Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

August 2019 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > August 2019
Decisions > G.R. No. 202039 - ANGELITA SIMUNDAC-KEPPEL,
ChanRobles Professional PETITIONER, v. GEORG KEPPEL, RESPONDENT:
Review, Inc.

G.R. No. 202039 - ANGELITA SIMUNDAC-KEPPEL, PETITIONER, v.

GEORG KEPPEL, RESPONDENT

FIRST DIVISION

ChanRobles On-Line Bar

G.R. No. 202039, August 14, 2019
Review
ANGELITA SIMUNDAC-KEPPEL, PETITIONER, v. GEORG KEPPEL,
RESPONDENT.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, C.J.:

The courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws. To have

evidentiary weight in a judicial proceeding, the foreign laws should be
alleged and proved like any other material fact.

This Case
 By this appeal, the petitioner assails the decision promulgated on

September 26, 20111 by the Court of Appeals (CA) that reversed the

judgment rendered on June 21, 20062 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
in Muntinlupa City in Civil Case No. 96-048.

Antecedents

As summarized by the CA, the factual antecedents are as follows:

In November 1972, petitioner Angelita Simundac Keppel

(Angelita) left the Philippines to work in Germany as a
nurse. In the hospital where Angelita worked, she met
Reynaldo Macaraig (Reynaldo), also a nurse and fellow
Filipino who had become a naturalized German citizen.
They fell in love and got married in Germany on 12 June
1976. Angelita and Reynaldo's union produced a son.
ChanRobles CPA Review
After a few years of marriage, Angelita became attracted
Online
to another German nurse and co-employee, Georg Keppel
(Georg). Like Angelita, Georg was married to a Filipina
nurse, with whom he had two children. Eventually, the
attraction between Angelita and Georg developed into an
intimate affair. Not long after that, Reynaldo discovered
Angelita's infidelity and they separated.

In the meantime, in February 1986, Angelita became a

naturalized German citizen. Angelita and her son left
Germany to go home to the Philippines, where they
planned to start over.

While in the Philippines, Angelita continued

communicating with Georg through letters and telephone
calls. In July 1987, Georg's wife divorced him, and so
Georg felt free to come to the Philippines to meet
Angelita's family in September 1987.
ChanRobles Special Lecture
Series In December 1987, Angelita returned to Germany to file
divorce proceedings against Reynaldo, and she obtained
the divorce decree she sought in June 1988. Shortly
thereafter, Angelita and Georg got married in Germany on
30 August 1988. On 21 November 1989, Angelita gave
birth in Germany to a daughter, whom they named
Liselotte.

In 1991, Angelita and Georg entered into an agreement for

the complete separation of their properties. At that time,
Georg resigned from his job. To make matters worse,
Georg was diagnosed with early multiple sclerosis and
could not work. Since Angelita's income was barely
enough to support them all, they decided to return and
settle permanently in the Philippines in 1992.

Angelita bought a lot in Muntinlupa on which they had a

house built in 1993. She also put up a commercial
building – which earned rentals – on another lot in
Muntinlupa, which she and her first husband, Reynaldo,
previously bought together. The rest of Angelita's savings
from Germany went into putting up a school with her other
family members and relatives.

Angelita earned a considerable income from her business

ventures, which she shared with Georg. However, Angelita
stopped giving Georg money in 1994 when she discovered
that Georg was having extramarital affairs.

Claiming that Georg was beating her up, Angelita and her
two children left their home in March 1996. Being the
registered owner of their family home, Angelita sold the
same to her sister. Despite said sale, Georg refused to
vacate the house.

On 26 March 1996, Angelita filed the instant petition for

annulment of marriage on the ground of Georg's alleged
psychological incapacity. Georg opposed the petition,
insisting that the court should only issue a decree of legal
separation with the consequent division of their properties
and determination of Liselotte's custody. Angelita
countered that there were no properties to divide between
them because all the real properties that she acquired in
the Philippines belong solely to her as a consequence of
the agreement for complete separation of property that
they previously executed in Germany in 1991.

During trial, Angelita presented evidence of Georg's

psychological incapacity through medical reports and the
like, as well as the contract for separation of property. On
the other hand, Georg presented evidence of the
properties that they acquired during their marriage that he

thinks should be divided equally between them.3

Judgment of the RTC

On June 21, 2006, the RTC rendered judgment declaring the marriage of
Angelita and Georg null and void, to wit:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby

rendered as follows:

[T]he marriage between spouses

ANGELITA SIMUNDAC and GEORG
KEPPEL which was solemnized on
August 30, 1988 in Dulsburg,
a) Germany, is hereby declared as null
and void in view of the
psychological incapacity of
defendant to perform the essential
marital obligations;

   

[A]ll the real and personal

properties including the
businesses subject of the instant
b)
suit is (sic) hereby declared as
forming part of the paraphernal
property of petitioner;

   

[T]he spouses are directed to

c) equally support their minor child
Lisselotte Angela Keppel;

   

[T]he custody of the minor child is

hereby declared as belonging to
herein petitioner, the mother,
without prejudice to the visitorial
d)
rights accorded by law to
defendant, unless the said minor
child chooses her father's custody,
herein defendant.

SO ORDERED.4

The RTC found both of the parties psychologically incapacitated but

considered Georg's incapacity to be more severe on the basis of the
 clinical finding that he had manifested an anti-social or psychopathic
type of personality that translated to the symptomatic tendency to
deceive and injure Angelita. The RTC declared that as to the properties
of the parties to be distributed after the dissolution of the marriage, the
business and personal properties should be allocated to Angelita
pursuant to the "Matrimony Property Agreement;" and that the lands
should exclusively belong to Angelita inasmuch as Georg, being a
German citizen, was absolutely prohibited from owning lands pursuant
to Section 7, Article XVII of the Constitution.

Decision of the CA

On September 26, 2011, the CA promulgated its decision on appeal,

reversing the RTC's findings, and thereby dismissing the complaint,
disposing thusly:

WHEREFORE, the Decision, dated 21 June 2006, of the

Regional Trial Court, Branch 256, Muntinlupa City in Civil
Case No. 96-048 for Annulment of Marriage and Custody
of Minor Child is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, except for
the trial court's declaration that all properties acquired in
the Philippines by Angelita Simundac Keppel belong to her
alone. The complaint is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.5

The CA observed that Angelita did not prove the allegations in her
complaint because she did not present the original of her divorce decree
from Reynaldo Macaraig, her first spouse; that she did not also prove the
German law that capacitated her to marry Georg; that in the eyes of the
court, therefore, there could be no annulment of the marriage between
Angelita and Georg to speak of because under Philippine law, Angelita
had remained married to Reynaldo; that Angelita's evidence was
insufficient to prove that either of the parties herein had been
psychologically incapacitated to comply with essential marital
obligations inasmuch as anti-social behavior did not equate to
psychological incapacity; and that the properties of the couple
exclusively belonged to Angelita because Georg could not own lands in
the Philippines.

