Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Manotok V CLT Digest
Manotok V CLT Digest
THIRD DIVISION
MANOTOK REALTY, INC. and G.R. No. 123346
MANOTOK ESTATE
CORPORATION,
Petitioners,
- versus -
CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------
---x
The petition in this case was filed by Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok
The petition was filed by Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. against Jose
B. Dimson (now deceased), represented by his surviving spouse and children, and
the Registry of Deeds of Malabon, challenging the Joint Decision[3] dated May 30,
1997 and Resolution dated July 16, 1998 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
The petition here was filed by Sto. Nio Kapitbahayan Association, Inc.
is the validity of the parties titles over portions of land known as the Maysilo
Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 994 of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City. It
is this same OCT No. 994 from which the titles of the parties were purportedly
derived.
We shall state the antecedents of these cases separately considering their
peculiar circumstances.
material allegations of the complaint, alleging that Jose B. Dimsons title (TCT No.
R-15166) was irregularly issued, hence void; and that consequently, the titles of
Estelita Hipolito (TCT No. R-17994) and CLT Realty (TCT No. 177013) derived
assert ownership of the parcel of land being claimed by CLT Realty, alleging that
they acquired the same from the awardees or vendees of the National Housing
Authority.
During the pre-trial conference, the trial court, upon agreement of the
parties, approved the creation of a commission composed of three commissioners
tasked to resolve the conflict in their respective titles. On July 2, 1993, the trial
court issued an Order[7] defining the issues to be resolved by the commissioners,
thus:
2. Whether or not the property covered by the title of the plaintiff and the
property covered by the titles of the defendants overlap. [8]
The commissioners chosen were Engr. Avelino L. San Buenaventura
(nominated by CLT Realty), Engr. Teodoro I. Victorino (nominated by Manotok
Corporations), and Engr. Ernesto S. Erive (chosen by the two commissioners and
the parties). Significantly, Engr. Ernesto Erive is the Chief of the Surveys
Division, Land Management Bureau, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), Quezon City.[9] On July 2, 1993, the three took their
oaths of office in open court.
The trial court then scheduled the hearing of the two Reports. CLT Realty
filed its objections to the Minority Report. For its part, Manotok Corporations
submitted their comment/objections to the Majority Report.
On February 8, 1994, the trial court issued an Order directing the parties to
file their respective memoranda to enable this court to adopt wholly or partially
the memorandum for either as the judgment herein, x x x.[12]
CLT Realty likewise filed its Memorandum on April 15, 1994 praying that
the Majority Report be approved in toto, and that judgment be rendered pursuant
thereto.
In its Order of April 22, 1994, the trial court considered the case submitted
for decision.[13]
On May 10, 1994, the trial court rendered its Decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
in favor of plaintiff (CLT Realty) and against defendants (Manotok
Corporations) as follows:
SO ORDERED.
which the trial court adopted in its Decision, are quoted as follows:
a. Records show that Maysilo Estate was surveyed under Plan No.
