Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

November 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search Jurisprudence
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2012 > November

2012 Decisions > G.R. No. 168499 : Sps. Erosto Santiago and Nelsi
ChanRobles Professional
Santiago v. Mancer Villamor, et al.:
Review, Inc.

G.R. No. 168499 : Sps. Erosto Santiago and Nelsi Santiago v. Mancer
Villamor, et al.

SECOND DIVISION
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
Review G.R. No. 168499 : November 26, 2012

SPOUSES EROSTO SANTIAGO and NELSIE SANTIAGO,

Petitioners, v. MANCER VILLAMOR, CARLOS VILLAMOR, JOHN
VILLAMOR and DOMINGO VILLAMOR, JR., Respondents.

DECISION

BRION, J.:

We resolve the petition for review on certiorari 1 tiled by spouses Eros ςrνll

to Santiago and Nelsie Santiago (petitioners) to challenge the August

10, 2004 decision 2 and the June 8, 2005 resolution 3 of the Court of ςrνll

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 59112. The CA decision set aside the

May 28, 1997 decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San ςrνll

ChanRobles CPA Review Jacinto, Masbate, Branch 50, in Civil Case No. 201. The CA resolution

Online denied the petitioners' subsequent motion for reconsideration.

THE FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

In January 1982, 5 the spouses Domingo Villamor, Sr. and Trinidad ςrνll

Gutierrez Villamor (spouses Villamor, Sr.), the parents of Mancer

Villamor, Carlos Villamor and Domingo Villamor, Jr. (respondents) and
the grandparents of respondent John Villamor, mortgaged their 4.5-
hectare coconut land in Sta. Rosa, San Jacinto, Masbate, known as Lot
No. 1814, to the Rural Bank of San Jacinto (Masbate), Inc. (San
Jacinto Bank) as security for a P10,000.00 loan.

For non-payment of the loan, the San Jacinto Bank extrajudicially

foreclosed the mortgage, and, as the highest bidder at the public
auction, bought the land. When the spouses Villamor, Sr. failed to
redeem the property within the prescribed period, the San Jacinto
ChanRobles Special Bank obtained a final deed of sale in its favor sometime in 1991. The
Lecture Series San Jacinto Bank then offered the land for sale to any interested

buyer. 6 ςrνll

a. The Specific Performance Case

Since the respondents had been in possession and cultivation of the

land, they decided, together with their sister Catalina Villamor
Ranchez, to acquire the land from the San Jacinto Bank. The San
Jacinto Bank agreed with the respondents and Catalina to a
P65,000.00 sale, payable in installments. The respondents and
Catalina made four (4) installment payments of P28,000.00,
P5,500.00, P7,000.00 and P24,500.00 on November 4, 1991,

November 23, 1992, April 26, 1993 and June 8, 1994, respectively. 7 ςrνll

When the San Jacinto Bank refused to issue a deed of conveyance in

their favor despite full payment, the respondents and Catalina filed a
complaint against the San Jacinto Bank (docketed as Civil Case No.
200) with the RTC on October 11, 1994. The complaint was for
specific performance with damages.

The San Jacinto Bank claimed that it already issued a deed of

repurchase in favor of the spouses Villamor, Sr.; the payments made
by the respondents and Catalina were credited to the account of
Domingo, Sr. since the real buyers of the land were the spouses

Villamor, Sr. 8 ςrνll

In a February 10, 2004 decision, the RTC dismissed the specific

performance case. It found that the San Jacinto Bank acted in good
faith when it executed a deed of "repurchase" in the spouses Villamor,
Sr.s names since Domingo, Sr., along with the respondents and
Catalina, was the one who transacted with the San Jacinto Bank to

redeem the land. 9 ςrνll

The CA, on appeal, set aside the RTCs decision. 10 The CA found that ςrνll

the respondents and Catalina made the installment payments on their

own behalf and not as representatives of the spouses Villamor, Sr. The
San Jacinto Bank mistakenly referred to the transaction as a
"repurchase" when the redemption period had already lapsed and the
title had been transferred to its name; the transaction of the
respondents and Catalina was altogether alien to the spouses
Villamor, Sr.s loan with mortgage. Thus, it ordered the San Jacinto
Bank to execute the necessary deed of sale in favor of the
respondents and Catalina, and to pay P30,000.00 as attorneys

fees. 11 No appeal appears to have been taken from this decision.

ςrνll

b. The Present Quieting of Title Case

On July 19, 1994 (or prior to the filing of the respondents and
Catalinas complaint for specific performance, as narrated above), the

San Jacinto Bank issued a deed of sale in favor of Domingo, Sr. 12 On ςrνll

July 21, 1994, the spouses Villamor, Sr. sold the land to the

petitioners for P150,000.00. 13 ςrνll

After the respondents and Catalina refused the petitioners demand to

vacate the land, the petitioners filed on October 20, 1994 a complaint
for quieting of title and recovery of possession against the

respondents. 14 This is the case that is now before us. ςrνll

The respondents and Catalina assailed the San Jacinto Banks

execution of the deed of sale in favor of Domingo, Sr., claiming that
the respondents and Catalina made the installment payments on their

own behalf. 15 ςrνll

In its May 28, 1997 decision, 16 the RTC declared the petitioners as ςrνll

the legal and absolute owners of the land, finding that the petitioners
were purchasers in good faith; the spouses Villamor, Sr.s execution of
the July 21, 1994 notarized deed of sale in favor of the petitioners
resulted in the constructive delivery of the land. Thus, it ordered the
respondents to vacate and to transfer possession of the land to the

petitioners, and to pay P10,000.00 as moral damages. 17 ςrνll

On appeal, the CA, in its August 10, 2004 decision, found that the
petitioners action to quiet title could not prosper because the
petitioners failed to prove their legal or equitable title to the land. It
noted that there was no real transfer of ownership since neither the
spouses Villamor, Sr. nor the petitioners were placed in actual
possession and control of the land after the execution of the deeds of
sale. It also found that the petitioners failed to show that the
respondents and Catalinas title or claim to the land was invalid or
inoperative, noting the pendency of the specific performance case, at
that time on appeal with the CA. Thus, it set aside the RTC decision
and ordered the dismissal of the complaint, without prejudice to the

outcome of the specific performance case. 18 ςrνll

When the CA denied 19 ςrνll the motion for reconsideration 20 ςrνll that

followed, the petitioners filed the present Rule 45 petition.

THE PETITION
civil lawyer
The petitioners argue that the spouses Villamor, Sr.s execution of the

villamor for rent July 21, 1994 deed of sale in the petitioners favor was equivalent to
delivery of the land under Article 1498 of the Civil Code; the
court case 2nder petitioners are purchasers in good faith since they had no knowledge
of the supposed transaction between the San Jacinto Bank and the
legal case law respondents and Catalina; and the respondents and Catalinas
possession of the land should not be construed against them
transfer santiago
(petitioners) since, by tradition and practice in San Jacinto, Masbate,
the children use their parents property.

transfer santiago THE CASE FOR THE RESPONDENTS

heth santiago The respondents and respondent John submit that they hold legal title
to the land since they perfected the sale with the San Jacinto Bank as
court and judge early as November 4, 1991, the first installment payment, and are in
actual possession of the land; the petitioners are not purchasers in
judge justice
good faith since they failed to ascertain why the respondents were in
possession of the land.
laws of motion
THE ISSUE

The case presents to us the issue of whether the CA committed a

judge justice
reversible error when it set aside the RTC decision and dismissed the
laws of motion petitioners complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession.

civil land OUR RULING

The petition lacks merit.

civil lawsuit
Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any
house auctions
cloud, doubt or uncertainty affecting title to real property. The
plaintiffs must show not only that there is a cloud or contrary interest

over the subject real property, 21 but that they have a valid title to ςrνll

November-2012 it. 22 Worth stressing, in civil cases, the plaintiff must establish his
ςrνll

Jurisprudence cause of action by preponderance of evidence; otherwise, his suit will

not prosper. 23 ςrνll

A.C. No. 9608 : Maria

Victoria B. Ventura v. Atty. The petitioners anchor their claim over the disputed land on the July
Danilo S. Samson 21, 1994 notarized deed of sale executed in their favor by the spouses
Villamor, Sr. who in turn obtained a July 19, 1994 notarized deed of
Adm. Case No. 9058 : sale from the San Jacinto Bank. On the other hand, the respondents
Robert Victor G. Searles, Jr. and respondent John claim title by virtue of their installment
v. Atty. Na. Saniata Liwliwa payments to the San Jacinto Bank from November 4, 1991 to June 8,
V. Gonzales-Alzate 1994 and their actual possession of the disputed land.

After considering the parties evidence and arguments, we agree with

A.M. No. P-08-2441 :
the CA that the petitioners failed to prove that they have any legal or
Office of the Court
equitable title over the disputed land.
Administrator v. Former
Clerk of Court Angelita A. Execution of the deed of sale only a prima facie presumption of
Jamora and Staff Assistant delivery.
II Ma. Luisa B. Geronimo,
both of the Municipal Trial Article 1477 of the Civil Code recognizes that the "ownership of the

Court, Caita, Rizal thing sold shall be transferred to the vendee upon the actual or
constructive delivery thereof." Related to this article is Article 1497

A.M. No. P-12-3097 : which provides that "the thing sold shall be understood as delivered,

Vicsal Development when it is placed in the control and possession of the vendee."

Corporation v. Atty. Jennifer

With respect to incorporeal property, Article 1498 of the Civil Code
H. Dela Cruz, etc., et al.
lays down the general rule: the execution of a public instrument "shall
be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the object of the
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2244 :
contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot
Office of the Court
clearly be inferred." However, the execution of a public instrument
Administrator v. Judge
gives rise only to a prima facie presumption of delivery, which is
Lyliha A. Aquino, Regional
negated by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the
Trial Court, Branch 4,
land sold. 24 "A person who does not have actual possession of the
Tuguegarao City, Cagayan
ςrνll

thing sold cannot transfer constructive possession by the execution

A.M. No. RTJ-12-2334 : and delivery of a public instrument." 25 ςrνll

Ernesto Hebron v. Judge

In this case, no constructive delivery of the land transpired upon the
Matias M. Garcia II,
execution of the deed of sale since it was not the spouses Villamor, Sr.
Regional Trial Court, Branch
but the respondents who had actual possession of the land. The
19, Bacoor City, Cavite
presumption of constructive delivery is inapplicable and must yield to
the reality that the petitioners were not placed in possession and
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336 :
control of the land.
Jocelyn C. Talens-Dabon v.
Judge Hermin E. Arceo, The petitioners are not purchasers in good faith.
RTC, Br. 43, San Fernando,
Pampanga The petitioners can hardly claim to be purchasers in good faith.

"A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property without notice
G.R. No. 152642 : Hon.
that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and
Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, et
pays its fair price before he has notice of the adverse claims and
al. v. Rey Salac, et al./Hon.
interest of another person in the same property." 26 However, where
Patricia A. Sto. Tomas, etc.,
ςrνll

the land sold is in the possession of a person other than the vendor,
et al. v. Hon. Jose G.
the purchaser must be wary and must investigate the rights of the
Paneda, etc., et al./Republic
actual possessor; without such inquiry, the buyer cannot be said to be
of the Philippines, etc., et
al. v. Philippine Association in good faith and cannot have any right over the property. 27 ςrνll

of Service Exporters, Inc.

(PASEI)/Becmen
Exporter and
Inc. v. Spouses Simplicio
and Mila Cuaresma,
al./Spouses Simplicio and
Mila Cuaresma etc. v. White
Falcon Services, Inc., et al.
G.R. No. 156296 : Dennis
Q. Martel v. Salvador E.
In this case, the spouses Villamor, Sr. were not in possession of the
Service
land. The petitioners, as prospective vendees, carried the burden of
Promotion,
investigating the rights of the respondents and respondent John who
were then in actual possession of the land. The petitioners cannot
et
take refuge behind the allegation that, by custom and tradition in San
Jacinto, Masbate, the children use their parents' property, since they
offered no proof supporting their bare allegation. The burden of
proving the status of a purchaser in good faith lies upon the party
asserting that status and cannot be discharged by reliance on the
legal presumption of good faith. 28 The petitioners failed to discharge ςrνll

Kerr this burden.