Issues

In this appeal, Angelita posits that the CA erred in not declaring her
August-2019 Jurisprudence  
marriage with Georg null and void inasmuch as Georg was suffering
              
from psychological incapacity that rendered him incapable to fulfill his
essential marital obligations as borne out by the medical findings; that
 A.M. No. 2018-03-SC - being then a German citizen, she need not prove the dissolution of her
RE: MS. NENNETTE G. marriage with Reynaldo, or the validity of her marriage with Georg
ZALDIVAR, TRAINING because Philippine law did not apply in both instances; and that as
SPECIALIST II, PHILIPPINE alleged in her petition she had recently re-acquired her Filipino
JUDICIAL ACADEMY VS. citizenship.6
MR. ELIZALDE S.
CARMONA, JUDICIAL STAFF Georg counters that the evidence presented was not sufficient basis to
EMPLOYEE II, PHILIPPINE conclude that he was psychologically incapacitated to perform his
JUDICIAL ACADEMY. essential marital obligations; and that the prohibition against land
ownership by aliens did not apply because the bulk of the properties of
A.M. No. 19-03-16-SC - the spouses consisted of personal properties that were not covered by
RE: INVESTIGATION the Constitutional prohibition.
RELATIVE TO THE FAKE
Did the CA err in sustaining the validity of the marriage of the parties?
DECISION IN G.R. NO.
Are the lower courts correct in awarding all the properties of the
211483 (MANUEL TAMBIO
spouses in favor of Angelita?
v. ALBERTO LUMBAYAN, ET
AL.)D E C I S I O N Ruling of the Court

G.R. No. 238349 - The appeal fails to impress.

VALMORE VALDEZ Y
I.
MENOR, PETITIONER, v.
Under the Nationality Principle, the petitioner
PEOPLE OF THE
cannot invoke Article 36 of the Family Code
PHILIPPINES,
unless there is a German law that allows her to do so
RESPONDENT.
A fundamental and obvious defect of Angelita's petition for annulment of
G.R No. 241445 - REY marriage is that it seeks a relief improper under Philippine law in light of
BEN P. MADRIO, both Georg and Angelita being German citizens, not Filipinos, at the time
PETITIONER, v. ATLAS of the filing thereof. Based on the Nationality Principle, which is followed
FERTILIZER CORPORATION, in this jurisdiction, and pursuant to which laws relating to family rights
RESPONDENT. and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are

binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad,7 it

A.M. No. P-19-3988 was the pertinent German law that governed. In short, Philippine law
[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 17- finds no application herein as far as the family rights and obligations of
4692-P] - MARILYN MEIM M. the parties who are foreign nationals are concerned
VDA. DE ATIENZA,
COMPLAINANT, v. PALERMO In Morisono v. Morisono,8 we summarized the treatment of foreign
I. AGUILAR, SHERIFF IV, divorce judgments in this jurisdiction, thus:
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL The rules on divorce prevailing in this jurisdiction can be

COURT, SAN JOSE, summed up as follows: first, Philippine laws do not

OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, provide for absolute divorce, and hence, the courts cannot

RESPONDENT. grant the same; second, consistent with Articles 15 and 17

of the Civil Code, the marital bond between two (2) Filipino
citizens cannot be dissolved even by an absolute divorce
 G.R. No. 241164 - obtained abroad; third, an absolute divorce obtained
CRIZALINA B. TORRES, abroad by a couple who are both aliens may be
PETITIONER, v. THE recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent
HONORABLE COURT OF with their respective national laws; and fourth, in mixed
APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, the former
OF THE PHILIPPINES, is allowed to contract a subsequent marriage in case the
RESPONDENTS. absolute divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. [Bold
G.R. No. 204378 - HEIRS underscoring supplied for emphasis]
OF JUAN M. DINGLASAN,
Accordingly, the petition for annulment initiated by Angelita fails scrutiny
REPRESENTED BY SONIA M.
through the lens of the Nationality Principle.
DINGLASAN, PETITIONERS,
v. AYALA CORPORATION, Firstly, what governs the marriage of the parties is German, not
OMNIPORT ECONOMIC Philippine, law, and this rendered it incumbent upon Angelita to allege
CENTER, INC., AND and prove the applicable German law. We reiterate that our courts do not
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF take judicial notice of foreign laws; hence, the existence and contents of
BATANGAS CITY, such laws are regarded as questions of fact, and, as such, must be
RESPONDENTS.
alleged and proved like any other disputed fact.9 Proof of the relevant
German law may consist of any of the following, namely: (1) official
G.R. No. 218241 - ENGR.
publications of the law; or (2) copy attested to by the officer having legal
REYNALDO C. LIWANAG, IN
custody of the foreign law. If the official record is not kept in the
HIS CAPACITY AS THE
Philippines, the copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by
GENERAL MANAGER OF
the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service
THE ANGELES CITY WATER
stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept; and (b)
DISTRICT (ACWD),
PETITIONER, v. authenticated by the seal of his office.10 Angelita did not comply with

COMMISSION ON AUDIT, the requirements for pleading and proof of the relevant German law.

RESPONDENT.
And, secondly, Angelita overlooked that German and Philippine laws on
annulment of marriage might not be the same. In other words, the
G.R. Nos. 234670-71 -
remedy of annulment of the marriage due to psychological incapacity
OMAR ERASMO GONOWON
afforded by Article 36 of the Family Code might not be available for her.
AMPONGAN, PETITIONER, v.
In the absence of a showing of her right to this remedy in accordance
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN,
with German law, therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, AND II.
OMBUDSMAN SPECIAL Assuming the remedy was proper, the petitioner did not
PROSECUTOR, prove the respondent's psychological incapacity
RESPONDENTS.
Even if we were now to adhere to the concept of processual