Psu-2345 on September 8 to 27, October 4 to 21 and November 17 to 18,
1991;
h. The original copy of OCT-994 does not contain the pages where
Lot 26 and some other lots are supposedly inscribed;
i. TCT No. 4211 was later cancelled by TCT No. 5261 in the name
of Francisco J. Gonzales which was later cancelled by TCT No. 35486 in
the names of Jose Leon Gonzales, Consuelo Susana Gonzales, Juana
Francisca Gonzales, Maria Clara Gonzales, Francisco Felipe Gonzales
and Concepcion Maria Gonzales;
n. The three (3) separate lots covered by TCT Nos. 4210 and
4211 which allegedly were the result of the subdivision of Lot 26
were not designated or identified as Lot 26-A, Lot 26-B and Lot 26-C
to conform with existing practice;
q. TCT Nos. 1368 thru 1374 are written in the English language
and the technical descriptions of the lots covered therein indicate
the original survey of the mother title as September 8-27, October 4-
21 and November 17-18, 1911 which dates are not found in the
mother title TCT No. 35486 or the antecedent titles TCT No. 5261 and
4211;
d. That TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 which allegedly was the result
of a subdivision of Lot 26 should not have been issued without a
subdivision plan approved by the Director of Lands or the Chief of
the General Land Registration Office. Republic Act No. 496 which
took effect on November 6, 1902, particularly Section 58 thereof,
provided that the Registry of Deeds shall not enter the transfer
certificate to the grantee until a plan of such land showing all the
portions or lots into which it has been subdivided, and the technical
description of each portion or lot, have been verified and approved
by the Director of Lands and as corroborated by Section 44,
Paragraph 2, and that the plan has been approved by the Chief of the
General Land Registration Office, or by the Director of Lands as
provided in Section fifty-eight of this Act, the Registry of Deeds may
issue new certificates of title for any lot in accordance with said
subdivision plan;
For its part, CLT Realty filed a motion to amend/correct the dispositive portion of
the above Decision alleging that TCT Nos. 4210 and 4211 mentioned therein are
the body of the Decision, the correct numbers of the titles ordered to be cancelled
should be indicated. In its Order dated May 30, 1994, the trial court granted the
motion, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Amend/Correct
Judgment dated May 23, 1994 filed by counsel for plaintiff is granted.
Accordingly, the first paragraph of the dispositive portion of the Decision of
this Court dated May 10, 1994 is amended as follows:
xxx
1. Ordering the annulment and cancellation of Transfer Certificates
of Title Nos. 7528, 7762, 8012, 9866, C-17272, 21107, 21485, 26405,
26406, 26407, 33904, 34255, C-35267, 41956, 53268, 55897, T-121428,
163902 and 165119 in the name of defendant Manotok Realty, Inc. and
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-232568 in the name of defendant
Manotok Estate Corporation of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City
which encroach on plaintiffs 201,288 square meters of Lot No. 26 of the
Maysilo Estate, Caloocan City.
x x x.
SO ORDERED.
The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated September 28, 1995 in CA-G.R.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Manotok Corporations motion for reconsideration was denied by the
Appellate Court in its Resolution dated January 8, 1996.
Hence, the present petition of Manotok Corporations. They allege in essence
that the Court of Appeals erred:
1. In upholding the trial courts Decision which decided the case on
the basis of the Commissioners Report; and
2. In giving imprimatur to the trial courts Decision even though the
latter overlooked relevant facts recited in the Minority Report of
Commissioner Victorino and in the comment of petitioners on the Majority
Report of Commissioners San Buenaventura and Erive, detailing the legal
and factual basis which positively support the validity of petitioners title
and ownership of the disputed parcels of land.
2. G.R. No. 134385
(Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc., petitioner, vs. Heirs of Jose
B. Dimson, represented by his compulsory heirs: his surviving
spouse, Roqueta R. Dimson and their children, Norma and Celso
Tirado, Alson and Virginia Dimson, Linda and Carlos Lagman,
Lerma and Rene Policar, and Esperanza R. Dimson; and Registry
of Deeds of Malabon, respondents)
Records show that on December 18, 1979, Jose B. Dimson filed with the
then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch 33, Caloocan City a complaint for
recovery of possession and damages against Araneta Institute of Agriculture,
Inc. (Araneta Institute), docketed as Civil Case No. C-8050. Dimson alleged in
his amended complaint that he is the absolute owner of a parcel of land located at
Barrio Potrero, Malabon, Metro Manila with an area of 50 hectares of the Maysilo
Estate, covered by TCT No. R-15169 of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City;
that he discovered that his land has been illegally occupied by Araneta Institute;
that the latter has no legal and valid title to the land; and that Araneta Institute
refused to vacate the land and remove its improvements thereon despite his
repeated demands.
In its answer, Araneta Institute admitted occupying the disputed land by
constructing some buildings thereon and subdividing portions thereof, claiming
that it is the absolute owner
of the land by virtue of TCT No. 737[15] and TCT No. 13574.[16] It further alleged
that Dimsons title of the subject land is void, hence, his complaint has no cause of
action.
On May 28, 1993, the trial court rendered a Decision[17] in favor of Dimson,
thus:
All claims of all the intervenors claiming rights against the title of
plaintiff Dimson TCT R-15169 are hereby dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[18]
Araneta Institute interposed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 41883.
On May 30, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision affirming
the Decision of the trial court in favor of Dimson.
SO ORDERED.
In its Decision, the Appellate Court ruled that the title of Araneta Institute to the
disputed land is a nullity, holding that:
We now proceed to CA-G.R. CV No. 41883.
Another point, Aranetas TCT No. 13574 (Exh. 6) and 21343 are
both derived from OCT No. 994 registered on May 3, 1917, which was
declared null and void by the Supreme Court in Metropolitan Waterworks
and Sewerage System vs. Court of Appeals , 215 SCRA 783 (1992). The
Supreme Court ruled: Where two certificates of title purport to include the
same land, the earlier in date prevails x x x. Since the land in question has
already been registered under OCT No. 994 dated April 19, 1917,
the subsequent registration of the same land on May 3, 1919 is null and
void.
Araneta Institute then filed the present petition, ascribing to the Court of Appeals a
long list of factual errors which may be stated substantially as follows:
3. G.R. No. 148767
(Sto. Nino Kapitbahayan Association, Inc., petitioner, vs. CLT
Realty Development Corporation, respondent)
CLT Realty is the registered owner of a parcel of land known as Lot 26 of
the Maysilo Estate in Caloocan City, covered by TCT No. T-177013.[21] It
acquired the property on December 10, 1998 from the former registered owner
Estelita I. Hipolito under TCT No. R-17994, who in turn, acquired it from Jose B.
Dimson.
On the other hand, Sto. Nio Kapitbahayan Association, Inc. (Sto. Nio Association),
petitioner, is the registered owner of two parcels of land likewise located in
Caloocan City, covered by TCT Nos. T-158373 and T-158374. By virtue of these
titles, Sto. Nio Association occupied and claimed ownership over a portion of Lot
26.
Thus, on July 9, 1992, CLT Realty filed with the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 121, Caloocan City a complaint for annulment of titles[22] and recovery of
possession with damages against Sto. Nio Association, docketed as Civil Case No.
C-15491. In its complaint, CLT Realty alleged that based on the technical
descriptions on the titles of Sto. Nio Association, an overlapping exists between
their respective titles; and that the titles of Sto. Nio Association are void as they are
derived from TCT No. 4211,[23] a forged and fictitious title.
In its answer, Sto. Nio Association denied the material allegations of the complaint
and asserted that its members have been in possession of the disputed lots prior to
1987. The area had been identified by the government as slum and blighted.
At the pre-trial conference, the parties entered into a stipulation of facts,
thus:
(1) Both parties admit that the defendant (Sto. Nio Association) is
presently occupying the property covered by TCT Nos. 158373 and
158374 located at Barrio Baesa, Caloocan City; and
(2) Both parties admit that the plaintiff (CLT) is also the registered
owner of the same properties being occupied by the defendant and
covered by TCT No. 177013 of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan
City.
Resolving the issue of whose title to the disputed land is valid, the trial
court, on September 28, 1995, rendered a Decision in favor of Sto. Nio Association
and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. T-177013 in the name of CLT Realty.
However, upon motion for reconsideration by CLT Realty, the trial court, in
its Amended Decision dated February 12, 1996, granted the motion, rendered
judgment in favor of CLT Realty, and ordered the cancellation of TCT Nos. T-
158373 and T-158374, both in the name of Sto. Nio Association, thus:
The conflict stems from the fact that the plaintiffs and defendants
titles overlap each other, hence, a determination of the respective origins
of such titles is of utmost importance.
TCT No. T-177013 in the name of the plaintiff was derived from R-
17994 T-89 in the name of Estelita Hipolito which title can trace its origin
from OCT 994. The boundaries of OCT 994 known as Lot No. 26 of the
Maysilo Estate are the same as that of the plaintiffs titles.
