS JURISDICTION IN PASSING UPON THE ISSUE
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION,
OF WHAT PROPERTIES SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY OF
Respondent.
THE ESTATE OF THE LATE EMIGDIO MERCADO.12
 G.R. No 166995, January 13,
2014 - DENNIS T. VILLAREAL, On May 15, 2002, the CA partly granted the petition for certiorari, disposing as
Petitioner, v. CONSUELO C. follows:13
ALIGA, Respondent.

WHEREFORE, FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, this petition is

G.R. No.172551, January 15,
GRANTED partially. The assailed Orders dated March 14, 2001 and
2014 - LAND BANK OF THE
May 18, 2001 are hereby reversed and set aside insofar as the
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
inclusion of parcels of land known as Lot No. 3353 located at Badian,
YATCO AGRICULTURAL
ENTERPRISES, Respondent. Cebu with an area of 53,301 square meters subject matter of the
Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 9, 1989 and the various

G.R. No. 176043, January parcels of land subject matter of the Deeds of Assignment dated

15, 2014 - SPOUSES February 17, 1989 and January 10, 1991 in the revised inventory to
be submitted by the administratrix is concerned and affirmed in all
BERNADETTE and RODULFO
other respects.
VILBAR, Petitioners, v.
ANGELITO L. OPINION,
SO ORDERED.
Respondent.

G.R. No. 176439, January

The CA opined that Teresita, et al. had properly filed the petition for certiorari
15, 2014 - THE PRESIDENT OF
because the order of the RTC directing a new inventory of properties was
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
interlocutory; that pursuant to Article 1477 of the Civil Code, to the effect that
OF LATTER DAY SAINTS,
the ownership of the thing sold “shall be transferred to the vendee” upon its
Petitioner, v. BTL
“actual and constructive delivery,” and to Article 1498 of the Civil Code, to the
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
effect that the sale made through a public instrument was equivalent to the
Respondent.; G.R. No. 176718
delivery of the object of the sale, the sale by Emigdio and Teresita had
- BTL CONSTRUCTION
transferred the ownership of Lot No. 3353 to Mervir Realty because the deed of
CORPORATION,Petitioner, v. THE
absolute sale executed on November 9, 1989 had been notarized; that Emigdio
PRESIDENT OF THE MANILA
had thereby ceased to have any more interest in Lot 3353; that Emigdio had
MISSION OF THE CHURCH OF
assigned the parcels of land to Mervir Realty as early as February 17, 1989 “for
JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY the purpose of saving, as in avoiding taxes with the difference that in the Deed
SAINTS and BPI-MS
of Assignment dated January 10, 1991, additional seven (7) parcels of land were
included”; that as to the January 10, 1991 deed of assignment, Mervir Realty had
INSURANCE CORPORATION, been “even at the losing end considering that such parcels of land, subject
Respondents. matter(s) of the Deed of Assignment dated February 12, 1989, were again given
monetary consideration through shares of stock”; that even if the assignment
G.R. No. 178564, January had been based on the deed of assignment dated January 10, 1991, the parcels
15, 2014 - INC. of land could not be included in the inventory “considering that there is nothing
SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., wrong or objectionable about the estate planning scheme”; that the RTC, as an
CAPTAIN SIGFREDO E. intestate court, also had no power to take cognizance of and determine the issue
MONTERROYO AND/OR of title to property registered in the name of third persons or corporation; that a
INTERORIENT NAVIGATION property covered by the Torrens system should be afforded the presumptive
LIMITED, Petitioners, v. conclusiveness of title; that the RTC, by disregarding the presumption, had
ALEXANDER L. MORADAS, transgressed the clear provisions of law and infringed settled jurisprudence on
Respondent. the matter; and that the RTC also gravely abused its discretion in holding that
Teresita, et al. were estopped from questioning its jurisdiction because of their
G.R. No. 178564, January agreement to submit to the RTC the issue of which properties should be included
15, 2014 : CONCURRING AND in the inventory.
DISSENTING OPINION - Brion,
J. : INC. SHIPMANAGEMENT, The CA further opined as follows:
INC., CAPTAIN SIGFREDO E.
MONTERROYO AND/OR
In the instant case, public respondent court erred when it ruled that
INTERORIENT NAVIGATION
petitioners are estopped from questioning its jurisdiction considering
LIMITED, Petitioners, v.
that they have already agreed to submit themselves to its jurisdiction
ALEXANDER L. MORADAS,
of determining what properties are to be included in or excluded from
Respondent.
the inventory to be submitted by the administratrix, because actually,
a reading of petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration dated March 26,
G.R. No. 183015, January
2001 filed before public respondent court clearly shows that
15, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE
petitioners are not questioning its jurisdiction but the manner in which
PHILIPPINES, represented by
it was exercised for which they are not estopped, since that is their
THE SECRETARY OF THE
right, considering that there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
lack or in excess of limited jurisdiction when it issued the assailed
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
Order dated March 14, 2001 denying the administratrix’s motion for
(DPWH), Petitioner, v. TETRO
approval of the inventory of properties which were already titled and
in possession of a third person that is, Mervir Realty Corporation, a
ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, private corporation, which under the law possessed a personality
Respondent. distinct and separate from its stockholders, and in the absence of any
cogency to shred the veil of corporate fiction, the presumption of
G.R. No. 183204, January conclusiveness of said titles in favor of Mervir Realty Corporation
13, 2014 - THE METROPOLITAN should stand undisturbed.
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,
Petitioner, v. ANA GRACE Besides, public respondent court acting as a probate court had no
ROSALES AND YO YUK TO, authority to determine the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the
Respondents. veil of corporate fiction and even if public respondent court was not
merely acting in a limited capacity as a probate court, private
G.R. No. 183860, January respondent nonetheless failed to adjudge competent evidence that
15, 2014 - RODOLFO LABORTE would have justified the court to impale the veil of corporate fiction
and PHILIPPINE TOURISM because to disregard the separate jurisdictional personality of a
AUTHORITY, Petitioners, v. corporation, the wrongdoing must be clearly and convincingly
PAGSANJAN TOURISM established since it cannot be presumed.14
CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE and
LELIZA S. FABRICIO, WILLIAM
On November 15, 2002, the CA denied the motion for reconsideration of Teresita,
BASCO, FELICIANO BASCO,
FREDIE BASCO, ROGER MORAL et al.15
NIDA ABARQUEZ, FLORANTE
MUNAR, MARY JAVIER, Issue
MARIANO PELAGIO ALEX
EQUIZ, ALEX PELAGIO ARNOLD Did the CA properly determine that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion

OBIEN, EDELMIRO ABAQUIN, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in directing the inclusion of certain
ARCEDO MUNAR, LIBRADO properties in the inventory notwithstanding that such properties had been either

MALIWANAG, OSCAR LIWAG, transferred by sale or exchanged for corporate shares in Mervir Realty by the
OSCAR ABARQUEZ, JOEL decedent during his lifetime?