Lastly, since the specific performance case already settled the

G.R. No. 157649 :
respondents and respondent John's claim over the disputed land, the
Arabelle J. Mendoza v.
dispositive portion of the CA decision (dismissing the complaint
Republic of the Philippines,
without prejudice to the outcome of the specific performance case 29 )
et al.
ςrνll

is modified to reflect this fact; we thus dismiss for lack of merit the

G.R. No. 159594 : complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession. ςηαοblενιrυαllαωlιbrαr

Republic of the Philippines

WHEREFORE, we hereby DENY the petition and ORDER the
v. Court of Appeals, et al.
DISMISSAL of Civil Case No. 201 before the Regional Trial Court of
San Jacinto, Masbate, Branch 50.
G.R. No. 160453 :
Republic of the Philippines Costs against the petitioners. ςrαlαωlιbrαr

v. Arcadio Ivan A. Santos

III, et al. SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:
G.R. Nos. 162144-54 :
People of the Philippines v.
* Designated as Additional Member in lieu of Associate
Hon. Ma. Theresa L. Dela
Torre Yadao, etc., et al. Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe per Special Order No.
1377 dated November22, 2012.

G.R. No. 166259 : Land

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 9-22.
Bank of the Philippines v.
ςrνll

Honeycomb Farms 2 Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente,

Corporation
ςrνll

and concurred in by Associate Justices Eugenio S. labitoria

and Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court); id
G.R. No. 167880 : Jack
at26-34.
Arroyo v. Bocago Inland
Dev't. Corp (BIDECO), et 3 Id. at 36-39.
ςrνll

al.

4 Penned by Judge Manuel S. Pecson; Id. at 83-86.

ςrνll

G.R. No. 168499 : Sps.

Erosto Santiago and Nelsi 5 Id. at 193. "January 1982" in other parts of the rollo; id.
ςrνll

Santiago v. Mancer
at 83, 110.
Villamor, et al.
6 Id. at 175.
ςrνll

G.R. No. 169380 :

Fiorello R. Jose v. Roberto 7 Id. at 136-137.
ςrνll

Alfuerto, et al.
8 Id. at 193.
ςrνll

G.R. No. 171579 : Lily Sy

9 Id. at 51-57.
v. Hon. Secretary of Justice ςrνll

Ma. Merceditas N.
10 Decision of December 20, 2005.
Gutierrez, Benito Fernandez ςrνll

Go, Berthold LIm, Jennifer

11 CA-G.R. CV No. 84279; rollo, pp. 192-199.
Sy, Glenn Ben Tiak Sy and ςrνll

Merry Sy
12 Id. at 70. ςrνll

G.R. No. 172471 :

13 Id. at 71.
Antonio Perla v. Mirasol
ςrνll

Baring and Randy B. Perla

14 Id. at 72-77. ςrνll

G.R. No. 172778 : 15 Id. at 78-82. ςrνll

Sabiniano Dumayag v.
People of the Philippines 16 At the joint pre-trial of the two cases, the RTC, upon
ςrνll

motion of the petitioners counsel for summary judgment in

G.R. No. 173773 :
the quieting of title case, ordered the parties to submit
Paramount Insurance
their memoranda on whether the cases could be decided
Corporation v. Spouses
based on the pleadings under Rule 19 of the then Rules of
Yves and Maria Teresa
Court. The RTC later rendered a summary judgment in the
Remonduelaz
quieting of title case. Id. at 83, 172.

G.R. No. 174077 : Ellice 17 Id. at 83-86. ςrνll

Agro-Industrial
Corporation, represented 18 Supra note 2. ςrνll

by its Chairman of the

Board of Directors and 19 Supra note 3. ςrνll

President, Raul E. Gala v.

Rodel T. Young, et al. 20 Rollo, pp. 40-49. ςrνll

21 Civil Code, Article 476 provides: "Whenever there is a

G.R. No. 175481 : ςrνll

Dionisio F. Auza, Jr., et al. v. cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by
MOL Philippines, Inc., et al. reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or
proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in
G.R. No. 175792 : Ruben truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
C. Magtoto and Artemia unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an
Magtoto v. Court of Appeals action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet
and Leonila M. Dela Cruz the title.

An action may also be brought to prevent a

G.R. No. 176172 : Efren
cloud from being cast upon title to real property
G. Amit v. Commission on
or any interest therein."
Audit, Regional Office No.
VI, Office of the 22 ςrνll Civil Code, Article 477 provides: "The plaintiff must
Ombudsman (Visayas), and
have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real
the Secretary of Agriculture
property which is the subject matter of the action. He need
not be in possession of said property."
G.R. No. 176791 :
Communities Cagayan, Inc. See also Top Management Programs
v. Sps. Arsenio (deceased) Corporation v. Fajardo, G.R. No. 150462, June
and Angeles Nanol, et al. 15, 2011, 652 SCRA 18, 33; and Secuya v. De
Selma, 383 Phil. 126, 134 (2000).
G.R. No. 176834 :
23 Bontilao v. Gerona, G.R. No. 176675, September 15,
Gotesco Properties, Inc. v. ςrνll

Sps. Edna and Alberto 2010, 630 SCRA 561, 572.

Moral
24 Beatingo v. Gasis, G.R. No. 179641, February 9, 2011,
ςrνll

G.R. No. 177392 : Paz 642 SCRA 539, 549; and Ten Forty Realty and Devt. Corp.
Del Rosario Vs.Felix H. v. Cruz, 457 Phil. 603, 615 (2003).
LImcaoco, Z. Rojas,
25 Estelita Villamar v. Balbino Mangaoil, G.R. No. 188661,
Leandrito L. Rojas, et al. v. ςrνll

The Republic of the April 11, 2012; and Asset Privatization Trust v. T.J.
Philippines, represented by Enterprises, G.R. No. 167195, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA
the Director of Lands Paz 481, 487.
Del Rosario, and Felix
26 Heirs of Romana Saves v. Heirs of Escolastico Saves,
Limcaoco
ςrνll

G.R. No. 152866, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 236, 253;

G.R. No. 177657 : Sonia and Chua v. Soriano, G.R. No. 150066, April 13, 2007, 521

V. Seville v. Commission on SCRA 68, 78.

Audit, Regional Office VI,

27 Tio v. Abayata, G.R. No. 160898, June 27, 2008, 556
Iloilo City
ςrνll

SCRA 175, 188-189; and PNB v. Heirs of Estanislao and

G.R. No. 178431 : V.C. Deogracias Militar, 526 Phil. 788, 795 (2006).

Ponce Company, Inc. v.

28 Pudadera v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 170073, October 18,
Municipality of Parañaque,
ςrνll

2010, 633 SCRA 332, 351; and Rufloe v. Burgos, G.R. No.
et al.
143573, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 264, 273.

G.R. No. 178622 : 29 Rollo, p. 43. ςrνll

Luciano Ladano v. Felino

Neri, et al.

G.R. No. 178789 :

Natividad Lim v. National
Power Corporation, Sps. Back to Home | Back to Main

Roberto Ll. Arcinue and

Arabela Arcinue

G.R. No. 179031 : People

of the Philippines v.
Benjamin Soria y Gomez

G.R. No. 179754 :

Joaquin G. Chung, Jr., et al.
v. Jack Daniel Mondragon,
et al.

G.R. No. 180076 :

Dionisio Manaquil, et al. v.
Roberto Moico

G.R. No. 180705 :

Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr.
v. Republic of the Phillipines

G.R. No. 180804 : Land

Bank of the Philippines v.
Sps. Rokaya and Sulaiman
Bona

G.R. No. 181052 :

Rodolfo Belbis, Jr. y
Competente and Alberto
Brucales v. People of the
Philippines

G.R. No. 181664 : Land

Bank of the Philippines v.
Crispin D. Ramos and
Department of Public Works
and Highways

G.R. No. 182475 : Lenn

Morales v. Metropolitan
Bank and Trust Company

G.R. No. 183026 : Nestor

N. Padalhin, et al. v. Nelson
D. Laviña

G.R. No. 183553 : Diageo

Philippines, Inc. v.
Commissioner of Internal
Revenue

G.R. No. 183774 :

Philippine Banking
Corporation v. Arturo Dy, et
al.

G.R. No. 183827 : People

of the Philippines v. Enerio
Ending y Onyong

G.R. No. 184056 : People

of the Philippines v. George
Eyam y Watang

G.R. No. 184181 : People

of the Philippines v. Joseph
Robelo y Tungala

G.R. No. 184601 : People

of the Philippines v. Marcial
M. Malicdem

G.R. No. 185386 : People

of the Philippines v.
Bernabe Aneslag y
Andrada, et al.

G.R. No. 186463 : People

of the Philippines v. William
Mangune y Del Rosario

G.R. No. 188225 : Shirley

F. Torres v. Imelda Perez
and Rodrigo Perez / Shirley
F. Torres v. Imelda Perez
and Rodrigo Perez

G.R. No. 189984 :

Richard B. Lopez v. Diana
Jeanne Lopez, et al.

G.R. No. 191193 : People

of the Philippines v.
Godofredo Mariano y
Feliciano and Allan Doringo
y Gunan

G.R. No. 191761 :

Cagayan Electric Power and
Light Co., Inc. v. City of
Cagayan de Oro

G.R. No. 192076 :

Michelle T. Tuazon v. Bank
of Commerce, Raul B. De
Mesa and Mario J. Padilla

G.R. No. 192108 : Sps.

Socrates Sy and Cely Sy v.
Andok's Litson Corporation

G.R. No. 192221 :

Casimira S. Dela Cruz v.
Commission on Elections
and John Lloyd M. Pacete

G.R. No. 192294 : Great

White Shark Enterprises,
Inc. v. Danilo M. Caralde,
Jr.

G.R. No. 192330 : Arnold

James M. Ysidoro v. People
of the Philippines

G.R. No. 192486 :

Rupeta Cano Vda. De Viray
and Jesus Carlo Gerafd
Viray v. Spouses Jose Usi
and Amelita Usi

G.R. No. 192951 :

Aldersgate College, Inc.,
Arsenio L. Mendoza,
Ignacio A. Galindez, Wilson
E. Sagadraca, and Filipinas
Menzen v. Junifen F.
Gauuan, Artemio M.
Villaluz, Sr., Teresita
Arreola, Fotunata Andaya,
salvador C. Aquino, Roberto
M. Tugawin and Jose O.
Rupac, respondents;
Aldersgate College Inc., Dr.
Willie A. Damasco, et al.,
respondents-intervenors

G.R. No. 192975 :

Republic of the Philippines,
rep. by the Regional
Executive Director of the
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources,
Regional Office No. 3 v.
Roman Catholic Archbishop
of Manila/Samahang
Kabuhayan ng San Lorenzo
KKK, Inc., rep. by its vice
President Zenaida Turla v.
Roman Catholic Archbishop
of Manila

G.R. No. 195168 :

Benjamin C. Millan v.
Wallem Maritime Services,
Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 196877 : Eloisa

R. Narciso v. Estelita P.
Garcia

G.R. No. 197466 : Joel P.

Quino, et al. v. Commission
on Elections and Ritchie R.
Wagas

G.R. No. 197598 : Mirant

(Philippines) Corporation v.
Danilo A. Sario

G.R. No. 198050 : People

of the Philippines v. Joel
Artajo y Alimangohan

G.R. No. 198770 : Aurelia

Gua-an and Sonia Gua-an
Mamon v. Gertrudes
Quirino represented by
Elmer Quirino

G.R. No. 199433 :

Isabelita P. Gravides v.
Commission on Elections
and Pedro C. Borjal

G.R. No. 199875 : People

of the Philippines v. Edwin
Isla y Rossell
 G.R. No. 200238 :
Philippine Savings Bank (PS
Bank), et al. v. Senate
Impeachment Court, etc.,
et al.

G.R. No. 200792 : People

of the Philippines v. Neil B.
Colorado

G.R. No. 200868 : Anita

A. Ledda v. Bank of the
Philippine Islands

G.R. No. 201587 : People

of the Philippines v. Victor
Lansangan

Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz