8/9/2016

G.R.No.193038,March11,2015JOSEFINAV.NOBLEZA,Petitioner,v.SHIRLEYB.NUEGA,Respondent.:MARCH2015PHILIPPINESUPREME

ChanRobles VirtualLawLibrary

Like

|chanrobles.com
Search

Tweet

Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > March 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 193038, March 11,
2015JOSEFINAV.NOBLEZA,Petitioner,v.SHIRLEYB.NUEGA,Respondent.:

G.R.No.193038,March11,2015JOSEFINAV.NOBLEZA,Petitioner,v.SHIRLEYB.NUEGA,
Respondent.

ChanRoblesOnLineBarReview

THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.193038,March11,2015
JOSEFINAV.NOBLEZA,Petitioner,v.SHIRLEYB.NUEGA,Respondent.
DECISION
VILLARAMA,JR.,J.:
At bar is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 dated May 14, 2010 and the Resolution2

dated July 21, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 70235, which affirmed with
modification the assailed Decision3 dated February 14, 2001 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
MarikinaCity,Branch273,inCivilCaseNo.96274MK.
Thefollowingfactsarefoundbythetrialcourtandaffirmedbytheappellatecourt:

DebtKollectCompany,Inc.

Respondent Shirley B. Nuega (Shirley) was married to Rogelio A. Nuega (Rogelio) on September 1,
1990.4 Sometime in 1988 when the parties were still engaged, Shirley was working as a domestic
helper in Israel. Upon the request of Rogelio, Shirley sent him money 5 for the purchase of a
residential lot in Marikina where they had planned to eventually build their home. Rogelio was then
alsoworkingabroadasaseaman.Thefollowingyear,oronSeptember13,1989,Rogeliopurchased
thesubjecthouseandlotforOneHundredTwoThousandPesos(P102,000.00)6fromRodeannaRealty
Corporation.Thesubjectpropertyhasanaggregateareaofonehundredelevensquaremeters(111
sq. m.) covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N133844.7 Shirley claims that upon her
arrival in the Philippines sometime in 1989, she settled the balance for the equity over the subject
property with the developer through SSS 8 financing. She likewise paid for the succeeding monthly
amortizations. On October 19, 1989, TCT No. 1719639 over the subject property was issued by the
RegistryofDeedsofMarikina,RizalsolelyunderthenameofRogelio.
On September 1, 1990, Shirley and Rogelio got married and lived in the subject property. The
following year, Shirley returned to Israel for work. While overseas, she received information that
Rogelio had brought home another woman, Monica Escobar, into the family home. She also learned,
and was able to confirm upon her return to the Philippines in May 1992, that Rogelio had been
introducingEscobarashiswife.

ChanRoblesIntellectualProperty
Division

In June 1992, Shirley filed two cases against Rogelio: one for Concubinage before the Provincial
Prosecution Office of Rizal, and another for Legal Separation and Liquidation of Property before the
RTCofPasigCity.Shirleylaterwithdrewthecomplaintforlegalseparationandliquidationofproperty,
butrefiled10thesameonJanuary29,1993.Inbetweenthefilingofthesecases,Shirleylearnedthat
Rogeliohadtheintentionofsellingthesubjectproperty.Shirleythenadvisedtheinterestedbuyers
one of whom was their neighbor and petitioner Josefina V. Nobleza (petitioner) of the existence of
the cases that she had filed against Rogelio and cautioned them against buying the subject property
until the cases are closed and terminated. Nonetheless, under a Deed of Absolute Sale 11 dated
December 29, 1992, Rogelio sold the subject property to petitioner without Shirley's consent in the
amountofThreeHundredEightyThousandPesos(P380,000.00),includingpetitioner'sundertakingto
assumetheexistingmortgageonthepropertywiththeNationalHomeMortgageFinanceCorporation
andtopaytherealpropertytaxesduethereon.
Meanwhile,inaDecision12datedMay16,1994,theRTCofPasigCity,Branch70,grantedthepetition
forlegalseparationandorderedthedissolutionandliquidationoftheregimeofabsolutecommunityof
propertybetweenShirleyandRogelio,viz.:
c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015marchdecisions.php?id=317

1/7

8/9/2016

G.R.No.193038,March11,2015JOSEFINAV.NOBLEZA,Petitioner,v.SHIRLEYB.NUEGA,Respondent.:MARCH2015PHILIPPINESUPREME
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby grants the instant petition for
legalseparationbetweenthesubjectspouseswithallitslegaleffectsasprovidedforin
Art. 63 of the Family Code. Their community property is consequently dissolved and
mustbeliquidatedinaccordancewithArt.102oftheNewFamilyCode.Therespondent
isthusherebyenjoinedfromselling,encumberingorinanywaydisposingoralienating
anyoftheircommunitypropertyincludingthesubjecthouseandlotbeforetherequired
liquidation. Moreover, he, being the guilty spouse, must forfeit the net profits of the
community property in favor of the petitioner who is the innocent spouse pursuant to
Art.43oftheaforesaidlaw.Finally,inthelightoftheclaimofownershipbythepresent
occupantswhohavenotbeenimpleadedintheinstantcase,aseparateactionmustbe
instituted by the petitioner against the alleged buyer or buyers thereof to determine
theirrespectiverightsthereon.
LetacopyofthisdecisionbefurnishedtheLocalCivilRegistrarofManila,theRegister
of Deeds of Marikina, Metro Manila and the National Statistics Office (NSO), sta. Mesa,
Manila.
SOORDERED.13

c r a la wla wlib r a r y

Rogelio appealed the abovequoted ruling before the CA which denied due course and dismissed the
petition.ItbecamefinalandexecutoryandawritofexecutionwasissuedinAugust1995.14
OnAugust27,1996,ShirleyinstitutedaComplaint15forRescissionofSaleandRecoveiyofProperty
against petitioner and Rogelio before the RTC of Marikina City, Branch 273. After trial on the merits,
thetrialcourtrendereditsdecisiononFebruary14,2001,viz.:

c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

WHEREFORE,foregoingpremisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavorof
plaintiffShirleyNuegaandagainstdefendantJosefinaNobleza,asfollows:

1)
2)

the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 29, 1992 insofar as the 55.05 square
meters representing the one half (1/2) portion of plaintiff Shirley Nuega is
concerned,isherebyorderedrescinded,thesamebeingnullandvoid
defendant Josefina Nobleza is ordered to reconvey said 55.05 square meters to
plaintiff Shirley Nuega, or in the alternative to pay plaintiff Shirley Nuega the
presentmarketvalueofsaid55.05squaremetersand
topayplaintiffShirleyNuegaattorney'sfeesinthesumofTwentyThousandPesos
(P20,000.00).

March2015Jurisprudence

3)

A.C. No. 7158, March 09, 2015 YOLANDA A.

ANDRES, MINETTE A. MERCADO, AND ELITO P.
ANDRES , Complainants, v. ATTY. SALIMATHAR V.
NAMBI,Respondent.

Forlackofmerit,defendant'scounterclaimisherebyDENIED.
SOORDERED.16

A.C. No. 5816, March 10, 2015 DR. ELMAR O.

PEREZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. TRISTAN A. CATINDIG
ANDATTY.KARENE.BAYDO,Respondents.

PetitionersoughtrecoursewiththeCA,whileRogeliodidnotappealtherulingofthetrialcourt.Inits
assailedDecisionpromulgatedonMay14,2010,theappellatecourtaffirmedwithmodificationthetrial
court'sruling,viz.:

G.R. No. 211497, March 18, 2015 HOCHENG

PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO
M.FARRALES,Respondent.

WHEREFORE,subjecttotheforegoingdisquisition,theappealisDENIED.TheDecision
dated14February2001oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMarikinaCity,Branch273inCivil
Case No. 96274MK is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the Deed of Absolute
Sale dated 29 December 1992 is hereby declared null and void in its entirety, and
defendantappellant Josefina V. Nobleza is ordered to reconvey the entire subject
property to plaintiffappellee Shirley B. Nuega and defendant Rogelio Nuega, without
prejudice to said defendantappellant's right to recover from defendant Rogelio
whatever amount she paid for the subject property. Costs against defendantappellant
Nobleza.

G.R. No. 190828, March 16, 2015 ONOFRE V.

MONTERO, EDGARDO N. ESTRAERO, RENING P.
PADRE, GABRIEL A. MADERA, HERMINIO T. TACLA,
NELSON C. VILORIA, DEMETRIO Q. PAJARILLO,
ALFREDO R. AGANON, REYNALDO AVILA, ALBERT T.
RUIZ, NESTOR Y. YAGO, HARTY M. TUPASI, AGUSTIN
R. AVILA, JR. OR MARCOS R. AVILA, BONIFACIO B.
GAANO, JOSELITO D. CUENTA, JONAS P. ESTILONG,
DOMINADOR C. CANARIA, GENARO C. RONDARIS,
HERARDO M. DULAY, FRANKLIN A. RAVINA, JR., AND
RUBEN C. CABELLO, Petitioners, v. TIMES
TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., AND SANTIAGO
RONDARIS, MENCORP TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC.,
VIRGINIA R. MENDOZA AND REYNALDO MENDOZA,
Respondents.

c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

SOORDERED.17

Petitionermovedforreconsideration.InaResolutiondatedJuly21,2010,theappellatecourtdenied
themotionforlackofmerit.Hence,thispetitionraisingthefollowingassignmentoferrors:
c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

[I.] THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDWHENITAFFIRMEDTHEDECISIONOF
THEREGIONALTRIALCOURTBYSUSTAININGTHEFINDINGTHATPETITIONERWAS
NOTAPURCHASERINGOODFAITH.
[II.] THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDWHENITMODIFIEDTHEDECISIONOF
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BY DECLARING AS NULL AND VOID THE DEED OF
ABSOLUTESALEDATED29DECEMBER1992INITSENTIRETY.18

A.C. No. 7593, March 11, 2015 ALVIN S.

FELICIANO, Complainant, v. ATTY. CARMELITA
BAUTISTALOZADA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 195661, March 11, 2015 UNKNOWN
OWNER OF THE VESSEL M/V CHINA JOY, SAMSUN
SHIPPING
LTD.,
AND
INTERASIA
MARINE
TRANSPORT, INC., Petitioners, v. ASIAN TERMINALS,
INC.,Respondent.
A.C.No.5914,March11,2015SPOUSESROGELIO
AMATORIO AND AIDA AMATORIO, Complainants, v.
ATTY. FRANCISCO DY YAP AND ATTY. WHELMA F.
SITONYAP,Respondents.
G.R. No. 215630, March 09, 2015 METROGUARDS
SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS BEEGUARDS CORPORATION) AND MS.
MILAGROS T. CHAN, Petitioners, v. ALBERTO N.
HILONGO,Respondent.
G.R. No. 199113, March 18, 2015 RENATO M.
DAVID, Petitioner, v. EDITHA A. AGBAY AND PEOPLE
OFTHEPHILIPPINES,Respondents.
G.R. No. 205300, March 18, 2015 FONTERRA
BRANDS PHILS., INC., Petitioner, v. LEONARDO1
LARGADOANDTEOTIMOESTRELLADO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 206019, March 18, 2015 PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNALREVENUE,Respondent.
G.R. No. 204757, March 17, 2015 ATTY. JANET D.
NACION, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, MA.
GRACIA PULIDOTAN, JUANITO ESPINO AND HEIDI
MENDOZA,Respondents.
G.R.No.187836,March10,2015SOCIALJUSTICE
SOCIETY (SJS) OFFICERS, NAMELY, SAMSON S.
ALCANTARA, AND VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO,

c r a la wla wlib r a r y

Wedenythepetition.
Petitionerisnotabuyeringoodfaith.
An innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some
other person has a right or interest in the property, for which a full and fair price is paid by the
buyeratthetimeofthepurchaseorbeforereceiptofanynoticeofclaimsorinterestofsomeother
personintheproperty.19Itisthepartywhoclaimstobeaninnocentpurchaserforvaluewhohasthe
burden of proving such assertion, and it is not enough to invoke the ordinary presumption of good
faith.20Tosuccessfullyinvokeandbeconsideredasabuyeringoodfaith,thepresumptionisthatfirst
andforemost,the"buyeringoodfaith"musthaveshownprudenceandduediligenceintheexercise
of his/her rights. It presupposes that the buyer did everything that an ordinary person would do for
the protection and defense of his/her rights and interests against prejudicial or injurious concerns
when placed in such a situation. The prudence required of a buyer in good faith is "not that of a
person with training in law, but rather that of an average man who 'weighs facts and circumstances
withoutresortingtothecalibrationofourtechnicalrulesofevidenceofwhichhisknowledgeisnil.'"21
Abuyeringoodfaithdoeshishomeworkandverifiesthattheparticularsareinordersuchasthetitle,
theparties,themodeoftransferandtheprovisionsinthedeed/contractofsale,tonameafew.Tobe
morespecific,suchprudencecanbeshownbymakinganocularinspectionoftheproperty,checking
the title/ownership with the proper Register of Deeds alongside the payment of taxes therefor, or
inquiringintotheminutiaesuchastheparametersorlotarea,thetypeofownership,andthecapacity
of the seller to dispose of the property, which capacity necessarily includes an inquiry into the civil
statusofthesellertoensurethatifmarried,maritalconsentissecuredwhennecessary.Infine,fora
purchaser of a property in the possession of another to be in good faith, he must exercise due
diligence,conductaninvestigation,andweighthesurroundingfactsandcircumstanceslikewhatany
prudentmaninasimilarsituationwoulddo.22
Inthecaseatbar,petitionerclaimsthatsheisabuyeringoodfaithofthesubjectpropertywhichis
titledunderthenameofthesellerRogelioA.NuegaaloneasevidencedbyTCTNo.171963andTax
Declaration Nos. D01204723 and D01204724.23 Petitioner argues, among others, that since she
has examined the TCT over the subject property and found the property to have been registered
under the name of seller Rogelio alone, she is an innocent purchaser for value and "she is not
requiredtogobeyondthefaceofthetitleinverifyingthestatusofthesubjectpropertyatthetimeof
theconsummationofthesaleandatthedateofthesale."24