BALAGUER, LIZARDO MUNAR,

ARMANDO PANCHACOLA, Ruling of the Court
MANUEL SAYCO, EDWIN
MATIBAG, ARNEL VILLAGRACIA, The appeal is meritorious.
RODOLFO LERON, ALFONSO
ABANILLA, SONNY LAVA, AND
DENNIS BASCO, Respondents. I

G.R. No. 183918, January Was certiorari the proper recourse

15, 2014 - FRANCISCO LIM, to assail the questioned orders of the RTC?
Petitioner, v. EQUITABLE PCI
BANK, now known as the The first issue to be resolved is procedural. Thelma contends that the resort to
BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, the special civil action for certiorari to assail the orders of the RTC by Teresita
INC.,* Respondent. and her co–respondents was not proper.

G.R. No. 185798, January Thelma’s contention cannot be sustained.

13, 2014 - FIL-ESTATE
PROPERTIES, INC. AND FIL- The propriety of the special civil action for certiorari as a remedy depended on
ESTATE NETWORK INC., whether the assailed orders of the RTC were final or interlocutory in nature. In
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES Pahila–Garrido v. Tortogo,16 the Court distinguished between final and
CONRADO AND MARIA interlocutory orders as follows:
VICTORIA RONQUILLO,
Respondents.
The distinction between a final order and an interlocutory order is well
known. The first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or
G.R. No. 185922, January
terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to
15, 2014 - HEIRS OF DR.
be done except to enforce by execution what the court has
MARIANO FAVIS SR.
determined, but the latter does not completely dispose of the case
represented by their co-heirs
but leaves something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order
and Attorneys-in-Fact
deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be
MERCEDES A. FAVIS and NELLY
held and the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain whether or not
FAVIS- VILLAFUERTE,
an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or
Petitioners, v. JUANA
GONZALES, her son MARIANO judgment leave something to be done in the trial court with respect
to the merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is
G. FAVIS, MA. THERESA JOANA
interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.
D. FAVIS, JAMES MARK D.
FAVIS, all minors represented
The order dated November 12, 2002, which granted the application
herein by their parents SPS.
MARIANO FAVIS and LARCELITA for the writ of preliminary injunction, was an interlocutory, not a final,
D. FAVIS, Respondents. order, and should not be the subject of an appeal. The reason for
disallowing an appeal from an interlocutory order is to avoid
G.R. No. 186063, January multiplicity of appeals in a single action, which necessarily suspends
15, 2014 - PHILIPPINE the hearing and decision on the merits of the action during the
NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. pendency of the appeals. Permitting multiple appeals will necessarily
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, delay the trial on the merits of the case for a considerable length of
Respondent. time, and will compel the adverse party to incur unnecessary
expenses, for one of the parties may interpose as many appeals as
G.R. No. 190106, January there are incidental questions raised by him and as there are
15, 2014 - MAGDALENA T. interlocutory orders rendered or issued by the lower court. An
VILLASI, Petitioner, v. interlocutory order may be the subject of an appeal, but only after a
FILOMENO GARCIA, substituted judgment has been rendered, with the ground for appealing the order
by his heirs, namely, being included in the appeal of the judgment itself.
ERMELINDA H. GARCIA, LIZA
GARCIA-GONZALEZ, THERESA The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is
GARCIA-TIANGSON, MARIVIC an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65, provided that the
H. GARCIA, MARLENE GARCIA- interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or
MOMIN, GERARDO H. GARCIA, with grave abuse of discretion. Then is certiorari under Rule 65
GIDEON H. GARCIA and allowed to be resorted to.
GENEROSO H. GARCIA, and
ERMELINDA H. GARCIA,
The assailed order of March 14, 2001 denying Teresita’s motion for the approval
Respondents.
of the inventory and the order dated May 18, 2001 denying her motion for
reconsideration were interlocutory. This is because the inclusion of the properties
G.R. No. 190928, January
in the inventory was not yet a final determination of their ownership. Hence, the
13, 2014 - TEAM ENERGY
approval of the inventory and the concomitant determination of the ownership as
CORPORATION (formerly
basis for inclusion or exclusion from the inventory were provisional and subject
MIRANT PAGBILAO CORP.),
to revision at anytime during the course of the administration proceedings.
Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
In Valero Vda. De Rodriguez v. Court of Appeals,17 the Court, in affirming the
Respondent.
decision of the CA to the effect that the order of the intestate court excluding
 G.R. No. 191498, January
15, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
v. MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL
PARTNERSHIP, Respondent.
certain real properties from the inventory was interlocutory and could be changed
or modified at anytime during the course of the administration proceedings, held
that the order of exclusion was not a final but an interlocutory order “in the
sense that it did not settle once and for all the title to the San Lorenzo Village
lots.” The Court observed there that:

G.R. No. 191555, January

The prevailing rule is that for the purpose of determining whether a
20, 2014 - UNION BANK OF THE
certain property should or should not be included in the inventory,
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
the probate court may pass upon the title thereto but such
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
determination is not conclusive and is subject to the final
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
decision in a separate action regarding ownership which may
be instituted by the parties (3 Moran’s Comments on the Rules of
G.R. No. 192034, January
Court, 1970 Edition, pages 448–9 and 473; Lachenal vs. Salas, L–
13, 2014 - ALPHA SHIP
42257, June 14, 1976, 71 SCRA 262, 266).18 (Bold emphasis
MANAGEMENT
supplied)
CORPORATION/JUNEL M CHAN
and/or CHUO-KAIUN COMPANY,
LIMITED, Petitioners, v.
To the same effect was De Leon v. Court of Appeals,19 where the Court declared
ELEOSIS V. CALO, Respondent.
that a “probate court, whether in a testate or intestate proceeding, can only pass
upon questions of title provisionally,” and reminded, citing Jimenez v. Court of
G.R. No. 192371, January
Appeals, that the “patent reason is the probate court’s limited jurisdiction and
15, 2014 - LAND BANK OF THE
the principle that questions of title or ownership, which result in inclusion or
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
exclusion from the inventory of the property, can only be settled in a separate
EMMANUEL OÑATE,
action.” Indeed, in the cited case of Jimenez v. Court of Appeals,20 the Court
Respondent.
pointed out:

G.R. No. 193517, January

15, 2014 - THE HEIRS OF All that the said court could do as regards the said properties is
VICTORINO SARILI, NAMELY: determine whether they should or should not be included in the
ISABEL A. SARILI,* inventory or list of properties to be administered by the administrator.
MELENCIA** S. MAXIMO, If there is a dispute as to the ownership, then the opposing
ALBERTO A. SARILI, IMELDA S. parties and the administrator have to resort to an ordinary
HIDALGO, all herein represented action for a final determination of the conflicting claims of title
by CELSO A. SARILI, because the probate court cannot do so. (Bold emphasis supplied)
Petitioners, v. PEDRO F.
LAGROSA, represented in this
On the other hand, an appeal would not be the correct recourse for Teresita, et
act by his Attorney-in-Fact
al. to take against the assailed orders. The final judgment rule embodied in the
LOURDES LABIOS MOJICA,
first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of Court,21 which also governs
Respondent.
appeals in special proceedings, stipulates that only the judgments, final orders
(and resolutions) of a court of law “that completely disposes of the case, or of a
G.R. No. 193986, January
particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable” may be
15, 2014 - EASTERN SHIPPING
the subject of an appeal in due course. The same rule states that an
LINES INC., Petitioner, v. BPI/MS
interlocutory order or resolution (interlocutory because it deals with preliminary
INSURANCE CORP. and MITSUI
matters, or that the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment
SUM TOMO INSURANCE CO.
rendered) is expressly made non–appealable.
LTD., Respondents.