On the other hand, TCT Nos. T-158373 and T-158374, both in the
name of the defendants, are the latest in a series of titles which descend
from TCT No. 4211. A trace of the history of TCT No. 4211 reveals that it
was succeeded by TCT No. 5261 which was in turn succeeded by TCT
No. 35486. TCT No. 35486 was allegedly subdivided into seven lots
covered by TCT Nos. 1368 to 1374. One or two of these subdivided lots
were the predecessors of the defendants titles.
There is pervasive evidence that TCT No. 4211 could not have
been a true derivative of OCT No. 994.
Fourthly, the tie points used in the mother lot were not
adopted by the alleged derivative titles particularly TCT Nos. 1368 to
1374, the immediate predecessors of the defendants titles. The pivotal
role of tie points cannot be brushed aside as a change thereof could result
to the shifting of positions of the derivative lots in relation to the mother lot.
Consequently, overlapping could take place as in fact it did when the
defendants titles overlapped that of CLT at the northwestern portion of the
latters property.
xxx
The above Amended Decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its
Decision dated May 23, 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. 52549, thus:
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the appealed Decision,
We AFFIRM the same. Without pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[26]
Hence, the present petition based on the following assigned errors:
1. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE AMENDED DECISION OF THE COURT A
QUO.
2. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
IS PREMISED ON THE MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS OF THE
COURT A QUO.
3. ASSUMING ARGUENDO, WITHOUT NECESSARILY
ADMITTING THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANT ARE
UNAVAILING, THERE ARE SUPERVENING FACTS AND EVENTS,
SHOULD THIS HONORABLE COURT CONSIDER THE SAME, THAT
WOULD WARRANT THE REVERSAL OF THE CHALLENGED
DECISION AND WILL IMPEL A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. [27]
In sum, the three instant petitions assail the validity of: (1) TCT No. R-15169 of
the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City in the name of Jose B. Dimson,
covering Lot 25-A-2 of the Maysilo Estate;[28] and (2) TCT No. T-177013 of the
same Registry of Deeds in the name of CLT Development Corporation,
covering Lot 26, also of the Maysilo Estate.[29]
In the meantime, petitioners Manotok filed with this Court two separate
Manifestations stating that a (1) Report of the Fact-Finding Committee dated
August 28, 1997 composed of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Land Registration
Authority and the Office of the Solicitor General, and (2) Senate Committee
Report No. 1031 dated May 25, 1998 were issued by the DOJ and the Senate. Both
reports conclude that there is only one OCT No. 994issued, transcribed and
registered on May 3, 1917.
Respondent CLT Realty, on the other hand, maintains that the factual findings of
the commissioners are supported by evidence. The contending parties were
accorded due process because they submitted their respective evidence to the
commissioners in the course of the proceedings. The same evidence became the
basis of their Majority and Minority Reports. The two Reports were later heard and
passed upon by the trial court.
Respondent CLT Realty adds that the Decision of the trial court, upheld by the
Court of Appeals, complies with the requirement of Section 14, Article VIII of the
Constitution since it clearly and distinctly expresses the facts and the law upon
which it is based.
II. G.R. 134385
Petitioner Araneta Institute basically submits that the case of MWSS vs. CA[31] cited
in the Decision dated May 30, 1997 of the Court of Appeals is inapplicable to the
present case. In that case, it upheld TCT No. 15167 of Dimson derived from OCT
994 issued and registered earlier, or on April 19, 1917. Whereas, the MWSS title
was derived from OCT 994 issued and registered later, or on May 3, 1917. The
Appellate Court erred when it relied on MWSS vs. CA.[32]
On the other hand, respondents heirs of Dimson counter that the validity of
Dimsons title, TCT No. 15167, has been upheld by this Court in MWSS case.
Like petitioner Araneta Institute in G.R. No. 134385 and petitioners Manotok
Corporations in G.R. No. 123346, petitioner Sto. Nio Association contends that
there are supervening facts and events that transpired after the trial court rendered
its Amended Decision that if considered will result in a different conclusion. These
are the two Reports of the DOJ and Senate Fact-Finding Committees that there is
only one OCT No. 994 issued on May 3, 1917. Thus, with a new trial, and with the
presentation of these Reports as evidence, it could be shown that the titles of Jose
Dimson and CLT Realty are void.