G.R. No. 198849 - CAMP
JOHN HAY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, v. CHARTER
CHEMICAL AND COATING
presumption,11 and assume that the German law was similar to the
Philippine law as to allow the action under Article 36 of the Family Code
to be brought by one against the other party herein, we would still affirm
the CA's dismissal of the petition brought under Article 36 of the Family
Code.
CORPORATION, Notable from the RTC's disquisition is the fact that the psychiatrists
RESPONDENT. found that both parties had suffered from anti-social behavior that
became the basis for the trial court's conclusion that they had been both
G.R. No. 233466 - psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential martial
PEOPLE OF THE obligations. Therein lay the reason why we must affirm the CA.
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
Jurisprudentially speaking, psychological incapacity under Article 36 of
APPELLEE, v. MARK
the Family Code contemplates an incapacity or inability to take
ANDREW PAZ Y ROCAFORD,
cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations, and is not
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
merely the difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital
obligations or ill will. The disorder consists of: (a) a true inability to
G.R. No. 202897 -
commit oneself to the essentials of marriage; (b) the inability must refer
MAYNILAD WATER
to the essential obligations of marriage, that is, the conjugal act, the
SERVICES, INC.,
community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, and the
PETITIONER, v. THE
procreation and education of offspring; and (c) the inability must be
SECRETARY OF THE
tantamount to a psychological abnormality. Proving that a spouse did
DEPARTMENT OF
not meet his or her responsibility and duty as a married person is not
ENVIRONMENT AND
enough; it is essential that he or she must be shown to be incapable of
NATURAL RESOURCES
("DENR"), THE POLLUTION doing so because of some psychological illness.12
ADJUDICATION BOARD
Psychological incapacity is unlike any other disorder that would
("PAB"), THE REGIONAL
invalidate a marriage. It should refer to a mental incapacity that causes
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
a party to be incognitive of the basic marital covenants such as those
ENVIRONMENTAL
enumerated in Article 68 of the Family Code and must be characterized
MANAGEMENT BUREAU-
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.13

("EMB-NCR"), THE
In Republic v. Court of Appeals,14 the Court issued the following
REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the
ENVIRONMENTAL
Family Code, to wit:
MANAGEMENT BUREAU-
REGION III ("EMB-REGION (1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage
III"), THE REGIONAL belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in
DIRECTOR, favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage
ENVIRONMENTAL and against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the
MANAGEMENT BUREAU- fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the
REGION IV ("EMB-REGION validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our
IV"), RESPONDENTS.[G.R. Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family,
No. 206823] MANILA recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees
WATER COMPANY, INC., marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from
PETITIONER, v. THE dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and
SECRETARY OF THE marriage are to be "protected" by the state.
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on
NATURAL RESOURCES marriage and the family and emphasizes their
(DENR), THE REGIONAL permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be
ENVIRONMENTAL (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
MANAGEMENT BUREAU- complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code
(EMB-NCR), THE REGIONAL requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not
DIRECTOR, physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms
ENVIRONMENTAL may be physical. The evidence must convince the court
MANAGEMENT BUREAU- that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or
REGION III (EMB-REGION III), psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing
ENVIRONMENTAL them, could not have given valid assumption thereof.
MANAGEMENT BUREAU- Although no example of such incapacity need be given
REGION IV ("EMB-REGION here so as not to limit the application of the provision
IV-A"), AND THE POLLUTION under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such
ADJUDICATION BOARD root cause must be identified as a psychological illness
(PAB), RESPONDENTS.[G.R. and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert
No. 207969] evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and
METROPOLITAN clinical psychologists.
WATERWORKS AND
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the
SEWERAGE SYSTEM,
time of the celebration" of the marriage. The evidence
PETITIONER, v. THE
must show that the illness was existing when the parties
POLLUTION ADJUDICATION
exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness
BOARD AND
need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself
ENVIRONMENTAL
must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
MANAGEMENT BUREAU,
RESPONDENTS. (4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or
clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be
G.R. No. 240922 - absolute or even relative only in regard to the other
PEOPLE OF THE spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF- same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant
APPELLEE, v. PATRICIO to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily
HONASAN Y GRAFIL, NOEL to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a
CARPIO, AND BONIFACIO profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician
OSEO, ACCUSED, PATRICIO may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and
HONASAN Y GRAFIL, prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise
his/her own children as an essential obligation of
A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559 marriage.
[formerly OCA IPI No. 11-
3810-RTJ] - PRESIDING (5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the
JUDGES TOMAS EDUARDO disability of the party to assume the essential obligations
B. MADDELA III AND of marriage. Thus, "mild characterological peculiarities,
MERINNISA O. LIGAYA, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as
CITIES, BRANCHES 5 AND 1, downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or
RESPECTIVELY, OLONGAPO difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal
CITY, ZAMBALES, or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse
COMPLAINANTS, v. integral element in the personality structure that
PRESIDING JUDGE effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting
NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN, and thereby complying with the obligations essential to
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, marriage.
BRANCH 73, OLONGAPO
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those
CITY, ZAMBALES,
embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as
RESPONDENT.[A.M. No. RTJ-
regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221
19-2561 [formerly A.M. No.
and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their
15-02-49-RTC]] OFFICE OF
children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must
THE COURT
also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and
ADMINISTRATOR,
included in the text of the decision.
COMPLAINANT, v.
PRESIDING JUDGE Here, however, the petitioner presented no evidence to show that the
NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN, anti-social behavior manifested by both parties had been grave, and had
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage as to render the
BRANCH 73, OLONGAPO parties incapable of performing all the essential marital obligations
CITY, ZAMBALES, provided by law. As the records bear out, the medical experts merely
RESPONDENT. concluded that the behavior was grave enough as to incapacitate the
parties from the performance of their essential marital relationship
G.R. No. 237977 - because the parties exhibited symptoms of an anti-social personality
PEOPLE OF THE disorder. Also, the incapacity was not established to have existed at the
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF- time of the celebration of the marriage. In short, the conclusion about
APPELLEE, v. NOMER the parties being psychologically incapacitated was not founded on
WISCO Y FAILANO, sufficient evidence.
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
III.
G.R. No. 225325 - Former Filipinos have the limited right to own
PEOPLE OF THE public agricultural lands in the Philippines
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
We next deal with the ownership of lands by aliens.
APPELLEE, v. ISIDRO
RAMOS Y BONDOC, Properties accumulated by a married couple may either be real or
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. personal. While the RTC awarded herein all personal properties in favor
of Angelita pursuant to the "Matrimonial Property Agreement" executed
G.R. No. 220635 - in Germany, it ignored that such agreement was governed by the
PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE national law of the contracting parties; and that the forms and
CARRIERS, INC., AND/OR solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments should be
FURTRANS DENIZCILIK
governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.15
TICARET VE SANAYI AS,
PETITIONERS, v. RAYMOND Angelita did not allege and prove the German law that allowed her to
F. BERNARDO, enter into and adopt the regime of complete separation of property
RESPONDENT. through the "Matrimonial Property Agreement." In the absence of such
 allegation and proof, the German law was presumed to be the same as
G.R No. 238971 - that of the Philippines.
CHARBEN DUARTE Y
In this connection, we further point out Article 77 of the Family Code
OLIVEROS, PETITIONER, v.
declares that marriage settlements and any modification thereof shall be
PEOPLE OF THE
made in writing and signed by the parties prior to the celebration of the
PHILIPPINES,
marriage. Assuming that the relevant German law was similar to the
RESPONDENT.
Philippine law, the "Matrimonial Property Agreement," being entered into
by the parties in 1991, or a few years after the celebration of their
G.R. No. 229720 -
marriage on August 30, 1988, could not be enforced for being in
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, v. contravention of a mandatory law.16
MELVIN DUNGO Y OCAMPO,
Also, with the parties being married on August 30, 1988, the provisions
APPELLANT.
of the Family Code should govern. Pursuant to Article 75 of the Family
Code, the property relations between the spouses were governed by the
G.R. No. 238613 - THE
absolute community of property. This would then entitle Georg to half of
PEOPLE OF THE
the personal properties of the community property.
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. JEFFREY As to the real properties of the parties, several factual considerations
VICTORIA Y TARIMAN, were apparently overlooked, or were not established.
ACCUSED -APPELLANT.
Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution states that: "Save in cases

G.R. No. 243940 - of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or

PEOPLE OF THE conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to

PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF- acquire or hold lands of the public domain." It seems clear, however, that

APPELLEE, v. ALFREDO the lower courts were too quick to pronounce that Georg, being a

DOCTOLERO, JR., ACCUSED- German citizen, was automatically disqualified from owning lands in the

APPELLANT. Philippines. Without disputing the inherent validity of the

pronouncement, we nonetheless opine that the lower courts missed to

A.M. No RTJ-19-2567 take note of the fact that Angelita, in view of her having admitted that

(Formerly A.M. No. 01-12- she herself had been a German citizen, suffered the same

641-RTC) - OFFICE OF THE disqualification as Georg. Consequently, the lower courts'

COURT ADMINISTRATOR, pronouncement awarding all real properties in favor of Angelita could be

COMPLAINANT, v. HON. devoid of legal basis as to her.

DANILO P. GALVEZ (RET.),

At best, an alien could have enjoyed a limited right to own lands. Section
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
8, Article XII of the Constitution provides: "Notwithstanding the
BRANCH 24, ILOILO CITY,
provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the
RESPONDENT.
Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of
private lands, subject to limitations provided by law." Section 5 of
A.M. No. P-17-3746 - RE:
Republic Act No. 8179 (An Act Amending the Foreign Investments Act of
REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL
1991) also states:
AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN Sec. 10. Other Rights of Natural Born Citizen Pursuant to
CITIES, CEBU CITY. the Provisions of Article XII, Section 8 of the Constitution. —
Any natural born citizen who has lost his Philippine
 G.R No. 211810 - MILA B. citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a
RECAMARA, PETITIONER, v. contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a
REPUBLIC OF THE private land up to a maximum area of five thousand
PHILIPPINES, (5,000) square meters in the case of urban land or three
RESPONDENT. (3) hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him for
business or other purposes. In the case of married
G.R. No. 233470 - couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein
PEOPLE OF THE granted: Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF- total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein
APPELLEE, v. ALAN fixed.
BANDING Y ULAMA,
In case the transferee already owns urban or rural land for
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
business or other purposes, he shall still be entitled to be
a transferee of additional urban or rural land for business
G.R. No. 225210 -
or other purposes which when added to those already
PEOPLE OF THE
owned by him shall not exceed the maximum areas herein
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
authorized.
APPELLEE, v. LARRY
SULTAN Y ALMADA, A transferee under this Act may acquire not more than
ACCUSED-APPELLANT. two (2) lots which should be situated in different
municipalities or cities anywhere in the Philippines:
G.R. No. 228516 - Provided, That the total land area thereof shall not exceed
RICARDO P. CARNIYAN AND five thousand (5,000) square meters in the case of urban
AMONG OTHER REAL land or three (3) hectares in the case of rural land for use
PARTIES IN INTEREST by him for business or other purposes. A transferee who
SIMILARLY SITUATED BONA has already acquired urban land shall be disqualified from
FIDE RESIDENTS, acquiring rural land area and vice versa.
PETITIONERS, v. HOME
GUARANTY CORPORATION, As the foregoing indicates, Angelita did not have any unlimited right to
RESPONDENT. own lands. On the other hand, the records were not clear on whether or
not she had owned real property as allowed by law. It was imperative for
A.M. No. MTJ-19-1928 the lower courts to determine so. Hence, remand for further proceedings
[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 17- is called for.
2910-MTJ] - JULIANA P.
It is true that Angelita stated in her petition that she had meanwhile re-
AREVALO, SOUVEN P.
AREVALO AND OSCAR P. acquired Filipino citizenship.17 This statement remained

AREVALO, JR. unsubstantiated, but the impact thereof would be far reaching if the

COMPLAINANTS, v. HON. statement was true, for there would then be no need to determine

ELI C. POSUGAC, PRESIDING whether or not Angelita had complied with Section 5 of R.A. No. 8179.

JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL Thus, the remand of the case will enable the parties to adduce evidence

COURT, SIRUMA, on this aspect of the case, particularly to provide factual basis to

CAMARINES SUR, determine whether or not Angelita had validly re-acquired her Filipino

RESPONDENT. citizenship; and, if she had, to ascertain what would be the extent of her
ownership of the real assets pertaining to the marriage. If the remand
should establish that she had remained a foreigner, it must next be
 G.R. No. 201176 - determined whether or not she complied with the limits defined or set by
ESTRELLA ABID-BABANO, R.A. No. 8179 regarding her land ownership. The trial court shall award
PETITIONER, v. EXECUTIVE her the real property that complied with the limits of the law, and inform
SECRETARY, RESPONDENT. the Office of the Solicitor General for purposes of a proper disposition of
any excess land whose ownership violated the law.
G.R. No. 225433 - LARA'S
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari;
GIFTS & DECORS, INC.,
AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on September 26, 2011 by the Court
PETITIONER, v. MIDTOWN
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 89297 subject to the MODIFICATION that
INDUSTRIAL SALES, INC.,
the personal properties of the parties are to be equally divided between
RESPONDENT.
them; and REMANDS the case to the court of origin for the
determination of the issues deriving from the petitioner's re-acquisition
G.R. No. 212143 -
of her Filipino citizenship as far as the ownership of the land pertaining
PHILIPPINE CHARITY
to the parties is concerned consistent with this decision.
SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE
(PCSO), CHAIRMAN OF THE No pronouncement on costs of suit.
BOARD MARGARITA P.
JUICO, MEMBERS OF THE SO ORDERED.
BOARD MA. ALETA L.
Perlas-Bernabe, Jardeleza, Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., concur.
TOLENTINO, MABEL V.
MAMBA, FRANCISCO G. Endnotes:
JOAQUIN III AND BETTY B.
NANTES, AND GENERAL
1Rollo, pp. 54-69; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R.
MANAGER JOSE
FERDINAND M. ROJAS II, Rosario and concurred in by Associate Justice Marlene

PETITIONERS, v. TMA Gonzales-Sison and Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser.

GROUP OF COMPANIES PTY

2 Id. at 339-345; penned by Presiding Judge Alberto L.
LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS TMA
Lerma.
AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.) AND
TMA GROUP PHILIPPINES, 3 Id. at 12-14.
INC. RESPONDENTS.[G.R.
No. 225457] PHILIPPINE 4 Id. at 345.
CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES
OFFICE (PCSO), CHAIRMAN 5 Id. at 25.

OF THE BOARD MARGARITA

P. JUICO, MEMBERS OF THE 6 Id. at 18.

BOARD MA. ALETA L.

7 Article 15, Civil Code.
TOLENTINO, MABEL V.
MAMBA, FRANCISCO G.
8 G.R. No. 226013, July 2, 2018.
JOAQUIN III AND BETTY B.
NANTES, AND GENERAL
9Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., v. Guerrero, G.R. No.
MANAGER JOSE
136804, February 19, 2003, 397 SCRA 709, 715.
FERDINAND M. ROJAS II,
PETITIONERS, v. TMA 10Juego-Sakai v. Republic, G.R. No. 224015, July 23, 2018.
GROUP OF COMPANIES PTY
LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS TMA 11 Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not
AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.), AND properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that
TMA GROUP PHILIPPINES, the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or
INC., RESPONDENTS.[G.R. internal law (Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707,
No. 236888] PHILIPPINE December 10, 2014, 744 SCRA 516, 528).
CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES
OFFICE (PCSO), CHAIRMAN 12Republic v. Court of Appeals (Ninth Division), G.R. No.
OF THE BOARD MARGARITA 159594, November 12, 2012, 685 SCRA 33, 41.
P. JUICO, MEMBERS OF THE
13Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, February
BOARD MA. ALETA L.
TOLENTINO, MABEL V. 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198, 209-213.
MAMBA, FRANCISCO G.
14 G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198.
JOAQUIN III AND BETTY B.
NANTES, AND GENERAL
15 Article 17, Civil Code.
MANAGER JOSE
FERDINAND M. ROJAS II,
16 Article 5, Civil Code.
PETITIONERS, v.
HONORABLE JOSELITO C. 17Rollo, p. 48.
VILLAROSA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS PRESIDING
JUDGE OF BRANCH 66,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
MAKATI CITY, TMA GROUP
Back to Home | Back to Main
OF COMPANIES PTY LTD.
(NOW KNOWN AS TMA
AUSTRALIA PTY LTD.) AND
TMA GROUP PHILIPPINES,
INC., RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 222233 -

SKYWAY O & M
CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, v. WILFREDO
M. REINANTE,
RESPONDENT.

G.R No. 224742 -

PRUDENCIO DE GUZMAN Y
JUMAQUIO, PETITIONER, v.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 231345 - OFFICE
OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
PETITIONER, v. MELCHOR J.
CHIPOCO AND CHRISTY C.
BUGANUTAN,
RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No.
232406] ROBERTO R.
GALON, PETITIONER, v.
MELCHOR J. CHIPOCO AND
CHRISTY C. BUGANUTAN,
RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 213957-58 -

ELENITA S. BINAY,
PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF
THE OMBUDSMAN,
SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD
DIVISION), OFFICE OF THE
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 232620 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. JAYSON
MERANDO Y AVES,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 226200 - RUEL

L. GUADALQUIVER,
PETITIONER, v. SEA POWER
SHIPPING ENTERPRISE,
INC., MISSISSAUGA
ENTERPRISES, INC. AND/OR
MS. ANTONIETTE A.
GUERRERO, RESPONDENTS.

A.M. No. P-17-3655 -

OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR,
COMPLAINANT, v. TEODORO
G. SIDRO, SHERIFF III,
BRANCH 84; ROLLY S.
OCAMPO, SHERIFF III AND
LEONELLE E. MENDOZA,
CLERK III, BOTH OF
BRANCH 53, ALL OF
METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURT, CALOOCAN CITY,
RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 234035 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, v.
CRISPIN MAMUYAC, JR. Y
PALMA, APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 227222 -

VIRGILIO P. VILLALONGHA,
LUZVIMINDA P.
VILLALONGHA-OMBING,
AND VIRGINCITA P.
VILLALONGHA-BATUTO,
PETITIONERS, v. COURT OF
APPEALS, (TWENTY-
SECOND DIVISION),
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
DAVAO CITY BRANCH 38,
FELIPA VDA. DE
VILLALONGHA, AURORA
VILLALONGHA-
CABARRUBIAS, RAMONITO
VILLALONGHA, JOSEFINA
VILLALONGHA-DALEON,
BOLTON BRIDGE
HOMEOWNERS'
ASSOCIATION,
INCORPORATED, AND THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR
THE CITY OF DAVAO,
RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 210955 -

DANILO A. LERONA,
PETITIONER, v. SEA POWER
SHIPPING ENTERPRISES,
INC. AND/OR NEDA
MARITIME AGENCY CO.,
LTD., AND/OR MS.
ANTONETTE A. GUERRERO,
RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 234346 -

MARLOW NAVIGATION
PHILS., INC., MARLOW
NAVIGATION
NETHERLANDS B.V., AND
CAPTAIN LEOPOLDO C.
TENORIO, PETITIONERS, v.
PRIMO D. QUIJANO,
RESPONDENT.

G.R No. 247777 -

NARZAL R. MUÑEZ AND
ROGELIO LALUCAN,
PETITIONERS, v. THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 227700 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. REYNALDO
LOZANO Y LEANADO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 211999 -

RICARDO E. ROTORAS,
PETITIONER, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 231896 -

MUNICIPALITY OF TUPI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MUNICIPAL MAYOR
REYNALDO S. TAMAYO, JR.,
PETITIONER, v. HERMINIO B.
FAUSTINO, RESPONDENT.
 A.C. No. 5987 - VIDAYLIN
YAMON-LEACH,
COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY.
ARTURO B. ASTORGA,
RESPONDENT.

A.C. No. 9354 [Formerly

CBD Case No. 12-3655] -
MARIFE A. VENZON,
COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY.
AMADOR B. PELEO III,
RESPONDENT.

G.R Nos. 225353-54 -

RHEMA INTERNATIONAL
LIVELIHOOD FOUNDATION,
INC., ET AL., v. HIBIX, INC.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
YOSHIMITSU TAGUCHE, ET
AL., RESPONDENTS.

A.C. No. 11351 -

PHILIPPINE INVESTMENT
ONE (SPV-AMC), INC.,
REPRESENTED BY CARLOS
GAUDENCIO M. MAÑALAC,
COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY.
AURELIO JESUS V. LOMEDA,
RESPONDENT.

G.R No. 242875 -

AUGORIO A. DELA ROSA,
PETITIONER, v. ABS-CBN
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT.

A.M. No. RTJ-18-2537

[Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 13-
4027-RTJ] - ABDULSAMAD P.
BOGABONG,
COMPLAINANT, v. HON.
RASAD G. BALINDONG,
PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH
12, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
MALABANG, LANAO DEL
SUR, RESPONDENT.

A.C. No. 5285 - JUDGE

NIMFA P. SITACA,
COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY.
DIEGO M. PALOMARES, JR.,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 223637 - ERIC

STO. TOMAS, ROLAND
CABIGAS, ARCH. JOJO
CENTENO, RET. COL. LARRY
ZUBIA, GEORGE BADULIS,
JOSE DE BELEN, LARRY
GALANG, CARMEN
DIMAGIBA, ELVIS BASAS,
BRANDON WHISENHUNT,
TONY TURINGAN,
ARMANDO YANGA, ALEX
DANDAN AND VERMONT
ROYALE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC. (VRHAI),
PETITIONERS, v.
ADORACION I. DEL VALLE,
JO-ANNE I. DEL VALLE,
ARCH. ROBERTO R.
CAMACHO AND NELSON Z.
OCHOA, RESPONDENTS.

A.C. No. 7578 - PAQUITO

PELIPEL, JR.,
COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY.
CIRILO A. AVILA,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 238191 -

FREDERICK L. SURIAGA,
PETITIONER, v.
COMMISSIONERS ALICIA
DELA ROSA-BALA AND
ROBERT S. MARTINEZ,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 194529 -

NATIONAL POWER
CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, v. FRAULEIN
CABANBAN CABANAG AND
JESUS T. PANAL,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 232161 - THE

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. SHAGER
LACDAN Y PARTO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT

A.C. No. 10949 (Formerly

CBD Case No. 13-3915) -
CARMELITA CANETE,
COMPLAINANT, v. ATTY.
ARTEMIO PUTI,
RESPONDENT

A.C. No. 12008 -

PALALAN CARP FARMERS
MULTI-PURPOSE COOP,
REPRESENTED BY BEVERLY
DOMO, COMPLAINANT, v.
ATTY. ELMER A. DELA
ROSA, RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 227755 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. NOEL LITA
AND ROMULO MALINIS,
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS

G.R. No. 201273 -

REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY DR.
RUBINA O. CRESENCIO,
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF
THE BUREAU OF ANIMAL
INDUSTRY AND MARILYN V.
STA. CATALINA, OFFICER-
IN-CHARGE, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRICULTURE -
REGIONAL FIELD UNIT -
CORDILLERA
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
(DA RFU-CAR), PETITIONER,
HEIRS OF IKANG PAUS,
NAMELY: (1) OLARTE A.
PAUS, SR., (2) HEIRS OF
DAVID PAUS, REPRESENTED
BY PETER PAUS, (3)
JOSEPHINE BASIL, (4)
HEIRS OF MACARIO A.
PAUS, SR., REPRESENTED
BY NORBERTO D. PAUS, (5)
HEIRS OF MONTO PAUS,
REPRESENTED BY ELIAS
PAUS, SR., AND (6) HEIRS
OF FORBASCO PAUS,
REPRESENTED BY DOLOR
PAUS MALLARE; THE
REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF
BAGUIO CITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR, ATTY. JUANITO
K. AMPAGUEY; THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION
ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRPERSON, ZENAIDA
BRIGIDA HAMADA-PAWID;
THE LAND REGISTRATION
AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED
BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
BENEDICTO B. ULEP; AND
HONORABLE CLETO R.
VILLACORTA III, PRESIDING
JUDGE, BRANCH 6,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BAGUIO CITY,
RESPONDENTS.; HEIRS OF
MATEO CARIÑO AND
BAYOSA ORTEGA HEREIN
REPRESENTED BY ANDRES
CARANTES, RUBY GIRON,
JOANNA K. CARIÑO, LEO
CAMILO, CECILIA H. CHAN,
AND RONALD PEREZ,
PETITIONERS-IN-
INTERVENTION

G.R. No. 238339 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, V. JOMAR
CASTILLO Y MARANAN,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT

G.R. No. 225793 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. XXX,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT

G.R. No. 212022 -

PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE FOR
DEVELOPMENT STUDIES,
PETITIONER, v.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 230204 -

BARRIO BALAGBAG OF
PASAY CITY
NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION, INC., FOR
AND IN BEHALF OF THE
RESIDENTS OF BARRIO
BALAGBAG OF PASAY CITY,
PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF
THE PRESIDENT AND THE
MANILA INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 220741 -

ANGELINA A. BAYAN* AND
JAIME A. BAYAN HEREIN
REP. BY THEIR ATTORNEY-
IN-FACT MARIA FLORA A.
FALCON, PETITIONERS, v.
CELIA A. BAYAN
(DECEASED), EDWARD DY,
MA. LUISA B. TANGHAL,
AND THE REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF QUEZON CITY,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 242512 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. MARINO BAYA
Y YBIOSA, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT

G.R. No. 220262 - ISLA

LPG CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, v. LEYTE
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
INC., RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 232888 -

JULIETA T. VERZONILLA,
PETITIONER, v. EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION
COMMISSION,
RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 217031 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. WENDALINO
ANDES Y CAS A.K.A.
WINDALINO ANDES Y CAS,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT
 G.R. No. 229656 -
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,
v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN
(FIRST DIVISION), MANUEL
M. LAPID, MA. VICTORIA M.
AQUINO-ABUBAKAR,
LEOLITA M. AQUINO AND
DEXTER ALEXANDER S.D.
VASQUEZ, RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 197722 -

JOCELYN MODOMO AND
DR. ROMY MODOMO,
PETITIONERS, v. SPOUSES
MOISES P. LAYUG, JR. AND
FELISARIN[*] E. LAYUG;
MOISES P. LAYUG, JR.,
SUBSTITUTED BY HIS
HEIRS, NAMELY: HIS WIFE,
FELISARIN E. LAYUG, AND
CHILDREN, MA. CELESTE
LAYUG CO, EUGENE
ESPINOSA LAYUG, FRANCIS
ESPINOSA LAYUG AND
SHERYL ESPINOSA LAYUG,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 228884 - THE

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. QUIRINO
BUMANGLAG Y SUMALPON,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT

G.R. No. 217365 - HEIRS

OF SATRAMDAS V.
SADHWANI AND KISHNIBAI
S. SADHWANI,
REPRESENTED BY
RAMCHAND S. SADHWANI
AND RAJAN S. SADHWANI,
PETITIONERS, v. GOP S.
SADHWANI AND KANTA G.
SADHWANI, UNION BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK,
AND REGISTER OF DEEDS
OF MAKATI, RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 232393 - THE

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. JOSEPH
PAGKATIPUNAN Y CLEOPE,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT

G.R. No. 199558 -

KAWASA MAGALANG AND
MONA WAHAB,
PETITIONERS, v. SPOUSES
LUCIBAR HERETAPE AND
ROSALINA FUNA, ROBERTO
LANDERO, SPOUSES
NESTOR HERETAPE AND
ROSA ROGADOR, AND
ENGR. EUSEBIO F.
FORTINEZ, RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 228958 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. EUTIQUIO
BAER @ "TIKYO," ACCUSED-
APPELLANT

G.R. No. 219157 -

ZENAIDA E. SILVER AND
NELSON SALCEDO,
PETITIONERS, v. JUDGE
MARIVIC TRABAJO DARAY,
IN HER CAPACITY AS
JUDGE DESIGNATE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
11TH JUDICIAL REGION,
BRANCH 11, DAVAO CITY,
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, LORETO HAO,
KENNETH HAO, ATTY.
AMADO L. CANTOS,
ZENAIDA TALATTAD AND
MAUREEN ELLA M.
MACASINDIL,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 227550 -

UNIVERSITY OF MANILA,
REPRESENTED BY EMILY DE
LEON AS PRESIDENT,
DOING BUSINESS UNDER
THE NAME AND STYLE
BENGUET PINES TOURIST
INN, PETITIONER, v.
JOSEPHINE P. PINERA,
YOLANDA A. CALANZA AND
LEONORA P. SONGALIA,
RESPONDENTS

A.C. No. 11956 - ROGER

C. CAS, COMPLAINANT, v.
ATTY. RICHARD R. LIBRADA,
RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 243190 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, V. DENNIS
SARABIA Y REYES,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT

G.R. No. 226385 - CELSO

S. MANGUBAT, JR.,
PETITIONER, v. DALISAY
SHIPPING CORPORATION,
WEALTH SHIPPING LIMITED
AND DANNY DADILA,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 196743 -

SPOUSES LOLITO CHUA
AND MYRNA PALOMARIA
AND SPOUSES SERGIO
CHUA (DECEASED) AND
ELENA CHUA, PETITIONERS,
v. SPOUSES AGUSTIN LO
AND JOSEFINA N. BECINA,
VICTOR LO AND AGUSTIN
LO REALTY CORPORATION,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 232522 -

CARISSA E. SANTO,
PETITIONER, v. UNIVERSITY
OF CEBU, RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 200344 - GLENN

M. MILLER, SUBSTITUTED
BY HIS SURVIVING LEGAL
HEIRS, NAMELY: [1] EVELYN
L. MILLER; [2] JENNIFER
ANN L. MILLER; [3] LESLIE
ANN L. MILLER; [4] RACHEL
ANN L. MILLER; AND [5]
VALERIE ANN L. MILLER,
PETITIONERS, v. JOAN
MILLER Y ESPENIDA A.K.A.
JOHNLYN MILLER Y
ESPENIDA AND THE LOCAL
CIVIL REGISTRAR OF
GUBAT,
SORSOGON,RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 221869 -

ANTHONY U. UNCIANO,
PETITIONER, v. FEDERICO U.
GOROSPE AND LEONA
TIMOTEA U. GOROSPE,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 237334 - CICL

XXX, PETITIONER, v.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND GLENN
REDOQUERIO,
RESPONDENTS
 G.R. No. 235785 - THE
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. JOEY NABUA
Y CAMPOS, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT

G.R. No. 221836 -

ESTHER ABALOS Y PUROC,
PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 224289 - THE

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. DANG
ANGELES Y GUARIN, JAMES
SANTOS @ "CHITA," DENNIS
RAMOS, AND SONNY
BAYNOSA @ "JONG,"
ACCUSED, DANG ANGELES
Y GUARIN, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT

G.R. No. 231787 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. RODEL
VELASCO Y LUZON,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT

G.R. No. 230334 - THE

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. XXX,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT

G.R. No. 229658 - THE

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. ELMAR
SANTOS Y DEL CARMEN,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT
 G.R. No. 212840 - PAZ
MANDIN-TROTIN,*
PETITIONER, v. FRANCISCO
A. BONGO, SABINA BONGO-
BUNTAG AND ARTEMIA
BONGO-LIQUIT,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 208595 - GUINO

ESCABARTE, MARIA
HAMPAC VDA. DE
ANGUILID, HEIRS OF
FAUSTO ISAW, PEDRO
LATAWAN, ADELAIDA ISIG-
VALLECER, ROGELIO B.
MACIAS, SALVADOR
BAWING, BRUNO
ESCABARTE, NENE
ESCABARTE, APOLONIO
ESCABARTE, NANING
ESCABARTE, JUANITO
ESCABARTE, VICENTA
ESCABARTE, NOTOO C.
LATAWAN, LOLONG C. ISAW,
BULAC C. ISAW, DODOY C.
ISAW, MAYAN CAINDOG-
HAMPAC, OBIG HAMPAC,
ALENE TALIBINIO-ISAW,
HEIRS OF CANDELARIA
ISAW, ANTONIA PERATER-
ISAW, HEIRS OF PEDRO
ISAW, LOVENA ISAW, LAIDA
LATAWAN, ARQUILINA
LATAWAN, ESTRELLA
BAWING, NELIA ECHAVIA-
BAWING AND TIBURCIO
BAWING, PETITIONERS, v.
HEIRS OF BENIGNO ISAW
NAMELY: MERLINDA ALBA
VDA. DE ISAW, JERRY D.
ISAW, GENALIE ISAW AND
JESSIE ISAW,
RESPONDENTS
 G.R. No. 243288 - DR.
RUBEN C. BARTOLOME,
PETITIONER, v. REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 242656 -

ROWENA SANTOS Y
COMPRADO AND RYAN
SANTOS Y COMPRADO,
PETITIONERS, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT

G.R. Nos. 200021-22 -

JASON ALVARES PARAN,*
PETITIONER, v. ERLINDA
MANGUIAT AND THE
OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 241012 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLANTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. CROMWELL
TORRES Y PALIS, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT

G.R. No. 195341 - ALLIED

BANKING CORPORATION
(NOW PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK),
PETITIONER, v. ELIZABETH
SIA, RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 228231

[Formerly UDK 15531] -
PRUDENCIO CLEMENTE,
JR., PETITIONER, v. ESO-
NICE TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT
 G.R. No. 232823 -
SPOUSES NELSON A.
PADILLA & CLARITA E.
PADILLA, PETITIONERS, v.
FILIPINAS P. SALOVINO,
HELEN S. TAN, NORMA S.
MERIDA AND RAUL S.
PADILLA, RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 242830 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, V. ALLAN
NIEVERA, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT

G.R. No. 223705 - LOIDA

NICOLAS-LEWIS,
PETITIONER, v.
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 228355 - ENGR.

RICARDO O. VASQUEZ,
PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK AND
NOTARY PUBLIC JUDE JOSE
F. LATORRE, JR., PUBLIC
AUCTION OFFICER,
RESPONDENTS.; G.R. No.
228397, August 28, 2019 -
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, PETITIONER, v.
ENGR. RICARDO O.
VASQUEZ, RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 214315 - HEIRS

OF BENIGNO SUMAGANG,
REPRESENTED BY JESUS S.
ABELLANOSA, MARINA
BELLITA, RESURRECION
CAVAN, ALEX MAPAIT AND
TEODORICO SUMAGANG,
PETITIONERS, v. AZNAR
ENTERPRISES, INC., AZNAR
BROTHERS REALTY
COMPANY, STA. LUCIA
REALTY AND
DEVELOPMENT INC., (CO-
DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-
CLAIM DEFENDANTS),
HEIRS OF PERFECTA
LABAYA, WITH ATTORNEY-
IN-FACT IN THE PERSON OF
FRANCIS R. PESTAÑO
(COMPLAINANTS),
TERESITA DELA CALZADA-
REYES,** ET AL. (1st
COMPLAINANTS-
INTERVENORS), AND CELSO
DEIPARINE *** (2ND
COMPLAINANT-
INTERVENOR),
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 213389 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, V. EBO
PLACIENTE Y TEJERO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT,

G.R. No. 202039 -

ANGELITA SIMUNDAC-
KEPPEL, PETITIONER, v.
GEORG KEPPEL,
RESPONDENT

A.M. No. 13-05-04-SC -

RE: REQUEST OF
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
ROBERTO A. ABAD FOR
SALARY ADJUSTMENT DUE
TO LONGEVITY OF SERVICE,
RESOLUTION
 G.R. No. 215712 -
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. CAROL T.
YGOY, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT

G.R. No. 207039 -

COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE,
PETITIONER, v.
INTERPUBLIC GROUP OF
COMPANIES, INC.,
RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 214923 -

SHULEY MINE, INC.,
PETITIONER, v.
DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES, REP.
BY SECRETARY RAMON J.P.
PAJE, MINES AND
GEOSCIENCES BUREAU,
REP. BY ACTING DIRECTOR
LEO L. JASARENO,
ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT BUREAU,
REP. BY DIRECTOR JUAN
MIGUEL T. CUNA, AND
PRIVATIZATION AND
MANAGEMENT OFFICE REP.
BY CHIEF PRIVATIZATION
OFFICER, KAREN G.
SINGSON, RESPONDENTS

G.R. Nos. 208733-34 -

CLAIRE ANNE CHANSUYCO,
RONALD ALLAN
CHANSUYCO AND
ABRAHAM CHANSUYCO II,
PETITIONERS, v. SPOUSES
LOPE AND JOCELYN[1]
CERVERA PALTEP, AND ALL
PERSONS CLAIMING
RIGHTS UNDER THEM,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 223134 -

VICENTE G. HENSON, JR.,
PETITIONER, v. UCPB
GENERAL INSURANCE CO.,
INC., RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 215136 - EDWIN

D. VELEZ, PETITIONER, v.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 210738 -

REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,
v. SPOUSES GUILLERMO
ALONSO AND INOCENCIA
BRITANICO-ALONSO,
RESPONDENTS

G.R. No. 220224 - LYDIA

I. AGUIRRE, PETITIONER, v.
DIRECTOR CECILIA R. NIETO
CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION REGIONAL
OFFICE V, LEGASPI CITY,
RESPONDENT

G.R. No. 225595 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. ROLANDO
SOLAR Y DUMBRIQUE,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT

G.R. Nos. 224648 &

224806-07 - PSUPT. HENRY
YLARDE DUQUE,
PETITIONER, v. HON.
OMBUDSMAN AND FACT-
FINDING INVESTIGATION
BUREAU, DEPUTY
OMBUDSMAN FOR THE
MILITARY AND OTHER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICES,
PSSUPT. JOB F.
MARASIGAN, AND PSSUPT.
JOEL NAPOLEON CORONEL,
RESPONDENTS.; G.R. Nos.
225188 & 225277, August
28, 2019 - PSSUPT. ASHER
A. DOLINA, PSSUPT.
FERDINAND P. YUZON,
PSSUPT. THOMAS U.
ABELLAR, PSSUPT.
CORNELIO R. SALINAS,
PSSUPT. NEPUMOCENO
MAGNO M. CORPUS, JR.,
PSSUPT. RICO P. PAYONGA,
AND PSUPT. MICHAEL
AMOR FILART,
PETITIONERS, v. OFFICE OF
THE OMBUDSMAN
(REPRESENTED BY HON.
CONCHITA CARPIO-
MORALES), OMB-MOLEO
(REPRESENTED BY AGIO III
DON A. ESQUIVEL, AGIO III
ANATOLIO A.
ALEJANDRINO, LA II ED
ROWLAND A. SOLIDON,
AND JOB F. MARASIGAN,
RESPONDENTS

Copyright © REDiaz