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015marchdecisions.php?id=317

2/7

8/9/2016

G.R.No.193038,March11,2015JOSEFINAV.NOBLEZA,Petitioner,v.SHIRLEYB.NUEGA,Respondent.:MARCH2015PHILIPPINESUPREME

Petitioners, v. ALFREDO S. LIM, IN HIS CAPACITY AS

MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, Respondent. G.R.
No. 187916 JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., BIENVINIDO M.
ABANTE, MA. LOURDES M. ISIPGARCIA, RAFAEL P.
BORROMEO JOCELYN DAWISASUNCION, MINORS
MARIANREGINAB.TARAN,MACAILARICCIB.TARAN,
RICHARD KENNETH B. TARAN, REPRESENTED AND
JOINED BY THEIR PARENTS RICHARD AND MARITES
TARAN, MINORS CZARINA ALYSANDRA C. RAMOS,
CEZARAHADRIANNAC.RAMOS,ANDCRISTENAIDAN
C. RAMOS REPRESENTED AND JOINED BY THEIR
MOTHERDONNAC.RAMOS,MINORSJAZMINSYLLITA
T.VILAANDANTONIOT.CRUZIV,REPRESENTEDAND
JOINED BY THEIR MOTHER MAUREEN C. TOLENTINO,
Petitioners, v. MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM, VICE MAYOR
FRANCISCO DOMAGOSO, COUNCILORS ARLENE W.
KOA, MOISES T. LIM, JESUS FAJARDO LOUISITO N.
CHUA, VICTORIANO A. MELENDEZ, JOHN MARVIN C.
NIETO, ROLANDO M. VALERIANO, RAYMUNDO R.
YUPANGCO, EDWARD VP MACEDA, RODERICK D.
VALBUENA,JOSEFINAM.SISCAR,SALVADORPHILLIP
H. LACUNA, LUCIANO M. VELOSO, CARLO V. LOPEZ,
ERNESTO F. RIVERA,1 DANILO VICTOR H. LACUNA,
JR., ERNESTO G. ISIP, HONEY H. LACUNAPANGAN,
ERNESTOM.DIONISO,JR.ANDERICKIANO.NIEVA,
Respondents. CHEVRON PHILIPPINES INC., PETRON
CORPORATION AND PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION,Intervenors.

Wedisagreewithpetitioner.
AbuyercannotclaimtobeaninnocentpurchaserforvaluebymerelyrelyingontheTCToftheseller
whileignoringalltheothersurroundingcircumstancesrelevanttothesale.
In the case of Spouses Raymundo v. Spouses Bandong,25 petitioners therein as does petitioner
herein were also harping that due to the indefeasibility of a Torrens title, there was nothing in the
TCTofthepropertyinlitigationthatshouldhavearousedthebuyer'ssuspicionastoputheronguard
thattherewasadefectinthetitleofthereinseller.TheCourtheldintheSpousesRaymundocasethat
thebuyerthereincouldnothidebehindthecloakofbeinganinnocentpurchaserforvaluebymerely
relying on the TCT which showed that the registered owner of the land purchased is the seller. The
Court ruled in this case that the buyer was not an innocent purchaser for value due to the following
attendantcircumstances,viz.:
c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

In the present case, we are not convinced by the petitioners' incessant assertion that
Jocelynisaninnocentpurchaserforvalue.Tobeginwith,sheisagrandnieceofEulalia
and resides in the same locality where the latter lives and conducts her principal
business.Itisthereforeimpossibleforhernottoacquireknowledgeofhergrandaunt's
business practice of requiring her biyaheros to surrender the titles to their properties
and to sign the corresponding deeds of sale over said properties in her favor, as
security. This alone should have put Jocelyn on guard for any possible abuses that
Eulaliamaycommitwiththetitlesandthedeedsofsaleinherpossession.26
c r a la wla wlib r a r y

Similarly,inthecaseofArrofov.Quio,27theCourtheldthatwhile"thelawdoesnotrequireaperson
dealing with registered land to inquire further than what the Torrens Title on its face indicates," the
rule is not absolute.28 Thus, finding that the buyer therein failed to take the necessary precaution
required of a prudent man, the Court held that Arrofo was not an innocent purchaser for value,
viz.:

G.R. No. 187606, March 09, 2015 NORMA V.

JAVATE,Petitioner,v.SPOUSESRENATOJ.TIOTUICO
ANDLERMAC.TIOTUICO,Respondents.

c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

Inthepresentcase,therecordsshowthatArrofofailedtoactasaprudentbuyer.True,
sheaskedherdaughtertoverifyfromtheRegisterofDeedsifthetitletothePropertyis
free from encumbrances. However, Arrofo admitted that the Property is within the
neighborhoodandthatsheconductedanocularinspectionoftheProperty.Shesawthe
houseconstructedontheProperty.Yet,Arrofodidnotevenbothertoinquireaboutthe
occupants of the house. Arrofo also admitted that at the time of the sale, Myrna was
occupying a room in her house as her lessee. The fact that Myrna was renting a room
from Arrofo yet selling a land with a house should have put Arrofo on her guard. She
knew that Myrna was not occupying the house. Hence, someone else must have been
occupyingthehouse.

G.R. No. 207133, March 09, 2015 SWIRE REALTY

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JAYNE
YU,Respondent.
G.R. No. 207747, March 11, 2015 SPOUSES CHIN
KONG WONG CHOI AND ANA O. CHUA, Petitioners, v.
UNITEDCOCONUTPLANTERSBANK,Respondent.
G.R. No. 209383, March 11, 2015 SEACREST
MARITIME MANAGEMENT, INC., ROLANDO B.
MAGCALE,ANDSEALIONSHIPPINGLIMITEDUNITED
KINGDOM, Petitioners, v. MAURICIO G. PICAR, JR.,
Respondent.

Thus, Arrofo should have inquired who occupied the house, and if a lessee, who
received the rentals from such lessee. Such inquiry would have led Arrofo to discover
that the lessee was paying rentals to Quino, not to Renato and Myrna, who claimed to
owntheProperty.29

G.R.No.183511,March25,2015REPUBLICOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. EMETERIA G. LUALHATI,
Respondent.

c r a la wla wlib r a r y

Ananalogoussituationobtainsinthecaseatbar.

A.C. No. 10679, March 10, 2015 PO1 JOSE B.

CASPE, Complainant, v. ATTY. AQUILINO A. MEJICA,
Respondent.

TheTCTofthesubjectpropertystatesthatitssoleowneristhesellerRogeliohimselfwhowastherein
also described as "single". However, as in the cases of Spouses Raymundo and Arrofo, there are
circumstances critical to the case at bar which convince us to affirm the ruling of both the appellate
andlowercourtsthathereinpetitionerisnotabuyeringoodfaith.

G.R. No. 203774, March 11, 2015 CARGILL

PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNALREVENUE,Respondent.

First,petitioner'ssisterHildaBautista,atthetimeofthesale,wasresidingnearRogelioandShirley's
house the subject property in Ladislao Diwa Village, Marikina City. Had petitioner been more
prudentasabuyer,shecouldhaveeasilycheckedifRogeliohadthecapacitytodisposeofthesubject
property. Had petitioner been more vigilant, she could have inquired with such facility considering
thathersisterlivedinthesameLadislaoDiwaVillagewherethepropertyislocatediftherewasany
personotherthanRogeliowhohadanyrightorinterestinthesubjectproperty.

G.R. No. 198024, March 16, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. RAFAEL CUNANAN
YDAVIDALIASPAENGPUTOL,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015 ST. LUKES
MEDICALCENTER,INC.,Petitioner,v.MARIATHERESA
V.SANCHEZ,Respondent.

To be sure, respondent even testified that she had warned their neighbors at Ladislao Diwa Village
including petitioner's sister not to engage in any deal with Rogelio relative to the purchase of the
subjectpropertybecauseofthecasesshehadfiledagainstRogelio.Petitionerdeniesthatrespondent
had given such warning to her neighbors, which includes her sister, therefore arguing that such
warning could not be construed as "notice" on her part that there is a person other than the seller
himself who has any right or interest in the subject property. Nonetheless, despite petitioner's
adamant denial, both courts a quo gave probative value to the testimony of respondent, and the
instantpetitionfailedtopresentanyconvincingevidenceforthisCourttoreversesuchfactualfinding.
Tobesure,itisnotwithinourprovincetosecondguessthecourtsaquo,andtheredeterminationof
thisfactualissueisbeyondthereachofapetitionforreviewoncertiorariwhereonlyquestionsoflaw
maybereviewed.30

G.R.No.200983,March18,2015REPUBLICOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HUANG TE FU, A.K.A.
ROBERTUY,Respondent.
G.R.No.175433,March11,2015ATTY.JACINTOC.
GONZALES,Petitioner,v.MAILACLEMENF.SERRANO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 201427, March 18, 2015 TEOFILO B.
ADOLFO,Petitioner,v.FE.T.ADOLFO,Respondent.
G.R.No.155701,March11,2015LIMTECKCHUAN,
Petitioner, v. SERAFIN UY AND LEOPOLDA CECILIO,
LIMSINGCHAN@HENRYLIM,Respondents.

Second, issues surrounding the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale also pose question on the
claimofpetitionerthatsheisabuyeringoodfaith.Ascorrectlyobservedbybothcourtsa quo, the
DeedofAbsoluteSalewasexecutedanddatedonDecember29,1992.However,theCommunityTax
CertificatesofthewitnessesthereinweredatedJanuary2and20,1993.31Whilethisirregularityisnot
adirectproofoftheintentofthepartiestothesaletomakeitappearthattheDeedofAbsoluteSale
was executed on December 29, 1992 or before Shirley filed the petition for legal separation on
January 29, 1993 it is circumstantial and relevant to the claim of herein petitioner as an innocent
purchaserforvalue.

G.R. No. 176908, March 25, 2015 PURISIMO M.

CABAOBAS, EXUPERIO C. MOLINA, GILBERTO V.
OPINION, VICENTE R. LAURON, RAMON M. DE PAZ,
JR., ZACARIAS E. CARBO, JULITO G. ABARRACOSO,
DOMINGO B. GLORIA, AND FRANCISCO P. CUMPIO,
Petitioners, v. PEPSICOLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES,
INC.,Respondents.

Thatisnotall.

G.R. No. 200620, March 18, 2015 ROBERTO L.

ABAD, MANUEL D. ANDAL, BENITO V. ARANETA,
PHILIP G. BRODETT, ENRIQUE L. LOCSIN AND
ROBERTO V. SAN JOSE, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE
COMMUNICATIONS
SATELLITE
CORPORATION,
REPRESENTEDBYVICTORAFRICA,Respondent.

In the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 29, 1992, the civil status of Rogelio as seller was not
stated,whilepetitionerasbuyerwasindicatedas"single,"viz.:
c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

ROGELIO A. NUEGA, of legal age, Filipino citizen and with postal address at 2A2
Ladislao Diwa St., Concepcion, Marikina, Metro Manila, hereinafter referred to as the
VENDOR

A.C. No. 10132, March 24, 2015 HEIRS OF PEDRO

ALILANO REPRESENTED BY DAVID ALILANO,
Complainants, v. ATTY. ROBERTO E. EXAMEN,
Respondent.

And
JOSEFINA V. NOBLEZA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, single and with postal address at
No. L2A3 Ladislao Diwa St., Concepcion, Marikina, Metro Manila, hereinafter referred
toastheVENDEE.32

G.R. No. 209843, March 25, 2015 TAIWAN KOLIN

CORPORATION,
LTD.,
Petitioner,
v.
KOLIN
ELECTRONICSCO.,INC.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 203655, March 18, 2015 SM LAND, INC.,
Petitioner,v.BASESCONVERSIONANDDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA,
ESQ.,INHISOFFICIALCAPACITYASPRESIDENTAND
CEOOFBCDA,Respondents.

c r a la wla wlib r a r y

ItpuzzlestheCourtthatwhilepetitionerhasrepeatedlyclaimedthatRogeliois"single"underTCTNo.
171963 and Tax Declaration Nos. D01204723 and D01204724, his civil status as seller was not
statedintheDeedofAbsoluteSalefurthercreatingacloudontheclaimofpetitionerthatsheisan
innocentpurchaserforvalue.
Astothesecondissue,werulethattheappellatecourtdidnoterrwhenitmodifiedthedecisionofthe

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015marchdecisions.php?id=317

3/7

8/9/2016

G.R.No.193038,March11,2015JOSEFINAV.NOBLEZA,Petitioner,v.SHIRLEYB.NUEGA,Respondent.:MARCH2015PHILIPPINESUPREME

G.R. No. 209227, March 25, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,v.CHARLIEOROSCO,
AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 205469, March 25, 2015 BPI FAMILY
SAVINGS BANK, INC., Petitioner, v. ST. MICHAEL
MEDICALCENTER,INC.,Respondent.

trialcourtanddeclaredthattheDeedofAbsoluteSaledatedDecember29,1992isvoidinitsentirety.
ThetrialcourtheldthatwhiletheTCTshowsthattheownerofthesubjectpropertyisRogelioalone,
respondent was able to prove at the trial court that she contributed in the payment of the purchase
price of the subject property. This fact was also settled with finality by the RTC of Pasig City, Branch
70, and affirmed by the CA, in the case for legal separation and liquidation of property docketed as
JDRCCaseNo.2510.Thepertinentportionofthedecisionreads:
c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

xxx Clearly, the house and lot jointly acquired by the parties prior to their marriage
formspartoftheircommunitypropertyregime,xxx

OCA IPI NO. 14220CAJ, March 17, 2015 RE:

COMPLAINT DATED JANUARY 28, 2014 OF
WENEFREDOPARREO,ETAL.,AGAINSTHON.CELIA
C. LIBREALEAGOGO, HON. ELIHU A. YBAEZ AND
HON. AMY C. LAZAROJAVIER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES
OFTHECOURTOFAPPEALS,RELATIVETOCAG.R.SP
NO.108807

From the foregoing, Shirley sufficiently proved her financial contribution for the
purchase of the house and lot covered by TCT 171963. Thus, the present lot which
forms part of their community property should be divided equally between them upon
the grant of the instant petition for legal separation. Having established by
preponderance of evidence the fact of her husband's guilt in contracting a subsequent
marriagexxx,Shirleyaloneshouldbeentitledtothenetprofitsearnedbytheabsolute
communityproperty.33

G.R. No. 206381, March 25, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,v.DANIELMATIBAGY
DEVILLA@DANIORDANILO,AccusedAppellant.

c r a la wla wlib r a r y

G.R. No. 192284, March 11, 2015 ALEX TIONCO Y

ORTEGA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.

However, the nullity of the sale made by Rogelio is not premised on proof of respondent's financial
contributioninthepurchaseofthesubjectproperty.Actualcontributionisnotrelevantindetermining
whether a piece of property is community property for the law itself defines what constitutes
communityproperty.

A.C. No. 8330, March 16, 2015 TERESITA B.

ENRIQUEZ, Complainant, v. ATTY. TRINA DE VERA,
Respondent.

Article91oftheFamilyCodethusprovides:

G.R. No. 183212, March 16, 2015 WALLEM

PHILIPPINES SERVICES, INC. AND WALLEM SHIP
MANAGEMENT, LTD., Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF THE
LATEPETERPADRONES,Respondents.
G.R. No. 179640, March 18, 2015 HACIENDA
CATAYWA/MANUEL VILLANUEVA, owner, JOEMARIE
VILLANUEVA,
manager,
MANCY
AND
SONS
ENTERPRISES,INC.,Petitioners,v.ROSARIOLOREZO,
Respondent.

c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

Art. 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the marriage settlements, the
communitypropertyshallconsistofallthepropertyownedbythespousesatthetimeof
thecelebrationofthemarriageoracquiredthereafter.
Theonlyexceptionsfromtheaboveruleare:(1)thoseexcludedfromtheabsolutecommunitybythe
FamilyCodeand(2)thoseexcludedbythemarriagesettlement.
UnderthefirstexceptionarepropertiesenumeratedinArticle92oftheFamilyCode,whichstates:

(1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the
fruitsaswellastheincomethereof,ifany,unlessitisexpresslyprovidedbythedonor,
testatororgrantorthattheyshallformpartofthecommunityproperty

G.R. No. 212496, March 18, 2015 NESTOR

BRACERO, Petitioner, v. RODULFO ARCELO AND THE
HEIRS OF VICTORIANO MONISIT, namely: LOURDES
MENCHAVEZ, ROGELIO RUELO, AND MARTINIANA
APOR,Respondents.
G.R. No. 196750, March 11, 2015 MA. ELENA R.
DIVINAGRACIA,ASADMINISTRATRIXOFTHEESTATE
OFTHELATESANTIAGOC.DIVINAGRACIA,Petitioner,
v. CORONACION PARILLA, CELESTIAL NOBLEZA,
CECILIA LELINA, CELEDONIO NOBLEZA, AND MAUDE
NOBLEZA,Respondent.

(2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse however, jewelry shall
formpartofthecommunityproperty
(3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate
descendantsbyaformermarriage,andthefruitsaswellastheincome,ifany,ofsuch
property.
AsheldinQuiaov.Quiao:34

G.R.No.209370,March25,2015FORTBONIFACIO
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
VALENTINL.FONG,Respondent.

A.C.No.8776,March22,2015ANTONINAS.SOSA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. MANUEL V. MENDOZA,
Respondent.
G.R.No.209283,March11,2015CECILIARACHEL
V. QUISUMBING, Petitioner, v. LORETTA ANN P.
ROSALES, MA. VICTORIA V. CARDONA AND
NORBERTO DELA CRUZ, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS
CHAIRPERSONANDMEMBERS,RESPECTIVELY,OFTHE
COMMISSIONONHUMANRIGHTS,Respondent.

Ch a n Ro b le s Vir t u a la wlib r a r y

When a couple enters into a regime of absolute community, the husband and the wife
becomes joint owners of all the properties of the marriage. Whatever property each
spousebringsintothemarriage,andthoseacquiredduringthemarriage(exceptthose
excluded under Article 92 of the Family Code) form the common mass of the couple's
properties. And when the couple's marriage or community is dissolved, that common
mass is divided between the spouses, or their respective heirs, equally or in the
proportion the parties have established, irrespective of the value each one may have
originallyowned.

A.C. No. 8826, March 25, 2015 SHIRLEY OLAYTA

CAMBA, Complainant, v. ATTY. OTILIO SY BONGON,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 203240, March 18, 2015 NORTHERN
ISLANDS, CO., INC., Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DENNIS
AND CHERYLIN* GARCIA, DOING BUSINESS UNDER
THENAMEANDSTYLEECOLAMPMULTIRESOURCES,,
Respondents.

c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

Art.92.Thefollowingshallbeexcludedfromthecommunityproperty:

SincethesubjectpropertydoesnotfallunderanyoftheexclusionsprovidedinArticle92,ittherefore
formspartoftheabsolutecommunitypropertyofShirleyandRogelio.Regardlessoftheirrespective
contribution to its acquisition before their marriage, and despite the fact that only Rogelio's name
appearsintheTCTasowner,thepropertyisownedjointlybythespousesShirleyandRogelio.
Respondent and Rogelio were married on September 1, 1990. Rogelio, on his own and without the
consent of herein respondent as his spouse, sold the subject property via a Deed of Absolute Sale
datedDecember29,1992orduringthesubsistenceofavalidcontractofmarriage.UnderArticle96
of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as The Family Code of the Philippines, the said
dispositionofacommunalpropertyisvoid,viz.:
c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

Art. 96. The administration and enjoyment of the community property shall belong to
both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement, the husband's decision shall prevail,
subjecttorecoursetothecourtbythewifeforaproperremedy,whichmustbeavailed
ofwithinfiveyearsfromthedateofthecontractimplementingsuchdecision.

A.C. No. 10672, March 18, 2015 EDUARDO A.

MAGLENTE, Complainant, v. ATTY. DELFIN R.
AGCAOILI,JR.,Respondent.

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the
administrationofthecommonproperties,theotherspousemayassumesolepowersof
administration. These powers do not include the powers of disposition or
encumbrance without the authority of the court or the written consent of the
other spouse. In the absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or
encumbrance shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a
continuingofferonthepartoftheconsentingspouseandthethirdperson,andmaybe
perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or
authorizationbythecourtbeforetheofferiswithdrawnbyeitherorbothofferors.35

G.R. No. 208908, March 11, 2015 THE COFFEE

BEANANDTEALEAFPHILIPPINES,INC.ANDWALDEN
CHU,Petitioners,v.ROLLYP.ARENAS,Respondent.
A.C.No.10695,March18,2015CRESCENCIANOM.
PITOGO, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOSELITO TROY
SUELLO,Respondent.

c r a la wla wlib r a r y

G.R. No. 200759, March 25, 2015 FAJ

CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner,v.SUSANM.SAULOG,Respondent.

G.R. No. 207988, March 11, 2015 THE PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. BRIAN
MERCADOYSARMIENTO,AccusedAppellant.

It is clear under the foregoing provision of the Family Code that Rogelio could not sell the subject
propertywithoutthewrittenconsentofrespondentortheauthorityofthecourt.Withoutsuchconsent
orauthority,theentiresaleisvoid.Ascorrectlyexplainedbytheappellatecourt:

G.R. No. 185374, March 11, 2015 SIMPLICIA

CERCADOSIGA AND LIGAYA CERCADOBELISON,
Petitioners, v. VICENTE CERCADO, JR., MANUELA C.
ARABIT, LOLITA C. BASCO, MARIA C. ARALAR AND
VIOLETAC.BINADAS,Respondent.
G.R. No. 176033, March 11, 2015 FELILIBETH
AGUINALDO AND BENJAMIN PEREZ, Petitioners, v.
REYNALDO P. VENTUS AND JOJO B. JOSON,
Respondent.
G.R.No.205492,March11,2015REPUBLICOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DANTE AND

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015marchdecisions.php?id=317

c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

In the instant case, defendant Rogelio sold the entire subject property to defendant
appellant Josefina on 29 December 1992 or during the existence of Rogelio's marriage
toplaintiffappelleeShirley,withouttheconsentofthelatter.Thesubjectpropertyforms
partofRogelioandShirley'sabsolutecommunityofproperty.Thus,thetrialcourterred
in declaring the deed of sale null and void only insofar as the 55.05 square meters
representing the onehalf (1/2) portion of plaintiffappellee Shirley. In absolute
communityofproperty,ifthehusband,withoutknowledgeandconsentofthewife,sells
(their)property,suchsaleisvoid.TheconsentofboththehusbandRogelioandthewife
Shirley is required and the absence of the consent of one renders the entire sale null
and void including the portion of the subject property pertaining to defendant Rogelio
who contracted the sale with defendantappellant Josefina. Since the Deed of Absolute
Sale x x x entered into by and between defendantappellant Josefina and defendant
Rogelio dated 29 December 1992, during the subsisting marriage between plaintiff
appellee Shirley and Rogelio, was without the written consent of Shirley, the said Deed
ofAbsoluteSaleisvoidinitsentirety.Hence,thetrialcourterredindeclaringthesaid

4/7

8/9/2016

G.R.No.193038,March11,2015JOSEFINAV.NOBLEZA,Petitioner,v.SHIRLEYB.NUEGA,Respondent.:MARCH2015PHILIPPINESUPREME
DeedofAbsoluteSaleasvoidonlyinsofarasthe1/2portionpertainingtotheshareof
Shirleyisconcerned.36

LOLITABENIGNO,Respondent.
G.R. No. 202805, March 23, 2015 ROSARIO
BANGUISTAMBUYAT, Petitioner, v. WENIFREDA
BALCOMTAMBUYAT,Respondent.
G.R.No.202943,March25,2015THEDEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY ENRIQUE
T.ONA,ANDTHEFOODANDDRUGADMINISTRATION
(FORMERLY THE BUREAU OF FOOD AND DRUGS),
REPRESENTEDBYASSISTANTSECRETARYOFHEALTH
NICOLAS B. LUTERO III, OFFICERINCHARGE,
Petitioners,
v.
PHILIP
MORRIS
PHILIPPINES
MANUFACTURING,INC.,Respondent.
G.R.No.160914,March25,2015MARCELAM.DELA
CRUZ, Petitioner, v. ANTONIO Q. HERMANO AND HIS
WIFEREMEDIOSHERMANO,Respondent.
G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,v.RECTOANGNGAOY
MAKAY AND ROBERT CARLIN Y PECDASEN, ACCUSED,
RECTOANGNGAOYMAKAY,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 202989, March 25, 2015 COMGLASCO
CORPORATION/AGUILAGLASS,Petitioner,v.SANTOS
CARCHECKCENTERCORPORATION,Respondent.

c r a la wla wlib r a r y

Finally, consistent with our ruling that Rogelio solely entered into the contract of sale with petitioner
andacknowledgedreceivingtheentireconsiderationofthecontractundertheDeedofAbsoluteSale,
Shirley could not be held accountable to petitioner for the reimbursement of her payment for the
purchase of the subject property. Under Article 94 of the Family Code, the absolute community of
propertyshallonlybe"liableforxxx[d]ebtsandobligationscontractedbyeitherspousewithoutthe
consentoftheothertotheextentthatthefamilymayhavebeenbenefitedxxx."Ascorrectlystated
by the appellate court, there being no evidence on record that the amount received by Rogelio
redounded to the benefit of the family, respondent cannot be made to reimburse any amount to
petitioner.37
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoing,thepetitionisDENIED.TheassailedDecisionandResolution
oftheCourtofAppealsdatedMay14,2010andJuly21,2010,respectively,inCAG.R.CVNo.70235
areAFFIRMED.
Costsagainstpetitioner.
SOORDERED.

c h a n r o b le s v ir t u a la wlib r a r y

Velasco,Jr.,(Chairperson),Peralta,Reyes,andJardeleza,JJ.,concur.
Endnotes:

G.R. No. 167052, March 11, 2015 BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECURITIES CORPORATION,
Petitioner,v.EDGARDOV.GUEVARA,Respondent.
G.R. No. 183531, March 25, 2015 EASTERN
TELECOMMUNICATIONSPHILIPPINES,INC.,Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSIONER
OF
INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent.
G.R.No.184301,March23,2015GEMONEYBANK,
INC. (FORMERLY KEPPEL BANK PHILIPPINES, INC.),
Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICTORINO M. DIZON AND
ROSALINAL.DIZON,Respondent.
G.R. No. 198753, March 25, 2015 JOSE PEPE
SANICO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
ANDJENNIFERSONTENIO,Respondent.
G.R.No.202970,March25,2015NATANYAJOANA
D.ARGEL,Petitioner,v.GOV.LUISC.SINGSON,INHIS
CAPACITY AS THE GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF
ILOCOSSUR,Respondent.
G.R. No. 197556, March 25, 2015 WATERFRONT
CEBU CITY CASINO HOTEL, INC. AND MARCO
PROTACIO, Petitioners, v. ILDEBRANDO LEDESMA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 211199, March 25, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,PlaintiffandAppellee,v.RANDYROLLO
YLAGASCA,DefendantandAppellant.
G.R. No. 173241, March 25, 2015 SILICON
PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY INTEL PHILIPPINES
MANUFACTURING,
INC.),
Petitioner,
v.
COMMISSIONEROFINTERNALREVENUE,Respondent.
G.R. No. 193809, March 23, 2015 SATURNINO
NOVECIO, GAVINO NOVECIO, ANASTACIO GOLEZ,
ABUNDIOSOMBILON,BERTINGRODRIGUEZ,MELITON
CATALAN, Petitioners, v. HON. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.,
AS CHAIRMAN, HON. LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA AS
PONENTE AND AS MEMBER AND HON. ANGELITA A.
GACUTAN AS MEMBER, FORMER TWENTYTHIRD
DIVISION,COURTOFAPPEALS,MINDANAOSTATION,
HON. JUDGE BENJAMIN ESTRADA, IN HIS CAPACITY
AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 9, RTC,
MALAYBALAY,BUKIDNON,MARIACARMENJ.TUAZON,
REP. BY HER ATTORNEYINFACT, LOPE DUROTAN,
Respondents. VERGELIO ROSALES, LUIS TEQUILIO,
GREGORIO PANANGIN, JOSEPH RODRIQUEZ, EDDIE
RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners, v. HON. RODRIGO F. LIM,
JR., AS CHAIRMAN, HON. LEONCIA R. DIMAGIBA AS
PONENTE AND AS MEMBER DESIGNATED AS ACTING
CHAIRPERSON,PERSPECIALORDERNO.1955DATED
MARCH 23, 2015. DESIGNATED AS ACTING MEMBER
VICE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ANTONIO T. CARPIO, PER
SPECIAL ORDER NO. 1956 DATED MARCH 23, 2015.
AND HON. ANGELITA A. GACUTAN AS MEMBER,
FORMER TWENTYTHIRD DIVISION, COURT OF
APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, HON. JUDGE
BENJAMINESTRADA,INHISCAPACITYASPRESIDING
JUDGEOFBRANCH9,RTC,MALAYBALAY,BUKIDNON,
MANUEL V. NIETO, REP. BY HIS ATTORNEYINFACT,
LOPEDUROTAN,Respondent.
G.R. No. 207422, March 18, 2015 ANGEL ABAD,
Petitioner,v.HERMINIODELACRUZ,Respondent.
G.R. No. 208685, March 09, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
PlaintiffAppellee,
v.
RODRIGO
CASACOPYDECASTRO,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 211159, March 18, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. MARCELINO
OLOVERIO,AccusedAppellant.
G.R.No.175842,March18,2015NILOMACAYAN,
JR. Y MALANA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
G.R. No. 189949, March 25, 2015 CASTILLEJOS
CONSUMERS
ASSOCIATION,
INC.
(CASCONA),

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015marchdecisions.php?id=317

1Rollo, pp. 3052. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. LibreaLeagogo with Associate

JusticesRemediosA.SalazarFernandoandMichaelP.Elbiniasconcurring.
2Id.

at 5455. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. LibreaLeagogo with Associate

JusticesRemediosA.SalazarFernandoandAmyC.LazaroJavierconcurring.
3Id.at95103.PennedbyJudgeOlgaPalancaEnriquez.
4FolderofExhibits,p.1.
5RespondentinitiallysentUS$3,500.00andaddedP50,000.00oratotalofP150.000.00,

rollo,pp.33,96.

6TSN,December9,1997,pp.29&34.
7DeedofAbsoluteSale,records,pp.309&363.
8SocialSecuritySystem.
9Records,p.303.
10DocketedasJDRCCaseNo.2510,FolderofExhibits,pp.1820.
11Rollo,pp.7981.
12RenderedinJDRCCaseNo.2510,FolderofExhibits,pp.2124.
13Id.at24.
14Rollo,p.32.
15 Entitled "Shirley B. Nuega v. Josefina V. Nobleza and Rogelio Nuega" and docketed]

asCivilCaseNo.96274MK,rollo,pp.8487records,pp.2427.
16Rollo,p.102.
17Id.at49.
18Id.at14.

19Spouses Raymundo v. Spouses Bandong, 553 Phil. 480, 495 (2007), citing Eastworld

Motor Industries Corporation v. Skunac Corporation, 514 Phil. 605, 613 (2005).
Emphasissupplied.
20Id.,citingPotencianov.Reynoso,449Phil.396,410(2003).
21SiaTio,etal.v.Abayata,etal.,578Phil.731,747(2008).
22PNBv.HeirsofEstanislaoandDeograciasMilitar,526Phil.788,796797(2006).
23Records,p.49.
24Id.at51.
25Supranote19.
26Id.at496.
27490Phil.179(2005).
28Id.at191.
29Id.at191192.
30Palonv.Nino,405Phil.670,682(2001).
31Rollo,pp.7981.
32Id.at79.
33FolderofExhibits,p.24.

5/7

8/9/2016

G.R.No.193038,March11,2015JOSEFINAV.NOBLEZA,Petitioner,v.SHIRLEYB.NUEGA,Respondent.:MARCH2015PHILIPPINESUPREME

Petitioner, v. JOSE S. DOMINGUEZ, ISIAS Q. VIDUA,

VICENTE M. BARRETO, JOSE M. SANTIAGO, JOSE
NASERIV
C.
DOLOJAN,
JUAN
FERNANDEZ,
HONORARIO DILAG, JR., FIDEL CORREA, ALICIA
MERCADO, LECIRA JUAREZ, ATTY. FULGENCIO
VIGARE, JR., ANGELITO U. SACRO, MILDRED
ESGUERRA, ANTONIO APALISOK, SALAMAN D.
MANGCA, DANILO S. SEGOBRE, EDMUNDO D. ENGAO,
P/SUPT. ROLAND FELIX, P/SUPT. JERRY SUMBAD,
P/INSP. GERRY HADUCA, P/INSP. ROBIN FUGIRAN,
COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (CDA),
BARTOLOME GALARITA, JR., WILFRE0O JIMENEZ,
HITLER UNTAL, JOEL JOHN PACTORES, ROLLY
CADORNA, RUDY ELIPSE, IBRAHIM LAHI, RODOLFO
BONIFACIO,JR.,ANECITOVIEJO,JR.,JONARDIRAN,
ANGELITO BALDONAZA, NIKKO DAJAY, ROLANDO
ASPA, JESON CABATINGAN, JOBERT UGANG
(SECURITY GUARDS), JOHN DOES (MEMBERS OF THE
ZAMBALES PROVINCIAL MOBILE GROUP OF THE
PHILIPPINENATIONALPOLICE),Respondent.

34

G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012, 675 SCRA 642, 667. Emphasis and underscoring
omitted.
35Emphasissupplied.
36Rollo,pp.4546.Citationsomitted.Underscoringintheoriginal.
37Id.at4849.

BacktoHome|BacktoMain

G.R. No. 178407, March 18, 2015 METROPOLITAN

BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. S.F.
NAGUIATENTERPRISES,INC.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 155405, March 18, 2015 THE HEIRS OF
EUGENIO LOPEZ, SR. NAMELY, OSCAR M. LOPEZ,
MANUEL M. LOPEZ AND PRESENTACION L. PSINAKIS,
Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE FRANCISCO
QUERUBIN,INHISCAPACITYASPRESIDINGJUDGEOF
THEREGIONALTRIALCOURTOFANTIPOLO,BRANCH
74,THEHEIRSOFALFONSOSANDOVALANDHISWIFE
ROSA RUIZ, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEYIN
FACT, MRS. IMELDA RIVERA, Respondents. G.R. No.
164092 HEIRS OF EUGENIO LOPEZ, Petitioners, v.
ALFONSO SANDOVAL AND ROMAN OZAETA, JR.,
Respondent.

QUICKSEARCH

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

G.R. No. 212635, March 25, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. CHARLIE SORIN Y
TAGAYLO,AccusedAppellant.

1957

1958

1959

1960

1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

G.R. No. 171127, March 11, 2015 NOEL

CASUMPANG, RUBY SANGAMIRANDA AND SAN JUAN
DEDIOSHOSPITAL,Petitioners,v.NELSONCORTEJO,
Respondent. G.R. No. 171217 DRA. RUBY SANGA
MIRANDA,
Petitioner,
v.
NELSON
CORTEJO,
Respondent G.R. No. 171228 SAN JUAN DE DIOS
HOSPITAL, Petitioner, v. NELSON CORTEJO,
Respondent.

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2013

2014

2015

2016

G.R.No.197115,March23,2015REPUBLICOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE, Petitioner, v. FEDERICO DACLAN,
JOSEFINA COLLADO AND HER HUSBAND FEDERICO
DACLAN, TEODORO DACLAN AND MINVILUZ DACLAN
AS SURVIVING HEIRS OF DECEASED JOSE DACLAN,
Respondents. [G.R. NO. 197267] FEDERICO
DACLAN,JOSEFINACOLLADO,TEODORODACLANAND
MINVILUZ DACLAN AS SURVIVING HEIRS OF
DECEASEDJOSEDACLAN,Petitioners,v.REPUBLICOF
THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
OF AGRICULTURE AND PROVINCE OF LA UNION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR,
Respondent.

MainIndicesoftheLibrary>

2012

Go!

G.R. No. 160728, March 11, 2015 CLT REALTY

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PHIL
VILLE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING CORPORATION,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (THROUGH THE
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL), AND THE
REGISTEROFDEEDSOFMETROMANILADISTRICTIII,
CALOOCANCITY,Respondent.
G.R. No. 193038, March 11, 2015 JOSEFINA V.
NOBLEZA, Petitioner, v. SHIRLEY B. NUEGA,
Respondent.
G.R. Nos. 21178990, March 17, 2015 DR. REY B.
AQUINO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 8261, March 11, 2015 JESSIE T.
CAMPUGANANDROBERTC.TORRES,Complainants,v.
ATTY. FEDERICO S. TOLENTINO, JR., ATTY. RENATO
G. CUNANAN, ATTY. DANIEL F. VICTORIO, JR., AND
ATTY. ELBERT T. QUILALA, Respondents. A.C. No.
8725JESSIET.CAMPUGANANDROBERTC.TORRES,
Complainants, v. ATTY. CONSTANTE P. CALUYA, JR.,
ANDATTY.ELBERTT.QUILALA,Respondent.
G.R. No. 206267, March 25, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. RONNIE BUAT
ALIASDATUSINSUAT,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 182886, March 09, 2015 SPOUSES
SALVADOR P. NORBERTE, JR. AND ELIZABETH S.
NORBERTE, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FELICISIMO G.
MEJIA AND ELVIRA C. MEJIA AND/OR THEIR HEIRS,
REPRESENTED
BY
ALEXIS
MEJIAQUERUBIN,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 169407, March 25, 2015 BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. AMADOR
DOMINGO,Respondent.
G.R.No.201248,March11,2015LETICIANAGUIT
AQUINO, MELVIN NAGUIT, ROMMEL NAGUIT, ELMA
NAGUITTAYAG,YSSELL.NAGUIT,ROSALINANAGUIT
AUMENTADO, RIZEL NAGUIT CUNANAN, CARIDAD
NAGUIT PARAJAS, MILLIE NAGUIT FLORENDO,

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015marchdecisions.php?id=317

6/7

8/9/2016

G.R.No.193038,March11,2015JOSEFINAV.NOBLEZA,Petitioner,v.SHIRLEYB.NUEGA,Respondent.:MARCH2015PHILIPPINESUPREME

MARNEL NAGUIT, EDUARDO NAGUIT, JOSE NAGUIT,

ZOILO NAGUIT, AND AMELIA NAGUIT DIZON,
REPRESENTED BY YSSEL L. NAGUIT, Petitioners, v.
CESAR B. QUIAZON, AMANDA QUIAZON, JOSE B.
QUIAZONANDREYNALDOB.QUIAZON,REPRESENTED
BYJAIMEB.QUIAZON,Respondent.
G.R.No.193890,March11,2015ESTANISLAOAND
AFRICA SINAMBAN, Petitioners, v. CHINA BANKING
CORPORATION,Respondent.
G.R. No. 191945, March 11, 2015 NATIONAL
POWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SOCORRO T.
POSADA, RENATO BUENO, ALICE BALIN, ADRIAN
TABLIZO, TEOFILO TABLIZO, AND LYDIA T. OLIVO,
SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS, ALFREDO M. OLIVO,
ALICIAO.SALAZAR,ANITAO.ORDONO,ANGELITAO.
LIM,ANDADELFAO.ESPINAS,Respondents.
G.R.No.175493,March25,2015REPUBLICOFTHE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF GABRIEL Q.
FERNANDEZ,Respondents.
G.R. No. 197546, March 23, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. BAYANI DE LEON,
ANTONIODELEON,DANILODELEONANDYOYONGDE
LEON,AccusedAppellants.
G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015 ABSCBN
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. FELIPE GOZON,
GILBERTO R. DUAVIT, JR., MARISSA L. FLORES,
JESSICA A. SOHO, GRACE DELA PEAREYES, JOHN
OLIVERT.MANALASTAS,JOHNDOESANDJANEDOES,
Respondents.
G.R.No.184355,March23,2015ARNULFOA.K.A.
ARNOLD JACABAN, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
G.R.No.179047,March11,2015SECURITIESAND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. SUBIC BAY
GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC. AND UNIVERSAL
INTERNATIONAL
GROUP
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,Respondents.

|Disclaimer|EmailRestrictions

Copyright19982016ChanRoblesPublishingCompany

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015marchdecisions.php?id=317

ChanRobles VirtualLawLibrary |chanrobles.com

RED

7/7