Gerson, Dinaguit and Heirs of Gleceria, represented by Teresita

Aninon v. Heirs of Bilocura et al., represented by Nena Celestina

B. Dinopol; UDK-17107, 28 February 2022

Facts:
Petitioners Gerson et al. filed a petition for review on certiorari
showing that CA committed reversible error in finding their claim to
partition of the 9,293 square meter subject lot was repudiated by
respondents Nena Celestina B. Dinopol et al. Furthermore, the CA
categorically found that Gaudencia performed acts of repudiation as
the records revealed that she ‘had excluded [petitioners] from the use
and enjoyment [of the subject lot.’ Gaudencia appropriated for herself
the proceeds of the harvest while the respondents have consistently
asserted Gaudencia’s claim of sole ownership of the subject lot,
which is itself a repudiation of co-ownership, from the very beginning
of the controversy. There are circumstances in the case which
establish petitioner’s knowledge that Gaudencia was ‘holding the
property adverse to their interest,’ thereby satisfying the requirement
that the acts of repudiation should have been made known to the
other co-owners.

Issue:
Whether or not the claim to partitioning the subject parcel of land
located in Basak, Samboan, Cebu is already barred by prescription
and laches.

Ruling:
Yes, considering that the aforesaid acts were performed at least thirty
(30) years before the filing of complaint in 2011, Gaudencia had
already acquired the subject lot through acquisitive prescription to the
exclusion of the petitioners. Moreover, the CA also correctly ruled that
the failure of the petitioners to assert any right over the subject lot
over such a long period of time already constituted laches, which is
based on the public policy of discouraging stale claims. In fact, the
CA noted that the respondents did not even provide any justifiable
reason for their prolonged silence on the issue. Accordingly, the
petition must be dismissed.

In addition, the Court notes that the instant petition is not verified as
required under Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court which may be
treated as an unsigned pleading which produces no legal effect.
Since a verification is merely a formal, not jurisdictional requirement,
the Court may waive strict compliance thereto in the interest of
substantial justice. However, even if the procedural lapse is
disregarded, it appears that the petition is unmeritorious.
Magsaysay Maritime Corporation and/or Princess Cruises Lines,
Ltd., a Bermuda Company v. Edmel C. Cernelia
G.R. No. 257029, March 2, 2022

Facts:
Petitioner Magsaysay Maritime Corp. filed a petition for review on
certiorari averring CA committed reversible error in finding
respondent Cernelia entitled to total and permanent disability
benefits, attorney’s fees, and legal interest. Respondent alleges his
illness should be deemed work-related and compensable in view of
the unrebutted presumption of work-relation under Section 20 (A) (4)
of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard
Employment Contract and the sufficient showing of a causal
connection between the respondent’s illness, on one hand, and his
work for the petitioners on the other hand.

Issue:
Whether CA erred in finding respondent to be entitled to total and
permanent disability benefits, attorney’s fees, and legal interest.

Ruling:
In this regard, the burden of proof is on petitioners, as the employer,
to prove that respondent’s illness was not work-related. As the former
failed to do so in this case, the presumption of work-relation must
stand. Apart from this, petitioners also failed to give a full, complete,
and definite medical assessment of respondent’s illness within the
period provided by law and likewise failed to observe the mandatory
requirement of referring respondent’s case to a third doctor.

Hence, by operation of law, respondent’s illness must be deemed

total and permanent. It bears stressing that the factual findings of
labor tribunals, when affirmed by the CA, are generally accorded
respect and finality by this Court, save for certain exceptions which
do not obtain in this case.
Delmolin-Paloma vs Delmolin-Magno
G.R. 237767, November 10, 2021

FACTS:
Petitioners Delmolin-Paloma filed a review on certiorari assailing the
CA decision affirming the RTC’s decision in favor of the respondents
on a civil case for annulment of title of TCT No. T-52423 and directing
a partition of the intestate estate of the late Santiago Delmolin of Lot
5567, Cad. 438-D in the name of Justina Delmolin. The petitioners
failed to raise objection on the misjoinder of causes of action
(annulment of title and partition). Furthermore, respondents allege
that petitioners unjustly received ½ portion of the subject property
while respondents were forced to accept only ¼ portion each due to a
Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan was also presented by Petitioners
executed by Santiago Delmolin selling in favor of Justina Delmolin
which is the basis for TCT No. T-52423.

ISSUE:
Whether CA erred in affirming the RTC ruling declaring the deed of
sale as partially null and void and whether it erroneously ruled upon
the misjoined causes of action for annulment of title and partition.

RULING:
No, the petition is found wanting of merit. Section 6, Rule 2 of the
Rules of Court explicitly states that a misjoinder of causes of action is
not a ground for the dismissal of an action and that a misjoined cause
of action may, on motion of a party or on the initiative of the court, be
severed and proceeded with separately. While it explained that
Courts, on motion of the party or its own initiative, have the power to
order the severance of the misjoined cause of action to be proceeded
with separately; however, absent any objection to the improper
joinder, the Court may simultaneously adjudicate the erroneously
joined causes of action. While the court may have overlooked the
misjoined actions, such omission is not a ground to assail the validity
of the decision or a ground for the dismissal of the case. Absent any
objection on the part of the petitioner or a directive from the Court for
the annulment of title and partition to proceed separately, both
causes of action were validly adjudicated upon, considering that the
court has jurisdiction over both cases of action.

While CA found that respondents did not specifically ask for the nullity
of the deed of sale, their complaint contained a general prayer “for
other relief and remedies under the premises as may be deemed just
and equitable by the Honorable Court.” Thus, the nullity was a proper
relief granted if warranted by facts alleged in the complaint and the
evidence adduced in trial. Besides, it would be absurd to declare the
annulment of title without invalidating the Deed of Absolute Sale in
her favor.
Subic Bay Distribution, Inc v. Western Guaranty Corp
G.R. No. 220613, Nov 11, 2021

Facts:
Petitioner Subic Bay Distribution Inc (SBDI) entered into a Distributor
Agreement with Prime Asia Sales and Services, Inc (PASSI) which
the latter would purchase petroleum products from petitioner with the
credit limit not exceeding 5 million effective 2 years from Apr 16, 2001
to Apr 16, 2003 with PASSI obligating itself to post a performance
bond to secure its obligation. In addition, the agreement also provided
that in case of default, all unpaid amounts shall immediately become
due and payable without the need of notice or demand. PASSI
secured a performance bond from respondent Western Guaranty
Corporation (WGC). PASSI defaulted and petitioner sent demand
letters as PASSI failed to settle its outstanding obligation. Petitioner
also went after the performance bond and sought payment from
WGC but failed to recover payment from respondent. RTC ruled in
petitioner’s favor while CA reversed the RTC’s Decision, deeming the
respondent released from its obligation as surety as well as from any
liability for actual damages. Respondent alleges petitioner had
already lost its cause of action against the former because the terms
of the Distributor Agreement were violated/novated without the
respondent’s consent. Petitioner alleges there was actual delivery to
and/or acceptance of PASSI of the petroleum products subject of the
obligation.

Issue:

Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error when it deemed as

extinguished the respondent’s liability under the contract of surety?

Ruling:
Yes, the petition is meritorious. While only legal issues come within
the ambit of a Rule 45 petition, there are recognized exceptions
where the findings of the CA are contrary to the findings of the trial
court; thus, the Court will review the factual findings of both the trial
court and the appellate court in order to arrive at a correct disposition.
In Memita v. Masongsong, the Court acknowledged the value of
sales invoices as the best evidence of the transaction through which
the buyer acknowledged receipt of the deliveries without protest.
Respondent cannot discredit the sales invoices by alleging the
persons who issued them failed to testify on their genuineness and
due execution as Section 8 and 10 of Rule 8 provides such to be
deemed admitted unless denies by the adverse party and specifically
denied with the defendant specifying each material allegation of
which he does not admit. Here, it is beyond quibble that the case
involves a breach of obligation to pay a sum of money. Accordingly,
the petition is GRANTED with the RTC Decision REINSTATED.
ANGAO-ASIS et al., v. Heirs of Calignawan et al.
G.R. No. 242127, September 15, 2021

FACTS:

The father of herein respondents Rosello Calignawan, having

discovered that the certificates of title of the subject properties were
cancelled and new transfer certificate of titles were issued in the
name of petitioner Evangeline Asis and petitioner’s predecessors-in-
interest; filed a complaint for declaration of nullity, partition and
damages with preliminary injunction before RTC, Palo, Leyte, with the
former claiming entitlement as Donee to a share in the subject
properties by virtue of the Deed of Donation executed in 1984.

Since petitioners exercised ownership and actual possession of the

land, the RTC recognized the de facto partition of the subject
properties among petitioners, thus denied Rosello’s complaint and
also nullified the Deed of Donation allegedly executed by Angeles in
favor of Rosello.

The appellate court then reversed the appealed decision declaring

valid the Deed of Donation with the Resolution attaining finality thus
constitutes res judicata. Furthermore, petitioners raised the issue of
forum-shopping for the first time on appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the issue of forum shopping may be raised first time
on appeal.