Multiple appeals are permitted in special proceedings as a practical recognition of

G.R. No. 195064, January
15, 2014 - NARI K. GIDWANI,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
the possibility that material issues may be finally determined at various stages of
the special proceedings. Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court enumerates
the specific instances in which multiple appeals may be resorted to in special
proceedings, viz:

G.R. No. 196047, January

15, 2014 - LEPANTO
Section 1. Orders or judgments from which appeals may be taken. –
CONSOLIDATED MINING
An interested person may appeal in special proceedings from an order
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
or judgment rendered by a Court of First Instance or a Juvenile and
BELIO ICAO, Respondent.
Domestic Relations Court, where such order or judgment:

G.R. No. 196156, January

(a) Allows or disallows a will;
15, 2014 - VISAYAS
COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER
(b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person, or the
(VCMC), Formerly known as
distributive share of the estate to which such person is entitled;
METRO CEBU COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL (MCCH), Petitioner, v. (c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against the
ERMA YBALLE, NELIA ANGEL, estate of a deceased person, or any claim presented on behalf of the
ELEUTERIA CORTEZ and estate in offset to a claim against it;
EVELYN ONG, Respondents.
(d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or
G.R. No. 196171, January guardian;
15, 2014 - RCBC CAPITAL
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. (e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the
BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC. estate of a deceased person, or the administration of a trustee or
(now BDO UNIBANK, INC.), guardian, a final determination in the lower court of the rights of the
Respondent.; G.R. No. 199238 party appealing, except that no appeal shall be allowed from the
- BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, appointment of a special administrator; and
INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF
APPEALS and RCBC CAPITAL (f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the
CORPORATION, Respondents.; substantial rights of the person appealing, unless it be an order
G.R. No. 200213 - BANCO DE granting or denying a motion for a new trial or for reconsideration.
ORO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner,
v. RCBC CAPITAL
Clearly, the assailed orders of the RTC, being interlocutory, did not come under
CORPORATION and THE
any of the instances in which multiple appeals are permitted.
ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL IN ICC
ARBITRATION REF. NO.
13290/MS/JEM AND/OR
II
RICHARD IAN BARKER, NEIL
Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion
KAPLAN AND SANTIAGO
in directing the inclusion of the properties
KAPUNAN, in their official
in the estate of the decedent?
capacity as Members of THE
ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL,
Respondents.
In its assailed decision, the CA concluded that the RTC committed grave abuse of
discretion for including properties in the inventory notwithstanding their having
G.R. No. 197760, January
been transferred to Mervir Realty by Emigdio during his lifetime, and for
13, 2014 - TEAM ENERGY
disregarding the registration of the properties in the name of Mervir Realty, a
CORPORATION (Formerly
third party, by applying the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction.
MIRANT PAGBILAO
CORPORATION), Petitioner,
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 198729-30,
January 15, 2014 - CBK POWER
COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.
G.R. No. 199226, January
15, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. ROEL VERGARA y CLAVERO,
Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 200304, January
15, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. DONALD VASQUEZ
SANDIGAN @ "DON," Accused-
Appellant,
G.R. No. 201092, January
15, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. JOEL AQUINO y CENDANA @
"AKONG," Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 203028, January
15, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. Was the CA correct in its conclusion?
The answer is in the negative. It is unavoidable to find that the CA, in reaching its
conclusion, ignored the law and the facts that had fully warranted the assailed
orders of the RTC.
Under Section 6(a), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the letters of administration
may be granted at the discretion of the court to the surviving spouse, who is
competent and willing to serve when the person dies intestate. Upon issuing the
letters of administration to the surviving spouse, the RTC becomes duty–bound
to direct the preparation and submission of the inventory of the properties of the
estate, and the surviving spouse, as the administrator, has the duty and
responsibility to submit the inventory within three months from the issuance of
letters of administration pursuant to Rule 83 of the Rules of Court, viz:
Section 1. Inventory and appraisal to be returned within three
months. – Within three (3) months after his appointment every
executor or administrator shall return to the court a true inventory
and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of the deceased
y
which has come into his possession or knowledge. In the
appraisement of such estate, the court may order one or more of the
inheritance tax appraisers to give his or their assistance.
The usage of the word all in Section 1, supra, demands the inclusion of all the
real and personal properties of the decedent in the inventory.22 However, the
word all is qualified by the phrase which has come into his possession or
knowledge, which signifies that the properties must be known to the
administrator to belong to the decedent or are in her possession as the
administrator. Section 1 allows no exception, for the phrase true inventory
implies that no properties appearing to belong to the decedent can be excluded
from the inventory, regardless of their being in the possession of another person
v. JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA
@ "Jose", Accused-Appellant.
UDK No. 14817, January 13,
2014 - IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
OF MINOR SHANG KO VINGSON
YU SHIRLY VINGSON@ SHIRLY
VINGSON DEMAISIP, Petitioner,
v. JOVY CABCABAN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 188747, January
29, 2014 - MANILA
COMPANY, Petitioner,
CARLITO DEL ROSARIO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 191189, January
29, 2014 - MANLAR RICE MILL,
INC., Petitioner, v. LOURDES L.
DEYTO, DOING BUSINESS
UNDER THE TRADE NAME “J.D.
GRAINS CENTER”
JENNELITA DEYTO ANG, A.K.A.
“JANET ANG,” Respondents.
G.R. No. 188653, January
29, 2014 - LITO
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
or entity.
The objective of the Rules of Court in requiring the inventory and appraisal of the
estate of the decedent is “to aid the court in revising the accounts and
determining the liabilities of the executor or the administrator, and in making a
final and equitable distribution (partition) of the estate and otherwise to facilitate
the administration of the estate.”23 Hence, the RTC that presides over the
administration of an estate is vested with wide discretion on the question of what
properties should be included in the inventory. According to Peralta v. Peralta,24
the CA cannot impose its judgment in order to supplant that of the RTC on the
issue of which properties are to be included or excluded from the inventory in the
absence of “positive abuse of discretion,” for in the administration of the estates
of deceased persons, “the judges enjoy ample discretionary powers and the
WATER
appellate courts should not interfere with or attempt to replace the action taken
v.
by them, unless it be shown that there has been a positive abuse of
discretion.”25 As long as the RTC commits no patently grave abuse of discretion,
its orders must be respected as part of the regular performance of its judicial
duty.
There is no dispute that the jurisdiction of the trial court as an intestate court is
special and limited. The trial court cannot adjudicate title to properties claimed to
be a part of the estate but are claimed to belong to third parties by title adverse
to that of the decedent and the estate, not by virtue of any right of inheritance
AND
from the decedent. All that the trial court can do regarding said properties is to
determine whether or not they should be included in the inventory of properties
to be administered by the administrator. Such determination is provisional and
may be still revised. As the Court said in Agtarap v. Agtarap:26
LOPEZ,
The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the trial court, either as a
probate court or an intestate court, relates only to matters having to
do with the probate of the will and/or settlement of the estate of
 G.R. No. 178184, January deceased persons, but does not extend to the determination of
29, 2014 - GRAND ASIAN questions of ownership that arise during the proceedings. The patent
SHIPPING LINES, INC., rationale for this rule is that such court merely exercises special and
EDUARDO P. FRANCISCO AND limited jurisdiction. As held in several cases, a probate court or one in
WILLIAM HOW, Petitioners, v. charge of estate proceedings, whether testate or intestate, cannot
WILFREDO GALVEZ, JOEL adjudicate or determine title to properties claimed to be a part of the
SALES, CRISTITO GRUTA, estate and which are claimed to belong to outside parties, not by
DANILO ARGUELLES, RENATO virtue of any right of inheritance from the deceased but by title
BATAYOLA, PATRICIO adverse to that of the deceased and his estate. All that the said court
FRESMILLO,* JOVY NOBLE, could do as regards said properties is to determine whether or not
EMILIO DOMINICO, BENNY they should be included in the inventory of properties to be
NILMAO, AND JOSE AUSTRAL, administered by the administrator. If there is no dispute, there poses
Respondents. no problem, but if there is, then the parties, the administrator, and
the opposing parties have to resort to an ordinary action before a
A.M. No. P–13–3171 court exercising general jurisdiction for a final determination of the
(formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 11– conflicting claims of title.
11–116–MeTC), January 28,
2014 - RE: HABITUAL However, this general rule is subject to exceptions as justified by
TARDINESS OF CESAR E. expediency and convenience.
SALES, CASH CLERK III,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, First, the probate court may provisionally pass upon in an
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF intestate or a testate proceeding the question of inclusion in, or
COURT, MANILA. exclusion from, the inventory of a piece of property without
prejudice to final determination of ownership in a separate
G.R. No. 179367, January action. Second, if the interested parties are all heirs to the estate, or
29, 2014 - UNILEVER the question is one of collation or advancement, or the parties
PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. consent to the assumption of jurisdiction by the probate court
MICHAEL TAN A.K.A. PAUL D. and the rights of third parties are not impaired, then the
TAN, Respondent. probate court is competent to resolve issues on ownership.
Verily, its jurisdiction extends to matters incidental or collateral to the
A.C. No. 9872, January 28, settlement and distribution of the estate, such as the determination
2014 - NATIVIDAD P. NAVARRO of the status of each heir and whether the property in the
AND HILDA S. PRESBITERO, inventory is conjugal or exclusive property of the deceased
Complainants, v. ATTY. IVAN M. spouse.27 (Italics in the original; bold emphasis supplied)
SOLIDUM, JR., Respondent.

It is clear to us that the RTC took pains to explain the factual bases for its
G.R. No. 159926, January
directive for the inclusion of the properties in question in its assailed order of
20, 2014 - PINAUSUKAN
March 14, 2001, viz:
SEAFOOD HOUSE, ROXAS
BOULEVARD, INC., Petitioner, v.
In the first place, the administratrix of the estate admitted that Emigdio Mercado
FAR EAST BANK & TRUST
was one of the heirs of Severina Mercado who, upon her death, left several
COMPANY, NOW BANK OF THE
properties as listed in the inventory of properties submitted in Court in Special
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND
HECTOR IL. GALURA, Proceedings No. 306–R which are supposed to be divided among her heirs. The
administratrix admitted, while being examined in Court by the counsel for the
Respondents.
petitioner, that she did not include in the inventory submitted by her in this case
the shares of Emigdio Mercado in the said estate of Severina Mercado. Certainly,
A.M. No. P–12–3069,
said properties constituting Emigdio Mercado’s share in the estate of Severina
January 20, 2014 - ATTY.
Mercado should be included in the inventory of properties required to be
VIRGILIO P. ALCONERA,
submitted to the Court in this particular case.
Complainant, v. ALFREDO T.
PALLANAN, Respondent.

In the second place, the administratrix of the estate of Emigdio

G.R. No. 202122, January
Mercado also admitted in Court that she did not include in the
15, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE
inventory shares of stock of Mervir Realty Corporation which are in
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee,
her name and which were paid by her from money derived from the
v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ,
taxicab business which she and her husband had since 1955 as a
Accused–Appellant.
conjugal undertaking. As these shares of stock partake of being
conjugal in character, one–half thereof or of the value thereof should
G.R. No. 189618, January be included in the inventory of the estate of her husband.
15, 2014 - RIVELISA REALTY,
INC., REPRESENTED BY
In the third place, the administratrix of the estate of Emigdio Mercado
RICARDO P. VENTURINA,
admitted, too, in Court that she had a bank account in her name at
Petitioner, v. FIRST STA. CLARA
Union Bank which she opened when her husband was still alive. Again,
BUILDERS CORPORATION,
the money in said bank account partakes of being conjugal in
REPRESENTED BY RAMON A. character, and so, one–half thereof should be included in the
PANGILINAN, AS PRESIDENT, inventory of the properties constituting as estate of her husband.
Respondent.
In the fourth place, it has been established during the hearing in this
G.R. No. 186439, January case that Lot No. 3353 of Pls–657–D located in Badian, Cebu
15, 2014 - UNIVERSAL ROBINA containing an area of 53,301 square meters as described in and
SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3252 of the Registry of
AND RENE CABATI, Petitioners, Deeds for the Province of Cebu is still registered in the name of
v. FERDINAND ACIBO, Emigdio S. Mercado until now. When it was the subject of Civil Case
ROBERTO AGUILAR, EDDIE No. CEB–12690 which was decided on October 19, 1995, it was the
BALDOZA, RENE ABELLAR, estate of the late Emigdio Mercado which claimed to be the owner
DIOMEDES ALICOS, MIGUEL thereof. Mervir Realty Corporation never intervened in the said case in
ALICOS, ROGELIO AMAHIT, order to be the owner thereof. This fact was admitted by Richard
LARRY AMASCO, FELIPE Mercado himself when he testified in Court. x x x So the said property
BALANSAG, ROMEO located in Badian, Cebu should be included in the inventory in this
BALANSAG, MANUEL BANGOT, case.
ANDY BANJAO, DIONISIO
BENDIJO, JR., JOVENTINO Fifthly and lastly, it appears that the assignment of several parcels of
BROCE, ENRICO LITERAL, land by the late Emigdio S. Mercado to Mervir Realty Corporation on
RODGER RAMIREZ, January 10, 1991 by virtue of the Deed of Assignment signed by him
BIENVENIDO RODRIGUEZ, on the said day (Exhibit N for the petitioner and Exhibit 5 for the
DIOCITO PALAGTIW, ERNIE administratrix) was a transfer in contemplation of death. It was made
SABLAN, RICHARD PANCHO, two days before he died on January 12, 1991. A transfer made in
RODRIGO ESTRABELA, DANNY contemplation of death is one prompted by the thought that the
KADUSALE AND ALLYROBYL transferor has not long to live and made in place of a testamentary
OLPUS, Respondents. disposition (1959 Prentice Hall, p. 3909). Section 78 of the National
Internal Revenue Code of 1977 provides that the gross estate of the
G.R. No. 196435, January decedent shall be determined by including the value at the time of his
29, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE death of all property to the extent of any interest therein of which the
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff?Appellee, decedent has at any time made a transfer in contemplation of death.
v. JOEL CRISOSTOMO Y So, the inventory to be approved in this case should still include the
MALLIAR, Accused?Appellant. said properties of Emigdio Mercado which were transferred by him in
 contemplation of death. Besides, the said properties actually appeared
G.R. No. 185922, January to be still registered in the name of Emigdio S. Mercado at least ten
15, 2014 - HEIRS OF DR. (10) months after his death, as shown by the certification issued by
MARIANO FAVIS, SR., the Cebu City Assessor’s Office on October 31, 1991 (Exhibit O).28
REPRESENTED BY THEIR CO?
HEIRS AND ATTORNEYS?IN?
Thereby, the RTC strictly followed the directives of the Rules of Court and the
FACT MERCEDES A. FAVIS AND
jurisprudence relevant to the procedure for preparing the inventory by the
NELLY FAVIS?VILLAFUERTE,
administrator. The aforequoted explanations indicated that the directive to include
Petitioners, v. JUANA
the properties in question in the inventory rested on good and valid reasons, and
GONZALES, HER SON MARIANO
thus was far from whimsical, or arbitrary, or capricious.
G. FAVIS, MA. THERESA JOANA
D. FAVIS, JAMES MARK D.
FAVIS, ALL MINORS Firstly, the shares in the properties inherited by Emigdio from Severina Mercado
should be included in the inventory because Teresita, et al. did not dispute the
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY
fact about the shares being inherited by Emigdio.
THEIR PARENTS, SPS. MARIANO
FAVIS AND LARCELITA D.
Secondly, with Emigdio and Teresita having been married prior to the effectivity of
FAVIS, Respondents.
the Family Code in August 3, 1988, their property regime was the conjugal

G.R. No. 161308, January partnership of gains.29 For purposes of the settlement of Emigdio’s estate, it
15, 2014 - RICARDO MEDINA, was unavoidable for Teresita to include his shares in the conjugal partnership of

JR. Y ORIEL, Petitioner, v. gains. The party asserting that specific property acquired during that property

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, regime did not pertain to the conjugal partnership of gains carried the burden of

Respondent. proof, and that party must prove the exclusive ownership by one of them by

clear, categorical, and convincing evidence.30 In the absence of or pending the

G.R. No. 201156, January presentation of such proof, the conjugal partnership of Emigdio and Teresita
29, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE must be provisionally liquidated to establish who the real owners of the affected
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, properties were,31 and which of the properties should form part of the estate of
v. JOSELITO MORATE Y Emigdio. The portions that pertained to the estate of Emigdio must be included in
TARNATE, Accused–Appellant. the inventory.

G.R. No. 186622, January Moreover, although the title over Lot 3353 was already registered in the name of
22, 2014 - PEBLIA ALFARO AND Mervir Realty, the RTC made findings that put that title in dispute. Civil Case No.
THE HEIRS OF PROSPEROUS CEB–12692, a dispute that had involved the ownership of Lot 3353, was
ALFARO, NAMELY: MARY ANN resolved in favor of the estate of Emigdio, and Transfer Certificate of Title No.
PEARL ALFARO & ROUSLIA 3252 covering Lot 3353 was still in Emigdio’s name. Indeed, the RTC noted in the
ALFARO, Petitioners, v. order of March 14, 2001, or ten years after his death, that Lot 3353 had
SPOUSES EDITHO AND HERA remained registered in the name of Emigdio.
DUMALAGAN, SPOUSES
CRISPIN AND EDITHA Interestingly, Mervir Realty did not intervene at all in Civil Case No. CEB–12692.
DALOGDOG, ET. AL., Such lack of interest in Civil Case No. CEB–12692 was susceptible of various
Respondents. interpretations, including one to the effect that the heirs of Emigdio could have
already threshed out their differences with the assistance of the trial court. This
G.R. No. 156407, January interpretation was probable considering that Mervir Realty, whose business was
15, 2014 - THELMA M. ARANAS, managed by respondent Richard, was headed by Teresita herself as its President.
Petitioner, v. TERESITA V. In other words, Mervir Realty appeared to be a family corporation.
MERCADO, FELIMON V.
MERCADO, CARMENCITA M. Also, the fact that the deed of absolute sale executed by Emigdio in favor of
SUTHERLAND, RICHARD V. Mervir Realty was a notarized instrument did not sufficiently justify the exclusion
MERCADO, MA. TERESITA M. from the inventory of the properties involved. A notarized deed of sale only
ANDERSON, AND FRANKLIN L. enjoyed the presumption of regularity in favor of its execution, but its
MERCADO, Respondents. notarization did not per se guarantee the legal efficacy of the transaction under
the deed, and what the contents purported to be. The presumption of regularity
G.R. No. 173188, January could be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.32 As the
15, 2014 - THE CONJUGAL
Court has observed in Suntay v. Court of Appeals:33
PARTNERSHIP OF THE SPOUSES
VICENTE CADAVEDO AND
BENITA ARCOY-CADAVEDO x x x. Though the notarization of the deed of sale in question vests in

(BOTH DECEASED), its favor the presumption of regularity, it is not the intention nor the

SUBSTITUTED BY THEIR HEIRS, function of the notary public to validate and make binding an
NAMELY: HERMINIA, PASTORA, instrument never, in the first place, intended to have any binding legal

HEIRS OF FRUCTUOSA, HEIRS effect upon the parties thereto. The intention of the parties still

OF RAQUEL, EVANGELINE, and always is the primary consideration in determining the true
VICENTE, JR., AND ARMANDO, nature of a contract. (Bold emphasis supplied)
ALL SURNAMED CADAVEDO,
Petitioners, v. VICTORINO (VIC)
T. LACAYA, MARRIED TO ROSA It should likewise be pointed out that the exchange of shares of stock of Mervir
LEGADOS, Respondents. Realty with the real properties owned by Emigdio would still have to be inquired
into. That Emigdio executed the deed of assignment two days prior to his death
G.R. No. 178564, January was a circumstance that should put any interested party on his guard regarding
15, 2014 - INC the exchange, considering that there was a finding about Emigdio having been
SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., sick of cancer of the pancreas at the time.34 In this regard, whether the CA
CAPTAIN SIGFREDO E. correctly characterized the exchange as a form of an estate planning scheme
MONTERROYO AND/OR remained to be validated by the facts to be established in court.
INTERORIENT NAVIGATION
LIMITED, Petitioners, v. The fact that the properties were already covered by Torrens titles in the name of
ALEXANDER L. MORADAS, Mervir Realty could not be a valid basis for immediately excluding them from the
Respondent. inventory in view of the circumstances admittedly surrounding the execution of
the deed of assignment. This is because:
G.R. No. 176043, January
15, 2014 - SPOUSES
The Torrens system is not a mode of acquiring titles to lands; it is
BERNADETTE AND RODULFO
VILBAR, Petitioners, v. merely a system of registration of titles to lands. However, justice and
equity demand that the titleholder should not be made to bear the
ANGELITO L. OPINION,
unfavorable effect of the mistake or negligence of the State’s agents,
Respondent.
in the absence of proof of his complicity in a fraud or of manifest
damage to third persons. The real purpose of the Torrens system is
G.R. No. 164985, January
to quiet title to land and put a stop forever to any question as to the
15, 2014 - FIRST UNITED
legality of the title, except claims that were noted in the certificate at
CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION
the time of registration or that may arise subsequent thereto.
AND BLUE STAR
Otherwise, the integrity of the Torrens system shall forever be sullied
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
by the ineptitude and inefficiency of land registration officials, who are
Petitioners, v. BAYANIHAN
AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION, ordinarily presumed to have regularly performed their duties.35
Respondent.

Assuming that only seven titled lots were the subject of the deed of assignment
G.R. No. 194612, January
of January 10, 1991, such lots should still be included in the inventory to enable
27, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE
the parties, by themselves, and with the assistance of the RTC itself, to test and
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, resolve the issue on the validity of the assignment. The limited jurisdiction of the
v. FLORO MANIGO Y MACALUA, RTC as an intestate court might have constricted the determination of the rights
Accused-Appellant. to the properties arising from that deed,36 but it does not prevent the RTC as
intestate court from ordering the inclusion in the inventory of the properties
G.R. No. 164246, January subject of that deed. This is because the RTC as intestate court, albeit vested
15, 2014 - HERMINIA ACBANG, only with special and limited jurisdiction, was still “deemed to have all the
Petitioner, v. HON. JIMMY H.F.
necessary powers to exercise such jurisdiction to make it effective.”37
LUCZON, JR., PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL
Lastly, the inventory of the estate of Emigdio must be prepared and submitted
COURT, BRANCH 01, SECOND
for the important purpose of resolving the difficult issues of collation and
JUDICIAL REGION,
advancement to the heirs. Article 1061 of the Civil Code required every
TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN,
compulsory heir and the surviving spouse, herein Teresita herself, to “bring into
AND SPOUSES MAXIMO LOPEZ
the mass of the estate any property or right which he (or she) may have received
AND HEIDI L. LOPEZ,
from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any
Respondents.
other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of
the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.” Section 2, Rule 90
G.R. No. 192479, January
of the Rules of Court also provided that any advancement by the decedent on
27, 2014 - DIONES BELZA,
the legitime of an heir “may be heard and determined by the court having
Petitioner, v. DANILO T.
jurisdiction of the estate proceedings, and the final order of the court thereon
CANONERO, ANTONIO N.
shall be binding on the person raising the questions and on the heir.” Rule 90
ESQUIVEL AND CEZAR I.
thereby expanded the special and limited jurisdiction of the RTC as an intestate
BELZA, Respondents.
court about the matters relating to the inventory of the estate of the decedent
by authorizing it to direct the inclusion of properties donated or bestowed by
G.R. No. 201860, January
gratuitous title to any compulsory heir by the decedent.38
22, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
The determination of which properties should be excluded from or included in the
v. MARCELINO DADAO,
inventory of estate properties was well within the authority and discretion of the
ANTONIO SULINDAO, EDDIE
RTC as an intestate court. In making its determination, the RTC acted with
MALOGSI (DECEASED) AND
circumspection, and proceeded under the guiding policy that it was best to
ALFEMIO MALOGSI,* Accused-
include all properties in the possession of the administrator or were known to the
Appellants.
administrator to belong to Emigdio rather than to exclude properties that could
turn out in the end to be actually part of the estate. As long as the RTC commits
 G.R. No. 163753, January no patent grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be respected as part of the
15, 2014 - DR. ENCARNACION regular performance of its judicial duty. Grave abuse of discretion means either
C. LUMANTAS, M.D., Petitioner, that the judicial or quasi–judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
v. HANZ CALAPIZ, manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the respondent judge,
REPRESENTED BY HIS tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually refused to perform the duty
PARENTS, HILARIO CALAPIZ, enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, such as when such judge, tribunal or
JR. AND HERLITA CALAPIZ, board exercising judicial or quasi–judicial powers acted in a capricious or
Respondent. whimsical manner as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.39

G.R. No. 200804, January In light of the foregoing, the CA’s conclusion of grave abuse of discretion on the
22, 2014 - A.L. ANG NETWORK, part of the RTC was unwarranted and erroneous.
INC., Petitioner, v. EMMA
MONDEJAR, ACCOMPANIED BY WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for review on certiorari;
HER HUSBAND, EFREN REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on May 15, 2002;
MONDEJAR, Respondent. REINSTATES the orders issued on March 14, 2001 and May 18, 2001 by the
Regional Trial Court in Cebu; DIRECTS the Regional Trial Court in Cebu to
G.R. No. 162365, January proceed with dispatch in Special Proceedings No. 3094–CEB entitled Intestate
15, 2014 - ROBERTO R. DAVID, Estate of the late Emigdio Mercado, Thelma Aranas, petitioner, and to resolve
Petitioner, v. EDUARDO C. the case; and ORDERS the respondents to pay the costs of suit. Ch a n Ro b le s Virtu a la wlib ra ry

DAVID, Respondent.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 198804, January
22, 2014 - CARLITO VALENCIA
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo–De Castro, Villarama, Jr., and Reyes, JJ. concur.
Y CANDELARIA, Petitioner, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
Endnotes:
G.R. No. 160758, January
15, 2014 - DEVELOPMENT 1 Instead of administratrix, the gender–fair term administrator is
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, used.
Petitioner, v. GUARIÑA
AGRICULTURAL AND REALTY 2 Rollo, p. 118.
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondent. 3 Id. at 125.

G.R. No. 160600, January 4 Id. at 127–129.

15, 2014 - DOMINGO
GONZALO, Petitioner, v. JOHN
5 Id. at 130.
TARNATE, JR., Respondent.

6 Id. at 134.
G.R. No. 184045, January
22, 2014 - SPOUSES NICASIO
7 Id. at 56.
C. MARQUEZ AND ANITA J.
MARQUEZ, Petitioners, v.
8 Id. at 135.
SPOUSES CARLITO ALINDOG
AND CARMEN ALINDOG,
Respondents. 9 Id. at 140.

G.R. No. 173540, January 10 Id. at 24.

22, 2014 - PEREGRINA MACUA
VDA. DE AVENIDO, Petitioner, v. 11 Id. at 156.
TECLA HOYBIA AVENIDO,
Respondent.
12 Id. at 25.

A.C. No. 10135, January 15,

13 Id. at 21–34; penned by Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo–Dadole
2014 - EDGARDO AREOLA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. MARIA (retired), and concurred by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr.

VILMA MENDOZA, Respondent. (retired/deceased) and Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino.

14 Rollo, pp. 32–33.

G.R. No. 170701, January
22, 2014 - RALPH P. TUA,
Petitioner, v. HON. CESAR A. 15 Rollo, p. 35.
MANGROBANG, PRESIDING
JUDGE, BRANCH 22, REGIONAL 16 G.R. No. 156358, August 17, 2011, 655 SCRA 553, 566–567.
TRIAL COURT, IMUS, CAVITE;
AND ROSSANA HONRADO-TUA, 17 No. L–39532, July 20, 1979, 91 SCRA 540.
Respondents.
18 Id. at 545–546.
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2287
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-
19 G.R. No. 128781, August 6, 2002, 386 SCRA 216, 226–227.
3640-RTJ), January 22, 2014 -
OFFICE OF THE COURT
20 G.R. No. 75773, April 17, 1990, 184 SCRA 367, 372.
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,
v. HON. CADER P. INDAR, AL
21 Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court (as amended under A.M.
HAJ, PRESIDING JUDGE AND
ABDULRAHMAN D. PIANG, No. 07–7–12–SC; effective December 27, 2007) provides:

PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 14,

BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL Section 1. Subject of appeal.— An appeal may be taken from a

COURT, BRANCH 14, COTABATO judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or

CITY, Respondents. of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to

be appealable.

A.M. No. P-12-3043

[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08- No appeal may be taken from:

2953-P], January 15, 2014 -

ATTY. MARCOS R. SUNDIANG, (a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion

Complainant, v. ERLITO DS. seeking relief from judgment;

BACHO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL (b) An interlocutory order;

TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 124, (c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;

CALOOCAN CITY, Respondent. (d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent,
confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress,

A.M. No. P-08-2574 or any other ground vitiating consent;

(Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08- (e) An order of execution;

2748-P), January 22, 2014 - (f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several

RAUL K. SAN BUENAVENTURA, parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross–claims and third–

Complainant, v. TIMOTEO A. party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court

MIGRIÑO, CLERK OF COURT III, allows an appeal therefrom; and

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, (g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
BRANCH 69, PASIG CITY,
Respondent. In any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party may file an
appropriate special civil action as provided in Rule 65.
A.C. No. 8644 [Formerly CBD
Case No. 11-2908], January 22, 22 The word all means “every one, or the whole number of particular;
2014 - AIDA R. CAMPOS, the whole number” (3 Words and Phrases 212, citing State v. Maine
ALISTAIR R. CAMPOS AND Cent. R. Co., 66 Me. 488, 510). Standing alone, the word all means
CHARMAINE R. CAMPOS, exactly what it imports; that is, nothing less than all (Id. at 213, citing
Complainants, v. ATTY. ELISEO In re Staheli’s Will, 57 N.Y.S.2d 185, 188).
M. CAMPOS, Respondent.
23 Siy Chong Keng v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 60 Phil. 493, 500
A.C. No. 5581, January 14,
(1934).
2014 - ROSE BUNAGAN-
BANSIG, Complainant, v. ATTY.
24 71 Phil. 66 (1940).
ROGELIO JUAN A. CELERA,
Respondent.
25 Id. at 68.

A.M. No. P-13-3141

26 G.R. No. 177099, June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 455.
[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-
2875-P], January 21, 2014 -
27 Id. at 471–473, citing, among others, Coca v. Pizarras Vda. De
ATTY. RHEA R. ALCANTARA-
AQUINO, Complainant, v. Pangilinan, No. L–27082, January 31, 1978, 81 SCRA 278, 283;
MYLENE H. DELA CRUZ, CLERK Alvarez v. Espiritu, No. L–18833, August 14, 1965, 14 SCRA 892,
III, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF 899; Cunanan v. Amparo, 80 Phil. 227 (1948); and Pascual v.
COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL Pascual, 73 Phil. 561 (1942).
COURT, SANTA CRUZ, LAGUNA,
Respondent. 28 Rollo, pp. 139–140.

A.M. No. P-05-2051, January 29 See. FAMILY CODE, Art. 105, 116.
21, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR, 30 Dewara v. Lamela, G.R. No. 179010, April 11, 2011, 647 SCRA
Complainant, v. ATTY. MONA 483, 490, citing Coja v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151153,
LISA A. BUENCAMINO, CLERK December 10, 2007, 539 SCRA 517, 528.
OF COURT IV, DAVID E.
MANIQUIS, CLERK OF COURT 31 See Alvarez v. Espiritu, No. L–18833, August 14, 1965, 14 SCRA
III, AND CIELITO M. MAPUE, 892, 899.
SHERIFF III, ALL OF THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK OF COURT, 32 San Juan v. Offril, G.R. No. 154609, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 439,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,
445–446 citing Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138842,
CALOOCAN CITY,
October 18, 2000, 343 SCRA 637, 652.
Respondents.; A.M. No. 05-4-
118-MeTC - RE: REPORT ON 33 G.R. No. 114950, December 19, 1995, 251 SCRA 430, 452–453,
THE FINANCIAL AUDIT
cited in Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138842, October 18,
CONDUCTED IN THE
2000, 343 SCRA 637, 652.
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT,
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
34 Rollo, p. 138.
COURT, CALOOCAN CITY

35 Rabaja Ranch Development Corporation v. AFP Retirement and

G.R. No. 197760, January
13, 2014 - TEAM ENERGY Separation Benefits System, G.R. No. 177181, July 7, 2009, 592

CORPORATION (FORMERLY SCRA 201, 217, citing Republic v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 133168, March

MIRANT PAGBILAO 28, 2006, 485 SCRA 424, 445.

CORPORATION), Petitioner, v.
36 Reyes–Mesugas v. Reyes, G.R. No. 174835, March 22, 2010, 616
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent. SCRA 345, 350, citing Pio Barretto Realty Development, Inc. v. Court
of Appeals, No. L–62431–33, August 3, 1984, 131 SCRA 606.
G.R. No. 191555, January
20, 2014 - UNION BANK OF THE 37 Pio Barretto Realty Development, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. at 621.
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. 38 Gregorio v. Madarang, G.R. No. 185226, February 11, 2010, 612
SCRA 340, 345.
 G.R. No. 183880, January 39 Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, G.R. No.
20, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF 153852, October 24, 2012, 684 SCRA 410, 422–423.
INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
v. TOLEDO POWER, INC.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 180972, January Back to Home | Back to Main

20, 2014 - JONAS MICHAEL R.
GARZA, Petitioner, v. COCA-
COLA BOTTLERS PEREZ, AND
PHILIPPINES, INC. CHRISTINE
BANAL/ CALIXTO MANAIG,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 192034, January

13, 2014 - ALPHA SHIP
MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION/JUNEL M. CHAN
AND/OR CHUO-KAIUN
COMPANY, LIMITED, Petitioners,
v. ELEOSIS V. CALO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 176439, January

15, 2014 - THE PRESIDENT OF
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
OF LATTER DAY SAINTS,
Petitioner, v. BTL
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT.; G.R. No.
176718 - BTL CONSTRUCTION
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE
MANILA MISSION OF THE
CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF
LATTER DAY SAINTS AND BPI-
MS INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 185798, January

13, 2014 - FIL-ESTATE
PROPERTIES, INC. AND FIL-
ESTATE NETWORK, INC.,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES
CONRADO AND MARIA
VICTORIA RONQUILLO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 190928, January

13, 2014 - TEAM ENERGY
CORPORATION (FORMERLY
MIRANT PAGBILAO CORP.),
Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 201011, January

27, 2014 - THERESITA, JUAN,
ASUNCION, PATROCINIA,
RICARDO, AND GLORIA, ALL
SURNAMED DIMAGUILA,
Petitioners, v. JOSE AND SONIA
A. MONTEIRO, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 187973, January
20, 2014 - LZK HOLDINGS AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. PLANTERS
DEVELOPMENT BANK,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 196231, January

28, 2014 - EMILIO A.
GONZALES III, Petitioner, v.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE PHILIPPINES, ACTING
THROUGH AND REPRESENTED
BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.,
SENIOR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY JOSE AMOR M.
AMORANDO, OFFICER-IN-
CHARGE - OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY FOR LEGAL
AFFAIRS, ATTY. RONALDO A.
GERON, DIR. ROWENA
TURINGAN-SANCHEZ, AND
ATTY. CARLITO D. CATAYONG,
Respondents.; G.R. No. 196232
- WENDELL BARRERAS-SULIT,
Petitioner, v. ATTY. PAQUITO N.
OCHOA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY
AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
ATTY. DENNIS F. ORTIZ, ATTY.
CARLO D. SULAY AND ATTY.
FROILAN D. MONTALBAN, JR.,
IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF
OFFICE OF MALACAÑANG
LEGAL AFFAIRS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 200304, January

15, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. DONALD VASQUEZ Y
SANDIGAN @ “DON,” Accused-
Appellant.

G.R. No. 201092, January

15, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. JOEL AQUINO Y CENDANA @
“AKONG,” Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 199226, January

15, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. ROEL VERGARA Y CLAVERO,
Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 196171, January

15, 2014 - RCBC CAPITAL
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.
(NOW BDO UNIBANK, INC.),
Respondent.; G.R. NO. 199238
- BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK,
INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF
APPEALS AND RCBC CAPITAL
CORPORATION, Respondents.;
G.R. NO. 200213 - BANCO DE
ORO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner,
v. RCBC CAPITAL
CORPORATION AND THE
ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL IN ICC
ARBITRATION REF. NO.
13290/MS/JEM AND/OR
RICHARD IAN BARKER, NEIL
KAPLAN AND SANTIAGO
KAPUNAN, IN THEIR OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE
ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL,
Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 198729-30,

January 15, 2014 - CBK POWER
COMPANY LIMITED, Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 196156, January

15, 2014 - VISAYAS
COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER
(VCMC), FORMERLY KNOWN AS
METRO CEBU COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL (MCCH), Petitioner, v.
ERMA YBALLE, NELIA ANGEL,
ELEUTERIA CORTEZ AND
EVELYN ONG, Respondents.

G.R. No. 196047, January

15, 2014 - LEPANTO
CONSOLIDATED MINING
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
BELIO ICAO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 195064, January

15, 2014 - NARI K. GIDWANI,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 186063, January

15, 2014 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v.
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 203028, January

15, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. JOSELITO BERAN Y ZAPANTA
@ “JOSE”, Respondents.

G.R. No. 193986, January

15, 2014 - EASTERN SHIPPING
LINES, INC., Petitioner, v.
BPI/MS INSURANCE CORP., AND
MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE
CO., LTD., Respondents.
 G.R. No. 190106, January
15, 2014 - MAGDALENA T.
VILLASI, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
FILOMENO GARCIA AND
ERMELINDA HALILI-GARCIA,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 183918, January

15, 2014 - FRANCISCO LIM,
Petitioner, v. EQUITABLE PCI
BANK, NOW KNOWN AS THE
BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK,
INC.,* Respondents.

G.R. No. 183860, January

15, 2014 - RODOLFO LABORTE
AND PHILIPPINE TOURISM
AUTHORITY, Petitioners, v.
PAGSANJAN TOURISM
CONSUMERS’ COOPERATIVE
AND LELIZA S. FABRICIO,
WILLIAM BASCO, FELICIANO
BASCO, FREDIE BASCO,
ROGER MORAL, NIDA
ABARQUEZ, FLORANTE MUNAR,
MARY JAVIER, MARIANO
PELAGIO, ALEX EQUIZ, ALEX
PELAGIO, ARNOLD OBIEN,
EDELMIRO ABAQUIN, ARCEDO
MUNAR, LIBRADO MALIWANAG,
OSCAR LIWAG, OSCAR
ABARQUEZ, JOEL BALAGUER,
LIZARDO MUNAR, ARMANDO
PANCHACOLA, MANUEL SAYCO,
EDWIN MATIBAG, ARNEL
VILLAGRACIA, RODOLFO
LERON, ALFONSO ABANILLA,
SONNY LAVA, AND DENNIS
BASCO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 183015, January

15, 2014 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY
THE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
(DPWH), Petitioner v. TETRO
ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 172551, January

15, 2014 - LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
YATCO AGRICULTURAL
ENTERPRISES, Respondent.

UDK No. 14817, January 13,

2014 - IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
OF MINOR SHANG KO VINGSON
YU SHIRLY VINGSON @ SHIRLY
VINGSON DEMAISIP, Petitioner,
v. JOVY CABCABAN,
Respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-14-2367

(formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-
3879-RTJ), January 13, 2014 -
SR. REMY ANGELA JUNIO, SPC
AND JOSEPHINE D. LORICA,
Complainants, v. JUDGE
MARIVIC A. CACATIAN-
BELTRAN, BRANCH 3,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 166995, January

13, 2014 - DENNIS T.
VILLAREAL, Petitioner, v.
CONSUELO C. ALIGA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 161106, January

13, 2014 - WORLDWIDE WEB
CORPORATION AND CHERRYLL
L. YU, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES AND
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE
TELEPHONE COMPANY,
Respondents.; G.R. NO.
161266 - PLANET INTERNET
CORP., Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE
LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE
COMPANY, Respondent.

G.R. No. 193517, January

15, 2014 - THE HEIRS OF
VICTORINO SARILI, NAMELY:
ISABEL A. SARILI,*
MELENCIA** S. MAXIMO,
ALBERTO A. SARILI, IMELDA S.
HIDALGO, ALL HEREIN
REPRESENTED BY CELSO A.
SARILI, Petitioners, v. PEDRO F.
LAGROSA, REPRESENTED IN
THIS ACT BY HIS ATTORNEY-
IN-FACT, LOURDES LABIOS
MOJICA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 183204, January

13, 2014 - THE METROPOLITAN
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,
Petitioner, v. ANA GRACE
ROSALES AND YO YUK TO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 191498, January

15, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner,
v. MINDANAO II GEOTHERMAL
PARTNERSHIP, Respondent.

G.R. No. 192371, January

15, 2014 - LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
EMMANUEL OÑATE,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 163109, January

22, 2014 - MARICHU G. EJERA,
Petitioner, v. BEAU HENRY L.
MERTO AND ERWIN VERGARA,
Respondents.

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz