Sarmiento v. Juan Full Case

5/10/2021 G.R. No. 180463 - Republic of the Philippines v. AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System, et al.
et al. : January 2013 - Philipppine Sup…
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
January 2013 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2013 > January 2013 Decisions >
G.R. No. 180463 - Republic of the Philippines v. AFP Retirement and Separation
ChanRobles Professional
Benefits System, et al.:
Review, Inc.
G.R. No. 180463 - Republic of the Philippines v. AFP Retirement and Separation
Benefits System, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
Review G.R. No. 180463 : January 16, 2013
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. AFP RETIREMENT AND
SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM,* Respondent,

HEIRS OF CABALO KUSOP and ATTY. NILO J. FLAVIANO, Respondents-
Intervenors.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The processes of the State should not be trifled with. The failure of a party to avail of
the proper remedy to acquire or perfect one's title to land cannot justify a resort to
other remedies which are otherwise improper and do not provide for the full
oppot1unity to prove his title, but instead require him to concede it before availment.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013januarydecisions.php?id=70 1/20
5/10/2021 G.R. No. 180463 - Republic of the Philippines v. AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System, et al. : January 2013 - Philipppine Sup…
Certificates of title issued covering inalienable and non-disposable public land, even in
the hands of an alleged innocent purchaser for value, should be cancelled.
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 questioning the October 26, 2007
Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 75170, which reversed the
November 5, 2001 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23 of General
Santos City in Civil Case No. 6419.
Factual Antecedents
Lots X, Y-1 and Y-2 lands of the public domain consisting of 52,678 square meters
located in Barrio Dadiangas, General Santos Municipality (now General Santos City)
were reserved for recreation and health purposes by virtue of Proclamation No. 168 4
(Proc. 168), which was issued in 1963. In 1983, Proclamation No. 2273 5 (Proc. 2273)
ChanRobles CPA Review was issued amending Proc. 168, and removing and segregating Lots Y-1 and Y-2 from
Online the reservation and declaring them open for disposition to qualified applicants. As a
result, only Lot X which consists of 15,020 square meters remained part of the
reservation now known as Magsaysay Park.
The record discloses that respondents-intervenors waged a campaign through

petitions and pleas made to the President to have Lots Y-1 and Y-2 taken out of the
reservation for the reason that through their predecessor Cabalo Kusop (Kusop), they
have acquired vested private rights over these lots. This campaign resulted in Proc.
2273, which re-classified and returned Lots Y-1 and Y-2 to their original alienable and
disposable state.
In 1997, respondents-intervenors filed applications 6 for the issuance of individual

miscellaneous sales patents over the whole of Lot X with the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) regional office in General Santos City,
which approved them. Consequently, 16 original certificates of title 7 (OCTs) covering

Lot X were issued in the names of respondents-intervenors and several others. In
ChanRobles Special Lecture
Series September 1997, these 16 titles were simultaneously conveyed 8 to herein
respondent AFP-Retirement and Separation Benefits System (AFP-RSBS), resulting in
the issuance of 16 new titles (the AFP-RSBS titles) Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT)
No. T-81051 through T-81062, T-81146-T-81147, and T-81150-T-81151. 9 ?r?l1
On September 11, 1998, herein petitioner Republic of the Philippines instituted Civil
Case No. 6419, which is a Complaint 10 for reversion, cancellation and annulment of
the AFP-RSBS titles, on the thesis that they were issued over a public park which is
classified as inalienable and non-disposable public land.
Respondents-intervenors intervened 11 in Civil Case No. 6419, and, together with the
defendant AFP-RSBS, argued that their predecessor-in-interest Kusop had acquired
vested interests over Lot X even before Proc. 168 was issued, having occupied the
same for more than 30 years. They claimed that these vested rights, taken together
with the favorable recommendations and actions of the DENR and other government
agencies to the effect that Lot X was alienable and disposable land of the public
domain, as well as the subsequent issuance of sales patents and OCTs in their names,
cannot be defeated by Proc. 168. They added that under Proc. 168, private rights are
precisely recognized, as shown by the preliminary paragraph thereof which states: cralawlibrary
Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and
pursuant to the authority vested in me by law, I, Diosdado Macapagal, President x x
x, do hereby withdraw from sale or settlement and reserve for recreational and
health resort site purposes, under the administration of the municipality of General
Santos, subject to private rights, if any there be x x x 12 (Emphasis supplied.)
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On November 5, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment nullifying the AFP-RSBS
titles and ordering the return of Lot X to the Republic, with the corresponding
issuance of new titles in its name. The trial court ruled that the respondents-
intervenors having benefited by the grant, through Proc. 2273, of Lots Y-1 and Y-2 to
them can no longer claim Lot X, which has been specifically declared as a park
reservation under Proc. 168 and further segregated under Proc. 2273. In other
words, their private rights, which were guaranteed under Proc. 168, have already
been recognized and respected through the subsequently issued Proc. 2273; as a
consequence, the succeeding sales patents and OCTs in the names of the
respondents-intervenors should be declared null and void not only for being in
violation of law, but also because respondents-intervenors did not deserve to acquire
more land.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA reduced the issues for resolution to just two: 1) whether the respondents-
intervenors acquired vested rights over Lot X, and 2) whether AFP-RSBS is a buyer in
good faith. 13 It went on to declare that Lot X was alienable and disposable land, and
that respondents-intervenors predecessor-in-interest acquired title by prescription,
on the basis of the documentary evidence presented: cralawlibrary
1. Report to the President of the Republic dated August 2, 1982 by the

Board of Liquidators, recommending the amendment of Proc. 168 to
recognize and respect the rights of respondents-intervenors predecessors-
in-interest, who have been in possession of portions of the reservation
since time immemorial; 14 ?r?l1
2. Report of District Land Officer Buenaventura Gonzales of the Bureau of

Lands, dated May 26, 1975, likewise stating that respondents-intervenors
predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of portions of the
reservation since time immemorial, and that for this reason, Proc. 168
was never in force and effect; 15 ?r?l1
3. Report of Deputy Public Land Inspector Jose Balanza of the Bureau of

Lands, dated May 6, 1976, finding that the property covered by Proc. 168
is private property and within an area declared as alienable and
disposable under Project No. 47 per L.C. Map No. 700 established by the
then Bureau of Forestry; 16 ?r?l1
4. Tax Declaration No. 716 in the name of Cabalo Kusop and its
subsequent revisions; 17 ?r?l1
5. Certifications issued by the (then) municipal treasurer of General
Santos and official receipts showing payment of taxes from 1945-1972; 18 ?r?l1
6. Sworn declaration of ownership submitted to the Philippine
Constabulary; 19 ?r?l1
7. 1975 letter of then General Santos Mayor acknowledging that Kusop
was in possession of Lot X even before the war; and 20 ?r?l1
8. Statements and testimonies of several witnesses. 21 ?r?l1 ???ñr?bl?š ??r†??l l?? l?br?rÿ
The CA added that as a consequence of their predecessors possession of Lot X since

time immemorial, respondents-intervenors have acquired title without need of judicial
or other action, and the property ceased to be public land and thus became private
property. 22 It stressed that while "government has the right to classify portions of
public land, the primary right of a private individual who possessed and cultivated the
land in good faith much prior to such classification must be recognized and should not
be prejudiced by after-events which could not have been anticipated." 23 ?r?l1
The CA went on to justify that the reason why Proc. 2273 did not take Lot X out of
the public domain is not because the Executive wanted it to remain a recreational
park reserve but because the respondents-intervenors were in the process of
donating said Lot X to General Santos City, and the President deemed it unnecessary
to still place it within the coverage of Proc. 2273.
The CA further ruled that the miscellaneous sales patents issued in the names of the
respondents-intervenors affirm their claim of ownership over Lot X, while the OCTs
subsequently issued in their names rendered their claim indefeasible.
Finally, the appellate court declared that since respondents-intervenors titles to Lot X
were duly obtained, the sale and transfer thereof to respondent AFP-RSBS should be
accorded the same treatment as a sale or transfer made to a purchaser in good faith.
Besides, it having been shown that the petitioner is not entitled to Lot X since it
already belonged to the respondents-intervenors, petitioner had no right to raise the
issue of AFP-RSBS good or bad faith.
Thus, petitioners Complaint for reversion was dismissed.
Issues
The petition now enumerates the following issues for resolution: cralawlibrary
BY APPLYING FOR MISCELLANEOUS SALES PATENT, THE HEIRS HAVE

ADMITTED THAT LOT X IS PUBLIC LAND. THE EVIDENCE THEY
SUBMITTED TO ESTABLISH THEIR ALLEGED PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IS
Ṭọnì THEREFORE UNAVAILING.
Ġọnȥạǵą II
Leaks Secret THE ALLEGED "VESTED RIGHTS" OF THE HEIRS OVER LOT X CANNOT
PREVAIL AGAINST GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF PUBLIC LAND UNDER
In Live TV Show THE REGALIAN DOCTRINE.
Ṭọnì Surprises Everyone
III
& Left Them Speechless
With The Latest THERE IS NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE THAT PROCLAMATION 2273
Statement RECOGNIZED THE OWNERSHIP OF LOT X BY THE HEIRS. NEITHER IS
THERE BASIS TO CLAIM THAT THE HEIRS RETAINED OWNERSHIP OF LOT
thecraftconsoles.com
X DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE CITY OF GENERAL SANTOS TO ACCEPT
THE DONATION OF LOT X.
IV
AFP-RSBS IS NOT A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH. 24 ?r?l1 ???ñr?bl?š ??r†??l l?? l?br?rÿ
OPEN
Petitioners Arguments
Apart from echoing the pronouncements of the trial court, the Republic, in its Petition
and Consolidated Reply, 25 submits that respondents-intervenors applications for

miscellaneous sales patents constitute acknowledgment of the fact that Lot X was
public land, and not private property acquired by prescription.
Petitioner argues further that with the express recognition that Lot X is public land, it
became incumbent upon respondents-intervenors granting that they are entitled to
the issuance of miscellaneous sales patents to prove that Lot X is alienable and
disposable land pursuant to Commonwealth Act No. 141 26 (CA 141); and that in this
regard respondents-intervenors failed. They offered proof, in the form of reports and
recommendations made by the Bureau of Lands and the Board of Liquidators, among
others, which were insufficient to establish that Lot X was alienable and disposable
land of the public domain. Besides, under the law governing miscellaneous sales
patents, Republic Act No. 730 27 (RA 730), it is specifically required that the property
covered by the application should be one that is not being used for a public purpose.
Yet the fact remains that Lot X is being utilized as a public recreational park. This
Ṭọnì being the case, Lot X should not have qualified for distribution allowable under RA
Ġọnȥạǵą 730.
Leaks Secret Petitioner next insists that if indeed respondents-intervenors have become the
owners of Lot X by acquisitive prescription, they should have long availed of the
In Live TV Show proper remedy or remedies to perfect their title through an action for confirmation of
Ṭọnì Surprises Everyone imperfect title or original registration. Yet they did not; instead, they resorted to an
& Left Them Speechless application for issuance of miscellaneous sales patents. By so doing, respondents-
With The Latest intervenors conceded that they had not acquired title to Lot X.
Statement
Petitioner next advances the view that respondents-intervenors vested rights cannot
thecraftconsoles.com prevail as against the States right to Lot X under the Regalian doctrine. Petitioner
argues that the presumption still weighs heavily in favor of state ownership of all
lands not otherwise declared private and that since Lot X was not declared open for
disposition as were Lots Y-1 and Y-2 by and under Proc. 2273, it should properly
retain its character as an inalienable public recreational park.
OPEN Finally, petitioner submits that the good or bad faith of AFP-RSBS is irrelevant
because any title issued on inalienable public land is void even in the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value. 28 ?r?l1
Respondents Arguments
AFP-RSBS and the respondents-intervenors collectively argue that the grounds relied
January-2013 Jurisprudence
upon by the Republic in the petition involve questions of fact, which the Court may
not pass upon. They add that since private rights are explicitly recognized under Proc.
168, the respondents-intervenors predecessors prior possession since time
G.R. No. 188768 : January 07,
immemorial over Lot X should thus be respected and should bestow title upon
2013 - TML GASKET
respondents-intervenors.
INDUSTRIES, INC., Petitioner, v.
BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., They argue that if respondents-intervenors chose the wrong remedy in their attempt
RESPONDENT. to perfect their title over Lot X, this was an innocent mistake that in no way divests
such title, which was already perfected and acquired by virtue of their predecessors
G.R. No. 193960 : January 07, open, continuous and uninterrupted possession of Lot X.
2013 - KARLO ANGELO DABALOS
Finally, they argue that the reports and recommendations of the Bureau of Lands and
Y SAN DIEGO, Petitioner, v.
the Board of Liquidators constitute findings of facts of administrative agencies which
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
thus bind the Court. They add that the presumption arising from the Regalian
BRANCH 59, ANGELES CITY
doctrine may be overcome by proof to the contrary, and that it has in fact been
(PAMPANGA), REPRESENTED BY
overcome by the evidence presented before the trial court.
ITS PRESIDING JUDGE MA.
ANGELICA T. PARASÂ QUIAMBAO; Our Ruling
THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
The Court grants the Petition.
PROSECUTOR, ANGELES CITY
(PAMPANGA); AND ABC, From the wording of Proc. 168, the land it comprises is subject to sale or settlement,
Respondents. and thus alienable and disposable Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural
G.R. No. 172590 : January 07,
Resources and pursuant to the authority vested in me by law, I, Diosdado Macapagal,
2013 - MARY LOUISE R.
President x x x, do hereby withdraw from sale or settlement and reserve for
ANDERSON, Petitioner, v.
recreational and health resort site purposes, under the administration of the
ENRIQUE HO, RESPONDENT.
municipality of General Santos, subject to private rights, if any there be x x x 29
A.M. No. P-12-3090 (Formerly (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3662-P) :

However, this alienable and disposable character of the land covered by the
January 07, 2013 - MARIANO T.
proclamation was subsequently withdrawn, and the land was re-classified by then
ONG, COMPLAINANT, VS. EVA G.
President Macapagal to pave the way for the establishment of a park reservation,
BASIYA-SARATAN, CLERK OF
subject only to previously acquired private rights. Respondents-intervenors then
COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, lobbied for the exclusion of certain portions of the reservation which they claimed to
ILOILO CITY, BRANCH 32, be theirs, allegedly acquired by their predecessor Kusop through prescription. They
RESPONDENT. were successful, for in 1983, then President Marcos issued Proc. 2273, which
excluded and segregated Lots Y-1 and Y-2 from the coverage of Proc. 168. In
G.R. No. 177751 : January 07, addition, Proc. 2273 declared Lots Y-1 and Y-2 open for distribution to qualified
2013 - PEOPLE OF THE beneficiaries which included the herein respondents-intervenors. However, Lot X was
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. retained as part of the reservation.
FLORENCIO AGACER, EDDIE
Respondents-intervenors did not question Proc. 2273, precisely because they were
AGACER, ELYNOR AGACER,
the beneficiaries thereof; nor did they object to the retention of Lot X as part of the
FRANKLIN AGACER AND
park reserve. Instead, in 1997, they applied for, and were granted, sales patents over
ERIC***AGACER, ACCUSED-
Lot X.
APPELLANTS.
Evidently, the sales patents over Lot X are null and void, for at the time the sales
G.R. No. 173559 : January 07, patents were applied for and granted, the land had lost its alienable and disposable
2013 - LETICIA DIONA, character. It was set aside and was being utilized for a public purpose, that is, as a
REPRESENTED BY HER recreational park. Under Section 83 of CA 141, "the President may designate by
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MARCELINA proclamation any tract or tracts of land of the public domain as reservations for the
DIONA, Petitioner, v. SONNY A. use of the Commonwealth of the Philippines or of any of its branches, or of the
BALANGUE, ROMEO A. inhabitants thereof, in accordance with regulations prescribed for this purpose, or for
BALANGUE, REYNALDO A. quasi-public uses or purposes, when the public interest requires it, including
BALANGUE, AND ESTEBAN A. reservations for highways, rights of way for railroads, hydraulic power sites, irrigation
BALANGUE, JR., RESPONDENTS. systems, communal pastures or leguas comunales, public parks, public quarries,
public fishponds, workingmen's village and other improvements for the public
G.R. No. 170634 : January 08, benefit." And under the present Constitution, national parks are declared part of the
2013 - PEOPLE OF THE public domain, and shall be conserved and may not be increased nor diminished,
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
except by law. 30 ?r?l1
PEDRO BUADO, JR. Y CIPRIANO,

ACCUSED-APPELLANT. The 1935 Constitution classified lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or
timber. Meanwhile, the 1973 Constitution provided the following divisions:
G.R. No. 201716 : January 08, agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral, timber or
2013 - MAYOR ABELARDO forest and grazing lands, and such other classes as may be provided by law, giving
ABUNDO, SR., Petitioner, v. the government great leeway for classification. Then the 1987 Constitution reverted
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS to the 1935 Constitution classification with one addition: national parks. Of these,
AND ERNESTO R. VEGA, only agricultural lands may be alienated. x x x 31 (Emphasis supplied.)
Respondents.
Respondents-intervenors no longer had any right to Lot X not by acquisitive
G.R. No. 188056 : January 08, prescription, and certainly not by sales patent. In fact, their act of applying for the
2013 - SPOUSES AUGUSTO G. issuance of miscellaneous sales patents operates as an express acknowledgment that
DACUDAO AND OFELIA R. the State, and not respondents-intervenors, is the owner of Lot X. It is erroneous to
DACUDAO, Petitioners, v. suppose that respondents-intervenors possessed title to
SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL M.

Lot X when they applied for miscellaneous sales patents, for the premise of such
GONZALES OF THE DEPARTMENT
grant or privilege is precisely that the State is the owner of the land, and that the
OF JUSTICE, RESPONDENT.
applicant acknowledges this and surrenders to State ownership. The government, as
the agent of the State, is possessed of the plenary power as the persona in law to
G.R. No. 180919 : January 09,
determine who shall be the favored recipients of public lands, as well as under what
2013 - PEOPLE OF THE
terms they may be granted such privilege, not excluding the placing of obstacles in
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
the way of their exercise of what otherwise would be ordinary acts of ownership. 32 ?r?l1
MELBA L. ESPIRITU, PRIMITIVA

M. SERASPE, SIMPRESUETA M. Respondents-intervenors actions betray their claim of ownership to Lot X. When Proc.
SERASPE. A.K.A â€œAILEEN,â€ 168 was issued, they did not institute action to question its validity, using as cause of
ACCUSSED, SIMPRESUETA M. action their claimed ownership and title over the land. The same is true when Proc.
SERASPE A.K.A. "AILEEN," 2273 came out. They did not file suit to invalidate it because it contravenes their
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. claimed ownership over Lot X. They simply sat and waited for the good graces of the
government to fall on their laps. They simply waited for the
G.R. No. 201447 : January 09,
2013 - PEOPLE OF THE State to declare them beneficiaries of the land. And when the President failed to
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. include Lot X in Proc. 2273 and declare it open for disposition to them as
beneficiaries, they filed their applications for issuance of miscellaneous sales patents
over said lot. All these actions are anathema to a claim of ownership, and instead
ANASTACIO BROCA, AMISTOSO Y indicate a willingness to abide by the actions of the State, a show of respect for its
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. dominion over the land.
Under the law, respondents-intervenors are charged with knowledge of the law; they
G.R. No. 192050 : January 09,
cannot feign ignorance. In fact, they could not claim to be unaware of Proc. 168, for
2013 - NELSON VALLENO Y
precisely they hid under its protective mantle to seek the invalidation of a donation
LUCITO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF
claimed to have been made by them to one Jose Tayoto. Thus, in Tayoto v. Heirs of
THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
Kusop, 33 an alleged donee (Tayoto) of property located within Lots X, Y-1, and Y-2
filed a case for quieting of title against the donors herein respondents-intervenors to
G.R. No. 179003 : January 09,
protect the property which they allegedly donated to him, which was then in danger
2013 - ANTONIO L. TAN, JR.,
of being lost for the reason that respondents-intervenors supposedly reneged on the
Petitioner, v. YOSHITSUGU
donation. Respondents-intervenors filed an urgent motion to dismiss the Complaint
MATSUURA AND CAROLINA
TANJUTCO, RESPONDENTS. - claiming, among others, the "invalidity of the donation as the subject thereof had not
yet been
G.R. NO. 195816 - ANTONIO L.
TAN, JR., Petitioner, v. JULIE O.
excluded from the Magsaysay Park." 34 In disposing of the case, the Court made the
CUA, RESPONDENT.
following pronouncement: cralawlibrary
G.R. No. 170770 : January 09, Be that as it may, the donation is void. There are three essential elements of
2013 - VITALIANO N. AGUIRRE II donations: [1] the reduction of the patrimony of the donor, [2] the increase in the
AND FIDEL N. AGUIRRE, patrimony of the donee, and [3] the intent to do an act of liberality (animus
Petitioners, v. FQB+7, INC., donandi). Granting that there is an animus donandi, we find that the alleged donation
NATHANIEL D. BOCOBO, lacks the first two elements which presuppose the donor's ownership rights over the
PRISCILA BOCOBO AND ANTONIO subject of the donation which he transmits to the donee thereby enlarging the
DE VILLA, RESPONDENTS. donee's estate. This is in consonance with the rule that a donor cannot lawfully
convey what is not his property. In other words, a donation of a parcel of land the
G.R. No. 170498 : January 09, dominical rights of which do not belong to the donor at the time of the donation, is
2013 - METROPOLITAN BANK & void. This holds true even if the subject of the donation is not the land itself but the
TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. possessory and proprietary rights over said land.
ABSOLUTE MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. In this case, although they allegedly declared Magsaysay Park as their own for
taxation purposes, the heirs of Cabalo Kusop did not have any transmissible
G.R. No. 170022 : January 09, proprietary rights over the donated property at the time of the donation. In fact, with
2013 - REPUBLIC OF THE respect to Lot Y-2, they still had to file a free patents application to obtain an original
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CESAR certificate of title thereon. This is because Proclamation No. 2273 declaring as open
ENCELAN, RESPONDENT. to disposition under the provisions of the Public Land Act some portions of the
Magsaysay Park, is not an operative law which automatically vests rights of
G.R. No. 155113 : January 09, ownership on the heirs of Cabalo Kusop over their claimed parcels of land.
2013 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF

The import of said quoted proviso in a presidential proclamation is discussed in the
COMMUNICATIONS, Petitioner, v.
aforecited Republic v. Court of Appeals case which dealt with the validity of a
PRIDISONS REALTY
donation by a sales awardee of a parcel of land which was later reserved by
CORPORATION, ANTONIO
presidential proclamation for medical center site purposes. We held therein that
GONZALES, BORMACHECO, INC.,
where the land is withdrawn from the public domain and declared as disposable by
NAZARIO F. SANTOS, TERESITA
the Director of Lands under the Public Land Act, the Sales Award covering the same
CHUA TEK, CHARITO ONG LEE,
confers on a sales awardee only a possessory and not proprietary right over the land
AND ERNESTO SIBAL,
applied, for. The disposition of the land by the Director is merely provisional as the
RESPONDENTS.
applicant still has to comply with the requirements of the law before any patent is
issued. It is only after the compliance with such requirements that the patent is
G.R. No. 185595 : January 09,
issued and the land applied for considered permanently disposed of by the
2013 - MA. CARMINIA C.
Government.
CALDERON REPRESENTED BY
HER ATTORNEY-INÂ FACT, The interpretation of said proviso should even be more stringent in this case
MARYCRIS V. BALDEVIA, considering that with respect to Lot Y-1, the heirs of Cabalo Kusop do not appear to
Petitioner, v. JOSE ANTONIO F. have taken even the initial steps mandated by the Public Land Act for claimants of
ROXAS AND COURT OF APPEALS, the land excluded from the public domain. The alleged donation was therefore no
RESPONDENTS. more than an exercise in futility. 35 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
For obvious reasons, respondents-intervenors should have, as early as 1990 when

G.R. No. 181826 : January 09,
the above Decision was promulgated, taken exception to its pronouncements if they
2013 - PEOPLE OF THE
rightfully believed that the property covered by Proc. 168 (which included Lot X)
PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. rightfully belonged to them. Yet they did not. Instead, after seven long years or in
HONG YEN E AND TSIEN TSIEN 1997, they filed their applications for the issuance of miscellaneous sales patents
CHUA, APPELLANTS. over Lot X. This act of filing applications for the issuance of miscellaneous sales
patents in their name, taken in conjunction with all the other attendant
G.R. No. 192727 : January 09, circumstances, constitutes an express acknowledgment that the land does not belong
2013 - RAUL B. ESCALANTE, to them, but to the State.
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
Neither may respondents-intervenors claim innocent mistake for all their missteps in
PHILIPPINES AND THE
claiming the subject property as their own. The mistakes are simply too numerous,
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,
and respondents-intervenors inaction since 1963 is too glaring. To repeat, their
FORMER SPECIAL TWENTIETH
actions are anathema to a claim of ownership. While it is true that possession since
DIVISION AND EIGHTEENTH
time immemorial could result in the acquisition of title without need of judicial or
DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS,
other action, respondents-intervenors actions and conduct, as shown above, not only
CEBU CITY, RESPONDENTS.
negate the application of such principle, but in fact point to the opposite.
G.R. No. 183035 : January 09, The principle of estoppel "bars [one] from denying the truth of a fact which has, in
2013 - OPTIMA REALTY the contemplation of law, become settled by the acts and proceedings of judicial or
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. legislative officers or by the act of the party himself, either by conventional writing or
HERTZ PHIL. EXCLUSIVE CARS,
by representations, express or implied or in pais." 36 ?r?l1
INC., RESPONDENT.
Besides, respondents-intervenors should not be allowed to trifle with the processes of
G.R. No. 160932 : January 14, the State. They cannot resort to other remedies which are improper and do not
2013 - SPECIAL PEOPLE, INC. provide for the opportunity to prove their title, but instead require them to concede it
FOUNDATION, REPRESENTED BY before availment.
ITS CHAIRMAN, ROBERTO P.
Contrary to the CAs pronouncements, proof or evidence of possession since time
CERICOS, Petitioner, v. NESTOR
immemorial becomes irrelevant and cannot support a claim of ownership or
M. CANDA, BIENVENIDO
application for a patent, not only because respondents-intervenors have conceded
LIPAYON, JULIAN D. AMADOR,
ownership to the State, but also on account of the fact that Lot X has been withdrawn
BOHOL PROVINCIAL CHIEF,
from being alienable and disposable public land, and is now classified and being used
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, AND
as a national park. It has ceased to be alienable, and no proof by the respondents-
NATIONAL DIRECTOR,
intervenors will operate to bolster their claim; Lot X will never be awarded to them or
RESPECTIVELY, ENVIRONMENTAL
to anybody so long as it is being used as a public park or reserve.
MANAGEMENT BUREAU,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT The CA justifies that Proc. 2273 was issued on the assumption that respondents-
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, AND intervenors were about to donate Lot X to the city (General Santos City); thus, the
THE SECRETARY OF THE President has seen fit not to include it in the proclamation. This is specious. If the
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT President indeed knew of the intended donation, then it was all the more necessary
AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ALL for him to have included Lot X in Proc. 2273 and withdrawn it from the coverage of
SUED IN BOTH THEIR OFFICIAL Magsaysay Park; or else the donation to the city would be null and void, for want of
AND PRIVATE CAPACITIES, right to donate. Yet he did not. Lot X was retained as part of the park reserve
RESPONDENTS. precisely because the respondents-intervenors had no vested right to it. And, far
from confirming ownership over Lot X, the Republic is correct in the opinion that the
G.R. No. 178611 : January 14, miscellaneous sales patents amount to an acknowledgment that respondents-
2013 - ESTRELLA ADUAN intervenors rights are inferior, and cannot defeat ownership over Lot X by the State.
ORPIANO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
Given the above pronouncements, the CAs ruling on other matters, as well as the
ANTONIO C. TOMAS AND MYRNA
respondents arguments on specific points, become irrelevant and inapplicable, if not
U. TOMAS, RESPONDENTS.
necessarily invalidated.
G.R. No. 182976 : January 14,

Finally, as regards AFP-RSBS rights, the Court sustains the petitioners view that "any
2013 - MANILA ELECTRIC
title issued covering non-disposable lots even in the hands of an alleged innocent
COMPANY (MERALCO), Petitioner,
purchaser for value shall be cancelled." 37 We deem this case worthy of such
v. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO,
principle. Besides, we cannot ignore the basic principle that a spring cannot rise
DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
higher than its source; as successor-in-interest, AFP-RSBS cannot acquire a better
TRADE NAME AND STYLE OF
title than its predecessor, the herein respondents-intervenors. 38 Having acquired no
PERMANENT LIGHT
title to the property in question, there is no other recourse but for AFP-RSBS to
MANUFACTURING ENTERPRISES
surrender to the rightful ownership of the State.
AND GUIA S. CASTILLO,
RESPONDENTS. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. The October 26, 2007
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 75170 is ANNULLED and SET
G.R. No. 192986 : January 15, ASIDE. The November 5, 2001 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23 of
2013 - ADVOCATES FOR TRUTH General Santos City in Civil Case No. 6419 is REINSTATED.
IN LENDING, INC. AND EDUARDO
The Register of Deeds of General Santos City is ordered to CANCEL Transfer
B. OLAGUER, Petitioners, v.
Certificates of Title Nos. T-81051, T-81052, T-81053, T-81054, T-81055, T-81056, T-
BANGKO SENTRAL MONETARY
81057, T-81058, T-81059, T-81060, T-81061, T-81062, T-81146, T-81147, T-81150,
BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
and T-81151, and ISSUE in lieu thereof, new titles in the name of the Republic of the
CHAIRMAN, GOVERNOR
Philippines.
ARMANDO M. TETANGCO, JR.,
AND ITS INCUMBENT MEMBERS: No costs.
JUANITA D. AMATONG, ALFREDO
SO ORDERED.
C. ANTONIO, PETER FAVILA,
NELLY F. VILLAFUERTE, IGNACIO
R. BUNYE AND CESAR V.
PURISIMA, RESPONDENTS. Endnotes:
G.R. No. 201796 : January 15, * Also referred to as AFP Retirement and Separation Benefit System in
2013 - GOVERNOR SADIKUL A. some parts of the records.
SAHALI AND VICE-GOVERNOR
** Per Special Order No. 1408 dated January 15, 2013.
RUBY M. SAHALL, Petitioners, v.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
1 Rollo, pp. 8-57.
(FIRST DIVISION), RASHIDIN H.
MATBA AND JILKASI J. USMAN, 2 Id. at 59-80: penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and concurred
RESPONDENTS.
in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Elihu A. Ybañez.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-25-SB-J : 3 Id. at 81-94; penned by Judge Jose S. Majaducon.
January 15, 2013 - RE:
4 RESERVING FOR RECREATIONAL AND HEALTH RESORT SITE PURPOSES
COMPLAINT OF LEONARDO A.
A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN SITUATED IN THE
VELASCO AGAINST ASSOCIATE
MUNICIPALITY OF GENERAL SANTOS, PROVINCE OF COTABATO, ISLAND
JUSTICES FRANCISCO H.
OF MINDANAO.
VILLARUZ, JR., ALEX L. QUIROZ,
AND SAMUEL R. MARTIRES OF 5 EXCLUDING FROM THE OPERATION OF PROCLAMATION NO. 168, DATED
THE SANDIGANBAYAN.
OCTOBER 3, 1963, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE RECREATIONAL AND
HEALTH RESORT RESERVATION SITUATED IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF
A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-202-CA-J
GENERAL SANTOS CITY, ISLAND OF MINDANAO, CERTAIN PORTIONS OF
: January 15, 2013 - RE:
THE LAND EMBRACED THEREIN AND DECLARING THE SAME OPEN TO
VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF AMA
DISPOSITION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PUBLIC LAND ACT.
LAND, INC. AGAINST HON.
DANTON Q. BUESER, HON. 6 Exhibits "D to D-15," Folder of Exhibits for Plaintiff.
SESINANDO E. VILLON and HON.
7 Exhibits "E to E-15," id.
RICARDO R! ROSARIO,
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE
8 See Deeds of Absolute Sale, Exhibits "F to F-15," id.
COURT OF APPEALS.
9 Exhibits "G to G-15," id.
G.R. No. 191691 : January 16,
2013 - ROMEO A. GONTANG, IN 10 Rollo, pp. 95-105.
HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
11 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 158-162.
MAYOR OF GAINZA, CAMARINES
SUR, VS. PETITIONER, ENGR.
12 See Proc. 168, Exhibit "A," Folder of Exhibits for Plaintiff.
CECILIA ALAYAN, RESPONDENT.
13 Rollo, p. 66.
G.R. No. 175209 : January 16,
14 Id. at 67.
2013 - ROLANDO L. CERVANTES,
Petitioner, v. PAL MARITIME
15 Id. at 68-69.
CORPORATION AND/OR
WESTERN SHIPPING AGENCIES, 16 Id. at 70.
PTE., LTD., RESPONDENTS.
17 Id. at 73
18 Id. at 73-74.
G.R. No. 160138 : January 16, 19 Id. at 74.

2013 - AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE
20 Id.
REBUILDERS, INC. (AER),
ANTONIO T. INDUCIL, LOURDES
21 Id.
T. INDUCIL, JOCELYN T. INDUCIL
AND MA. CONCEPCION I. 22 Citing Director of Lands v. Iglesia ni Kristo, G.R. No. 54276, August 16,
DONATO, Petitioners, v.
1991, 200 SCRA 606, 609, and The Director of Lands v. Intermediate
PROGRESIBONG UNYON NG MGA
Appellate Court, 230 Phil. 590, 602 (1986).
MANGGAGAWA SA AER, ARNOLD
VILLOTA, FELINO E. AGUSTIN, 23 Citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 261 Phil. 393, 408 (1990).
RUPERTO M. MARIANO II,
24 Rollo, pp. 19-20.
EDUARDO S. BRIZUELA, ARNOLD
S. RODRIGUEZ, RODOLFO
25 Id. at 141-178.
MAINIT, JR., FROILAN B.
MADAMBA, DANILO D. QUIBOY, 26 THE PUBLIC LAND ACT. November 7, 1936.
CHRISTOPHER R. NOLASCO,
27 AN ACT TO PERMIT THE SALE WITHOUT PUBLIC AUCTION OF PUBLIC
ROGER V. BELATCHA, CLEOFAS B.
DELA BUENA, JR., HERMINIO P. LANDS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FOR RESIDENTIAL
PAPA, WILLIAM A. RITUAL, PURPOSES TO QUALIFIED APPLICANTS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
ROBERTO CALDEO, RAFAEL June 18, 1952.
GACAD, JAMES C. CAAMPUED,
28 Citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 232 Phil. 444, 457 (1987).
ESPERIDION V. LOPEZ, JR.,
FRISCO M. LORENZO, JR., 29 See Proc. 168, Exhibit "A," Folder of Exhibits for Plaintiff.
CRISANTO LUMBAO, JR., AND
RENATO SARABUNO, 30 CONSTITUTION, Article XII, Sections 3 and 4.
RESPONDENTS.; G.R. NO.
31 Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources v.
160192 - PROGRESIBONG UNYON
NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA AER, Yap, G.R. Nos. 167707 and 173775, October 8, 2008, 568 SCRA 164, 184.
ARNOLD VILLOTA, FELINO E.

32 Id. at 185.
AGUSTIN, RUPERTO M. MARIANO
II, EDUARDOS. BRIZUELA, 33 263 Phil. 269 (1990).
ARNOLD S. RODRIGUEZ,
34 Id. at 277.
RODOLFO MAINIT, JR., FROILAN
B. MADAMBA, DANILO D.
35 Id. at 280-281.
QUIBOY, CHRISTOPHER R.
NOLASCO, ROGER V. BELATCHA, 36 Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 354 Phil. 1037, 1054 (1998).
CLEOFAS B. DELA BUENA, JR.,
HERMINIO P. PAPA, WILLIAM A. 37 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Republic, G.R. No. 150824, February 4,
RITUAL, ROBERTO CALDEO, 2008, 543 SCRA 453, 467.
RAFAEL GACAD, JAMES C.
38 Roa v. Heirs of Ebora, G.R. No. 161137, March 15, 2010, 615 SCRA
CAAMPUED, ESPERIDION V.
LOPEZ, JR., FRISCO M. LORENZO, 231, 238-239.
JR., CRISANTO LUMBAO, JR., AND

RENATO SARABUNO, Petitioners,
v. AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE
REBUILDERS, INC., AND
ANTONIO T. INDUCIL, Back to Home | Back to Main
RESPONDENTS.
OCA I.P.I. NO. 11-3631-RTJ :

January 16, 2013 - KAREEN P.
MAGTAGÃ‘OB, COMPLAINANT, VS.
JUDGE GENIE G. GAPAS-
AGBADA, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 179628 : January 16,

2013 - THE MANILA INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER. VS.
SPOUSES ROBERTO AND AIDA

AMURAO, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 199149 : January 22,

2013 - LIWAYWAY VINZONS-
CHATO, Petitioner, v. HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL
TRIBUNAL AND ELMER E.
PANOTES, RESPONDENTS.; G.R.
NO. 201350 - ELMER E.
PANOTES, Petitioner, v. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND
LIWAYWAY VINZONS-CHATO,
RESPONDENTS.
Adm. Case No. 6148 : January

22, 2013 - FLORENCE
MACARUBBO, TEVES
COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY.
EDMUNDO L. MACARUBBO,
RESPONDENT. - RE: PETITION
(FOR EXTRAORDINARY MERCY)
OF EDMUNDO L. MACARUBBO.
G.R. No. 199612 : January 22,

2013 - RENATOM. FEDERICO,
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, COMELEC
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
OSMUNDO M. MALIGAYA,
RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 193897 : January 23,

2013 - UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST,
DEAN ELEANOR JAVIER, RONNIE
GILLEGO AND DR. JOSE C.
BENEDICTO, Petitioners, v.
ANALIZA F. PEPANIO AND MARITI
D. BUENO, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 177783 : January 23,

2013 - HEIRS OF FAUSTO C.
IGNACIO, namely MARFEL D.
IGNACIO MANALO, MILFA D.
IGNACIOÂMANALO AND
FAUSTINO D. IGNACIO,
Petitioners, v. HOME BANKERS
SAVINGS AND TRUST COMPANY,
SPOUSES PHILLIP AND THELMA
RODRIGUEZ, CATHERINE,
REYNOLD & JEANETTE, ALL
SURNAMED ZUNIGA,
RESPONDENTS.
Adm. Case No. 5530 - Sps.

Arcing and Cresing Bautista, et al.
v. Atty. Arturo Cefra
Adm. Case No. 6148 -

Florence Teves Macarubbo,
Complainant; v. Atty. Edmundo L.
Macarubbo, Respondent; Re:
Petition (for Extraordinary Mercy)
of Edmundo L. Macarubbo
OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3631-RTJ -

Kareen P. Magtag
Adm. Case No. 6475 - Fe A.

Ylaya v. Atty. Glenn Carlos Gacott
G.R. No. 160138 -

AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE
REBUILDERS, INC. (AER),
ANTONIO T. INDUCIL, LOURDES
T. INDUCIL, JOCELYN T. INDUCIL
and MA. CONCEPCION I.
DONATO, Petitioners, v.
VILLOTA, FELINO E. AGUSTIN,
MADAMBA, DANILO D. QUIBOY,
DELA BUENA, JR., HERMINIO P.
PAPA, WILLIAM A. RITUAL,
ROBERTO CALDEO, RAFAEL
FRISCO M. LORENZO, JR.,
CRISANTO LUMBAO, JR., and
RENATO SARABUNO,
Respondents.; G.R. No. 160192 -
VILLOTA, FELINO E. AGUSTIN,
MADAMBA, DANILO D. QUIBOY,
DELA BUENA, JR., HERMINIO P.
PAPA, WILLIAM A. RITUAL,
ROBERTO CALDEO, RAFAEL
FRISCO M. LORENZO, JR.,
CRISANTO LUMBAO, JR., and
RENA TO SARABUNO, Petitioners,
v. AUTOMOTIVE
ENGINEREBUILDERS, INC., and
ANTONIO T. INDUCIL,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 160932 - Special

People, Inc. Foundation
represented by its Chairman,
Roberto P. Cericos v. Nestor M.
Canda, et al.
G.R. No. 167158 - Virginia

Judy Dy and Gabriel Dy v.
Philippine Banking Corporation
G.R. No. 166967 - Edna J.

Jaca v. People of the Philippines,
et al.; G.R. No. 166974 - Alan C.
Gaviola v. People of the
Philippines; G.R. No. 167167 -
Eustaquio B. Cesa v. People of the
Philippines
G.R. No. 170022 - Republic of

the Philippines v. Cesar Encelan
G.R. No. 169005 - Winston F.

Garcia, in his capacity as
President and General Manager of
the GSIS v. Court of Appeals and
Rudy C. Tesoro
G.R. No. 170054 - Goya, Inc.

v. Goya, Inc. Employees Union-
FFW
G.R. No. 170498 -

Metropolitan Bank & Trust
Company v. Absolute
Management Corporation
G.R. No. 170634 - People of

the Philippines v. Pedro Buado,
Jr., y Cipriano
G.R. No. 170770 - Vitaliano N.

Aguirre II and Fidel N. Aguirre II
and Fidel N. Aguirre v. FQB+,
Inc., Nathaniel D. Bocobo, Priscila
Bocobo and Antonio De Villa
G.R. No. 171677 - Philippine

National Bank, substituted by
Tranche 1 (SPV-AMC), Inc. v. Rina
Parayno Lim and Puerto Azul
Land, Inc.
G.R. No. 173425 - Fort

Bonifacio Develoment Corp v.
Commissioner of Internal
Revenue and Revenue District
Officer, Revenue District No. 44,
Taguig and Pateros, Bureau of
Internal Revenue
G.R. No. 173520 - National

Power Corporation v. Spouses
Rodolfo Zabala and Lilia Baylon
G.R. No. 173559 - Leticia

Diona, rep. by her attorney-in-
fact, Marcelina Diona v. Romeo A.
Balangue, Sonny A. Balangue,
Reynaldo A. Balangue, and
Esteban A. Balangue, Jr.
G.R. No. 174191 - Nenita

Quality Foods Corporation v.
Crisostomo Galabo, et al.
G.R. No. 174436 - Juanita

Ermita
G.R. No. 174882 - Mondragon

Personal Sales, Inc. v. Victoriano
S. Sola, Jr.
G.R. No. 175209 - Rolando L.

Cervantes v. PAL Maritime
Corporation and/or Western
Shipping agencies, Pte., Ltd.

the Philippines v. Florencio
Agacer, et al.
G.R. No. 177167 - Nelson B.

Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc.
and Rosendo C. Veneracion
G.R. No. 178312 - Land Bank

of the Philippines v. Heirs of
Spouses Jorja Rigor Soriano and
Magin Soriano
G.R. No. 177783 - Heirs of

Fausto C. Ignacio v. Home
Bankers Savings and Trust co., et
al.
G.R. No. 178611 - Estrella

Aduan Orpiano v. Spouses
Antonio C. Tomas and Myrna U.
Tomas
G.R. No. 179003 - Antonio L
Tan, Jr. v. Yoshitsugu Matsuura
and Carolina Tanjutco; G.R. No.
195816 - Antonio L. Tan, Jr. v.
Julie O Cua
G.R. No. 179382 - Spouses

Benjamin C. Mamaril and Sonia P.
Mamaril v. The Boy Scout of the
Philippines, et al.
G.R. No. 179628 - The Manila

Insurance Company, Inc. v.
Spouses Roberto and Aida
Amurao
G.R. No. 180036 - Situs

Development Corporation, et al.
v. Asia Trust Bank, et al.

the Philippines v. AFP Retirement
and Separation Benefits System,
et al.

the Philippines v. Simpresueta M.
Seraspe, accused-appelant

the Philippines, represented by
the Department of Public Works
and Highways v. Heirs of Spouses
Pedro Bautista and Valentina
Malabanan
G.R. No. 181738 - General

Milling Corporation v. Violeta L.
Viajar

the Philippines v. Antonio Basallo
y Asprec
G.R. No. 182976 - Manila

Electric Company (MERALCO) v.
Atty. P.M. Castillo, doing business
under the trade name and style
of Permanent Light Manufacturing
Enterprises, et al.
G.R. No. 183035 - Optima

Realty Corporation v. Hertz Phil.,
Exclusive, Inc.
G.R. No. 183896 - Syed Azhar

Abbas v. Gloria Goo Abbas
G.R. No. 185595 - Ma.
Carminia C. Calderon (formerly
Ma. Carminia Calderon-Roxas),
represented by her attorney-in-
fact, Marycris V. Baldevia v. Jose
Antonio F. Roxas
G.R. No. 186069 - Jesus L.

Cabahug and Coronacion M.
Cabahug v. National Power
Corporation
G.R. No. 187048 - Poeple of

the Philippines v. Benjamin
Peteluna and Abundio Binondo
G.R. No. 188299 - Heirs fo

Luis A. Luna, et al. v. Ruben S.
Afable, et al.

the Philippines v. Ramil Rarugal
Alias "Amay Bisaya"
G.R. No. 188635 - Brenda L.

Nazareth, Regional Director,
Department of Science and
Technology, etc. v. The Hon.
Reynaldo A. Villar, Hon. Juanito
G. Espino, Jr., et al.
G.R. No. 188768 - TML Gasket

Industries, Inc. v. BPI Family
Savings Bank, Inc.
G.R. No. 190969 - Baron A.

Villanueva, et al. v. Edna R.
Caparas
G.R. No. 191691 - Romeo A.

Gontang, in his official capacity as
Mayor of Gainza, Camarines Sur
G.R. No. 192050 - Nelson

Valleno y Lucito v. People of the
Philippines
G.R. No. 192289 - Kamarudin

K. Ibrahim v. Commission on
Elections and Rolan G. Buagas

Ricardo and Elena Golez v.
Spouses Carlos adn Amelita
Navarro
G.R. No. 192986 - Advocates

for Truth in Lending, Inc. &
Eduardo B. Olaguer v. Bangko
Sentral Monetary Board,
Represented by its Chairman,
Governor Armando M. Tatangco,
Jr., etc.

the Philippines v. Rey Monticalvo
y Magno
G.R. No. 193643 - Antonio D.

Dayao, Rolando P. Ramirez and
Adelio R. Capco v. Commission on
Elections and LPG Marketers;
G.R. No. 193704 - Federation of
the Philippine Industries, Inc. v.
Commission on Elections and LPG
Marketers Association, Inc.
G.R. No. 193897 - University

of the East, Dean Eleanor Javier,
Ronnie Gillego and Dr. Jose C.
Benedicto v. Analiza F. Pepanio
and Mariti D. Bueno
G.R. No. 193960 - Karlo

Angelo Dabalos y San Dieo v.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 59,
Angeles City, etc., et al.

the Philippines v. Patricio Rayon,
Sr.
G.R. No. 194352 - Maxicare

PCIB Cigna Healthcare (now
Maxicare Healthcare
Corporation), Eric S. Nubla, Jr.
M.D. and Ruth A. Asis, M.D. v.
Marian Brigitte A. Contreras, M.D.
G.R. No. 197384 - Sampaguita

Auto Transport Corporation v.
National Labor Relations
Commission, et al.
G.R. No. 197507 - Rivulet

Agro-Industrial Corporation v.
Anthony Parungao, et al.
G.R. No. 198501 - Kestrel

Shipping Co., Inc./Capt. Amador
P. Servillon and Atlantic Manning
Ltd. v. Francisco D. Munar
G.R. No. 199149 - Liwayway

Vinzons-Chato v. House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal
and Elmer E. Panotes; G.R. No.
201350 - Elmer E. Panotes v.
House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal and Liwayway
Vinzons-Chato
G.R. No. 199324 - Executive

Secretary, et al. v. Forerunner
Multi Resources, Inc.
G.R. No. 199338 - Eleazar S.

Padillo v. Rural Bank of
Nabunturan, Inc., et al.
G.R. No. 199612 - Renato M.

Federico v. Commission on
Elections, COMELEC Executive
Director and Osmundo M.
Maligaya

the Philippines v. Reynaldo
Nacua, et al. accused; Reynaldo
Nacua, accused-appellant

the Philippines v. Anastacio
Amistoso y Broca
G.R. No. 202423 - Chester

Uyco, et al. v. Vicente Lo
G.R. No. 201716 - Mayor

Abelardo Abundo, Sr., v.
Commission on Elections &
Ernesto R. Vega
G.R. No. 192615 - Sps.

Eugene L. Lim and Constancia
Lim v. The Court of Appeals-
Mindanao Station, et al.

the Philippines v. Rolando
Cabungan

the Philippines v. Hong Yen E and
Tsien Tsien Chua

Augusto G. Dacudao and Ofelia R.
Dacudao v. Secretary of Justice
Raul M. Gonzales of the
Department of Justice
G.R. No. 188179 - Henry R.

Giron v. Commission on Elections;
Almario E. Francisco, Federico S.
Jong, Jr. and Ricardo L. Baes, Jr.,
Petitioners-in-Intervention
G.R. No. 192727 - Raul

Escalante v. People of the
Philippines, et al.
G.R. No. 201796 - Governor

Sadikul A. Sahali and Vice-
Governor Ruby M. Sahali v.
Commission on Elections (First
Division), Rashidin H. Matba and
Jilkasi J. Usman
A.C. No. 6760 - Anastacio N.

Teodoro III v. Atty. Romeo S.
Gonzales
A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-25-SB-J -

Re: Complaint of Leonardo A.
Velasco against Associate Justices
Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr., et al.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-202-CA-J

- Re: Verified complaint of Ama
Land, Inc. against Hon. Danton
Q. Bueser, et al.
A.M. No. P-12-3090 - Mariano

T. Ong v. Eva G. Basiya-Saratan,
clerk of Court, RTC, Br. 32, Iloilo
City
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2326 -

Geoffrey Beckett v. Judge
Olegario R. Sarmiento, Jr., RTC,
Branch 24, Cebu City
G.R. No. 155113 - Philippine

Bank of Communications v.
Pridisons Realty Corporation, et
al.
G.R. No. 172852 - City of

Cebu v. Apolinio M. Dedamo, Jr.
G.R. No. 172590 - Mary Louise

R. Anderson v. Enrique Ho
A.M. No. P-12-3099, January

15, 2013 - OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, v. LARRIZA P.
BACANI, CLERK OF COURT IV,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN
CITIES, MEYCAUAYAN, BULACAN,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 184698, January 21,

2013 - SPOUSES ALBERTO AND
SUSAN CASTRO, Petitioners, v.
AMPARO PALENZUELA, FOR
HERSELF AND AS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF VIRGINIA
ABELLO, GERARDO ANTONIO
ABELLO, ALBERTO DEL ROSARIO,
INGEBORG REGINA DEL
ROSARIO, HANS DEL ROSARIO,
MARGARET DEL ROSARIO
ISLETA, ENRIQUE PALENZUELA
AND CARLOS MIGUEL
PALENZUELA, Respondents.
Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

Sarmiento v. Juan Full Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sarmiento v. Juan Full Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/10/2021 G.R. No. 180463 - Republic of the Philippines v. AFP Retirement and Separation Benefits System, et al.

et al. : January 2013 - Philipppine Sup…

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

January 2013 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. AFP RETIREMENT AND

SEPARATION BENEFITS SYSTEM,* Respondent,

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

The record discloses that respondents-intervenors waged a campaign through

In 1997, respondents-intervenors filed applications 6 for the issuance of individual

which approved them. Consequently, 16 original certificates of title 7 (OCTs) covering

No. T-81051 through T-81062, T-81146-T-81147, and T-81150-T-81151. 9 ?r?l1

Santos, subject to private rights, if any there be x x x 12 (Emphasis supplied.)

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

1. Report to the President of the Republic dated August 2, 1982 by the

since time immemorial; 14 ?r?l1

2. Report of District Land Officer Buenaventura Gonzales of the Bureau of

was never in force and effect; 15 ?r?l1

3. Report of Deputy Public Land Inspector Jose Balanza of the Bureau of

then Bureau of Forestry; 16 ?r?l1

subsequent revisions; 17 ?r?l1

5. Certifications issued by the (then) municipal treasurer of General

6. Sworn declaration of ownership submitted to the Philippine

7. 1975 letter of then General Santos Mayor acknowledging that Kusop

was in possession of Lot X even before the war; and 20 ?r?l1

The CA added that as a consequence of their predecessors possession of Lot X since

be prejudiced by after-events which could not have been anticipated." 23 ?r?l1

Thus, petitioners Complaint for reversion was dismissed.

BY APPLYING FOR MISCELLANEOUS SALES PATENT, THE HEIRS HAVE

and Consolidated Reply, 25 submits that respondents-intervenors applications for

innocent purchaser for value. 28 ?r?l1

A.M. No. P-12-3090 (Formerly (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3662-P) :

PEDRO BUADO, JR. Y CIPRIANO,

DACUDAO, Petitioners, v. suppose that respondents-intervenors possessed title to

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL M.

MELBA L. ESPIRITU, PRIMITIVA

2013 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF

RESPONDENTS. more than an exercise in futility. 35 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

For obvious reasons, respondents-intervenors should have, as early as 1990 when

G.R. No. 182976 : January 14,

G.R. No. 160138 : January 16, 19 Id. at 74.

ARNOLD VILLOTA, FELINO E.

JR., CRISANTO LUMBAO, JR., AND

OCA I.P.I. NO. 11-3631-RTJ :

G.R. No. 179628 : January 16,

SPOUSES ROBERTO AND AIDA

G.R. No. 199149 : January 22,

Adm. Case No. 6148 : January

G.R. No. 199612 : January 22,

G.R. No. 193897 : January 23,

G.R. No. 177783 : January 23,

Adm. Case No. 5530 - Sps.

Adm. Case No. 6148 -

OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3631-RTJ -

Adm. Case No. 6475 - Fe A.

G.R. No. 160138 -

G.R. No. 160932 - Special

G.R. No. 167158 - Virginia

G.R. No. 166967 - Edna J.

G.R. No. 170022 - Republic of

G.R. No. 169005 - Winston F.

G.R. No. 170054 - Goya, Inc.