RULING

No, petitioners should have raised the issue of forum-shopping in

their answer or motion to dismiss rather than opting to actively
participate in the proceedings before the RTC, as defenses and
objections are deemed waived when they are not pleaded in the
answer or in a motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 1, Rule 9 of the
Rules of Court.
GAW CHIN TY et al. v. ANTONIO GAW CHUA
G.R. No. 212598, September 29, 2021
FACTS:
Spouses Gaw Chin Ty and Chua Giok See purchased a parcel
of land and traditionally registered the subject property in the name of
their first-born son Antonio Gaw Chua (Antonio), the respondent. The
spouses entrusted the original owner's duplicate copy to Vicente Gaw
Chua (Vicente), their 2nd eldest son, also one of the petitioners.
Antonio allegedly lost the original owner's duplicate copy and filed a
verified petition for the issuance of a new/reconstituted owner's
duplicate copy with the RTC by which the latter granting the petition
and declaring the lost original owner's duplicate copy as null and
void, subject for reconstitution.
Petitioners filed a Notice of Adverse Claim, then a petition to
annul the new/reconstituted owner's duplicate copy before the same
RTC alleging that the original owner's duplicate copy is not lost, but
was in the petitioner’s possession and that Antonio knew this fact.
Vicente then presented the owner's duplicate copy which Antonio
disputes its genuineness although the latter failed to present
evidence rebutting this presumption. RTC grants the petition
declaring the reconstituted owner’s duplicate copy to be null and void,
while CA reversed the RTC decision due to the impediment imposed
under Article 151 of the Family Code, the same constituting a
jurisdictional defect.
ISSUE:
Whether the petition to annul the new/owner's duplicate should
be dismissed on the ground of failure to allege compliance with, or
failure to comply with, a condition precedent for filing the petition.
RULING:
No, the petition is with merit. Under Section 1 (j) of Rule 1647 of
the Rules of Court provides that “a motion to dismiss may be made
on any of the following grounds: that a condition precedent for filing
the claim has not been complied with. In relation to Section 1 (j) of
Rule 16, Article 151 of the Family Code provides a condition
precedent for filing a claim stating that “No suit between members of
the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the
verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a
compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is
shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the same case must be
dismissed.” The court ruled that the validity of a reconstituted title is
not subject to compromise. Therefore, Article 151 of the Family Code,
as a ground for dismissal without prejudice under Section 1 (j) of Rule
16, is not applicable.
Republic of the Philippines v. Luisa Abellanosa and Generoso
Manalo by Fil-Estate Properties, Inc.
G.R. No. 205817, Oct 6, 2021

Facts:
Abellanosa and Generoso filed a petition for reconstitution of Original
Certificate of Title and Issuance of New Owner’s Duplicate Copies
Thereof claiming they were once registered owners of 2 parcels of
land by which they sold the subject lots to Marina Valero (Valero)
which the latter then sold to FEPI as the developer. Valero was
unable to surrender the owner’s duplicate copy to FEPI since the
documents were lost beyond retrieval which states the titles of the
subject lots “are among those presumed burned during the fire that
razed City Hall building on Aug 30, 1983. RTC found merit in the
petition for reconstitution but the Republic through the Office of the
Solicitor General (petitioner) filed a notice of appeal assailing the said
Order claiming the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case
since the amendment for Petition for Reconstitution was not posted
and published in accordance with Sec 12 and 13 of RA 26. CA
dismissed petitioner’s appeal.

Issues:
Whether or not CA erred when it ruled that the RTC (a) acquired
jurisdiction over the case, and (b) deems there is sufficient basis for
reconstitution.

Ruling:
The instant petition is devoid of merit. In Sebastian v. Spouses Cruz,
the Court pointed out the requisites to be complied with for an order
for reconstitution to be issued by which the petitioner erroneously
claims that the amended petition contained substantial changes and
annexes and yet the petition was not posted and published as
required. The Court finds that the foregoing amendments does not
affect the nature of the action that necessitate another posting and
publication.

The reconstitution of title is an action in rem, which means it is one

directed not only against particular persons, but against the thing
itself. The essence of posting is to give notice to the public that such
petition has been filed and interested parties may intervene in the
case. Thus, the posting of the first amendment suffices since the
content of the 2nd amendment and the original petition for
reconstitution, along with their respective supporting documents were
considered collectively by the RTC in compliance with Section 2 (f) of
RA 26.
The Court finds there was sufficient basis for the RTC to grant the
petition for reconstitution.

Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc v. Mabalacat Institute,

Inc.; G.R. No. 211563, Sep 29, 2021

Facts:
Petitioner Santos Ventura Hocorma Foundation, Inc. (SVHFI) filed
two different actions for collection of sum of money and an unlawful
detainer suit in two different courts. SVHFI claimed it is a registered
and absolute owner of a parcel of land in Mabalacat, Pampanga
occupied by Mabalacat Institute Inc (MII) without paying rent and only
through the SVHFI’s tolerance since 1983 to 2002. On March 14,
2002, SVHFI informed MII that beginning April 1, 2002, it will charge
a rental fee for MII’s use and occupancy of the subject lot at the
monthly rate of 50.00Php per sqm. Payable on or before the 5 th day
of each month which in reply, MII refused to comply after a couple of
demands. SVHFI then filed a Complaint for collection of sum of
money which MII filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the
court had not validly acquired jurisdiction because it was not properly
served with summons. The court denied MII’s Motion to Dismiss and
MII’s Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the said Order. MII then
sought to nullify RTC’s Orders before CA through a Petition for
Certiorari under Rule 65 which was denied with another MR likewise
denied. MII filed with a Petition for Review on Certiorari which was
dismissed for the petition was considered as unsigned pleading for
failure to verify the same and lack of sufficient showing that the
judgment was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. MII filed an
Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim with the court a quo in the
Collection Case and eventually filed a Motion to Dismiss on the
ground of forum shopping alleging the failure of SVHFI to report to
the court that it filed an Ejectment Case. RTC granted MII’s motion to
dismiss, therefore dismissing the Collection Case, which SVHFI filed
an appeal to CA which the latter denied.

Issue:
Whether SVHFI committed forum shopping.

Ruling:
No, the Court ruled SVHFI did not violate the rule on forum shopping
as the determinative factor is whether the elements of litis pendentia
are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to
res judicata in another. SVHFI was not guilty since the 2 nd and 3rd
elements of forum shopping, i.e., the identity of rights asserted and
relief prayed for and the identity of the two cases such that judgment
in one would amount to res judicata in the other, are lacking.
Furthermore, an action for collection of sum of money many not be
joined with an ejectment suit, otherwise a misjoinder of causes of
action would ensue. Section 5 (b), Rule 2 prohibits special civil action
with an ordinary action.

Thus, the petition is GRANTED and the CA’s Decision REVERSED

AND SET ASIDE with the instant case REMANDED to the RTC.
The Linden Suites Inc. v. Meridien Far East Properties, Inc.
G.R. No. 211969, Oct 4, 2021

Facts:
The Linden Suites Inc (petitioner) filed a complaint for damages
against respondent Meridien. Petitioner averred that while doing
excavation works for the construction of Linden Suites in Ortigas,
Pasig, it discovered that the retaining wall of the adjacent building
owned by respondent had encroached on its property line.
Respondent were unable to finish the removal of the encroachment
thus, petitioner was compelled to hire a contractor to complete the
demolition and demanded payment for the cost of the additional
works it conducted amounting to almost 4M Php but the respondent
refused to pay. RTC ruled respondent liable and the CA affirmed the
RTC’s Decision and in turn, SC affirmed CA. Since the RTC Decision
had already attained finality, petitioner filed for a writ of execution
which was granted and the sheriff attempted to serve the writ on
respondent in its office in Makati but failed. Petitioner advised sheriff
to serve it in Mandaluyong City its registered address in its 2006
General Information Sheet (GIS). The sheriff was informed by that it
was Meridien Development Group Corp (MDGC), and not
respondent, which owned the office in the said address. Petitioner
observed the 2006 GIS of respondent and 2009 GIS of the MDGI
stated the same officers. Thus, the petitioner filed an Urgent Motion
to Examine Judgment Obligor in RTC Pasig, praying the respondent
officers be made to appear before the court for examination of the
income owned by respondent for the satisfaction of the RTC
Decision. Respondent argued for the dismissal of the motion alleging
that persons sought to be examined are not the judgment obligors in
the RTC Decision. RTC denied petitioner’s motion and ruled that
respondent officers cannot be subjected to an examination as they do
not reside in its territorial jurisdiction and also would be violative of
the doctrine of separate juridical entity. CA dismissed the petition for
grave abuse of discretion on the part of RTC.

Issue:
May the RTC as the court that rendered judgment on petitioner’s
complaint, examine respondent’s officers?

Ruling:
Yes, while the RTC’s error in judgment is tantamount to grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; as a
judgment court, it has supervisory control over the execution of its
judgment. A judgment oblige is entitled, as a matter of right, to an
order of the court which rendered judgment if the writ of execution
issued against the judgment obligor was returned unsatisfied, in
whole or in part. The doctrine of separate juridical personality is
inapplicable in the case at bench.