At the outset, it bears stressing that under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, our jurisdiction over cases brought to us from the Court of
Appeals is limited to reviewing and correcting errors of law committed by said
court. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, it is not our function to
review factual issues and examine, evaluate or weigh the probative value of the
evidence presented by the parties.[33] We are not bound to analyze and weigh all
over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[34]
field of geodetic engineering. The very reason why commissioners were appointed
by the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, was precisely to make an
evaluation and analysis of the titles in conflict with each other. Given their
to determine which of the titles is valid. Thus, the trial court may rely on their
It bears stressing that the parties opted to submit the case for decision on the bases,
among others, of their respective objections/comments on the commissioners
reports.
We note further that while petitioners assail the trial courts Decision as
being premature, however, they also assert that the said court should have adopted
We noted in the beginning of this Decision that the issue in all these three
(3) cases involves the validity of the parties overlapping titles. The titles of the
respondents in these cases were derived from OCT No. 994 of the Registry of
Deeds of Caloocan City registered on April 19, 1917. The validity of such mother
title has already been upheld by this Court in G.R. No. 103558, MWSS vs. Court of
We cannot delve anymore into the correctness of the Decision of this Court
in MWSS. The said Decision, confirming the validity of OCT No. 994 issued on
April 19, 1917 from which the titles of the respondents in the cases at bar were
derived, has long become final and executory. Nothing is more settled in law than
that once a judgment attains finality it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may
no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of
whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by
the highest court of the land.[38]
considerations of public policy and sound practice, and that, at the risk of
occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must become final at some
definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus
setting to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the
enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order by settling
period, the winning party likewise has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of
the resolution of his case. We held that "a final judgment vests in the prevailing
party a right recognized and protected by law under the due process clause of
equitable that the government should recognize and protect, and of which the
cases, the winning parties, respondents herein, must not be deprived of the fruits of
a final verdict.
petitioners herein. Certainly, such committee reports cannot override the Decisions
of the trial courts and the Court of Appeals upholding the validity of respondents
titles in these cases. The said Decisions were rendered after the opposing parties
have been accorded due process. It bears stressing that the courts have the
constitutional duty to adjudicate legal disputes properly brought before them. The
DOJ and Senate, or any other agencies of the Government for that matter, have
clearly distinguishable roles from that of the Judiciary. Just as overlapping of titles
Jr., et al. vs. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc., et al,[41] thus:
Finally, the respondent Congressmen assert that at least two (2)
committee reports by the House of Representatives found the PIATCO
contracts valid and contend that this Court, by taking cognizance of the
cases at bar, reviewed an action of a co-equal body. They insist that the
Court must respect the findings of the said committees of the House of
Representatives. With due respect, we cannot subscribe to their
submission. There is a fundamental difference between a case in
court and an investigation of a congressional committee. The
purpose of a judicial proceeding is to settle the dispute in
controversy by adjudicating the legal rights and obligations of the
parties to the case. On the other hand, a congressional investigation
is conducted in aid of legislation (Arnault vs. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-
3820, July 18, 1950). Its aim is to assist and recommend to the legislature
a possible action that the body may take with regard to a particular issue,
specifically as to whether or not to enact a new law or amend an existing
one. Consequently, this Court cannot treat the findings in a
congressional committee report as binding because the facts elicited
in congressional hearings are not subject to the rigors of the Rules
of Court on admissibility of evidence. The Court in assuming
jurisdiction over the petitions at bar simply performed its constitutional duty
as the arbiter of legal disputes properly brought before it, especially in this
instance when public interest requires nothing less. (Underscoring
supplied)
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Associate Justice
Chairman
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Associate Justice
Chairman, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
[1]
These petitions were filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
[2]
Penned by Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria and concurred in by Presiding Justice Nathanael P. de Pano, Jr. (retired)
and Justice Cancio C. Garcia (now a member of this Court).
[3]
Penned by Justice Eduardo G. Montenegro and concurred in by Justice Pedro A. Ramirez (both retired) and
Justice Maximiano C. Asuncion (deceased).
[4]
Penned by Justice Portia Alio-Hormachuelos and concurred in by Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr. (retired) and
Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole.
[5]
Pursuant to Resolutions of this Court dated April 21, 1999 and March 6, 2002.
[6]
TCT Nos. 7528, 7762, 8012, 9866, C-17272, 21107, 21485, 26405, 26406, 26407, 33904, 34255, C-33267,
41956, 53268, 55897, T-121428, 163902 and 165119 in the name of Manotok Realty, Inc., and TCT No. T-
23568 in the name of Manotok Estate Corporation of the Registry of Deeds of Caloocan City (Annexes D, D-
1 through D-19 of the complaint.
[7]
Rollo of G.R. No. 123346, Vol. I at 245-246.
[8]
Id. at 138.
[9]
Id. at 137-138.
[10]
Id. at 265-275.
[11]
Id. at 254-265.
[12]
Decision dated September 28, 1995 of the Court of Appeals (Annex A of Petition in the Manotok Case) at 10;
Decision dated 10 May 1994 of the Regional Trial Court (Annex C of Petition in the Manotok Case) at 5.
[13]
Annex H of Petition in the Manotok Case; Decision dated May 10, 1994 of the Regional Trial Court (Annex C of
Petition in the Manotok Case), at 5.
[14]
Records of G.R. No. 123346 at 268-275.
[15]
Issued on March 4, 1948, Pasig, Rizal and derived from TCT No. 26538 in the name of Jose Ma. Rato with an
area of 592,606.90 sq.m; Annex 10, Records at 515.
[16]
Issued on May 20, 1949 and derived from TCT No. 26539 in the name of Jose Ma. Rato with an area of
581,872.00 sq.m Annex 10, Records at 515.
[17]
Penned by B.A. Adefuin-De La Cruz (retired).
[18]
Rollo, G.R. No. 134385, RTC Decision, Civil Case No. C-8050 at 140.
[19]
Rollo, G.R. No. 134385, CA Decision, CV No. 41883 at 122-124.
[20]
Rollo, G.R. No. 134385, Petition at 25-28.
[21]
Record I, G.R. No. 123346 at 14.
[22]
TCT Nos. T-158373 and T-158374, both registered in the name of SNKAI.
[23]
Annex A, Record, G.R. No. 123346 at 74-75.
[24]
Id. at 34-46.
[25]
Amended Decision dated February 12, 1996, Rollo of G.R. No. 148767 at 11-13.
[26]
Rollo, G.R. No. 148767 at 33-45.
[27]
Rollo, G.R. No. 148767, Petition at 17.
[28]
In G.R. No. 134385 filed by Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc.
[29]
In G.R. Nos. 123346 and 148767 filed by Manotok Realty, Inc. and Manotok Estate Corporation and Sto. Nio
Kapitbahayan Association, Inc., respectively.
[30]
Rollo of G.R. No. 123346 at 1578.
[31]
Supra.
[32]
Supra.
[33]
Asia Trust Development Bank vs. Concepts Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 130759, June 20, 2003, 404 SCRA
449.
[34]
Omandam vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128750, January 18, 2001, 349 SCRA 483.
[35]
Duremdes vs. Duremdes, G.R. No. 138256, November 12, 2003, 415 SCRA 684.
[36]
215 SCRA783 (1992).
[37]
261 SCRA 327 (1996).
[38]
Johnson & Johnson (Phils.), Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102692, September 23, 1996, 262 SCRA 298.
[39]
Garbo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100474, September 10, 1993, 226 SCRA 250.
[40]
Insular Bank of Asia and America Employees Union (IBAAEU) vs. Inciong, No. L-52415, October 23, 1984, 132
SCRA 663.
[41]
G.R. Nos. 155001, 155547 and 155661, January 21, 2004, 420 SCRA 575.