THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 105944. February 9, 1996.]

SPOUSES ROMULO AND SALLY EDUARTE , petitioners, vs . THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEDRO CALAPINE
(substituted by ALEXANDER CALAPINE and ARTEMIS CALAPINE) ,
respondents.

Makalintal Barot Torres & Ibarra for petitioners.

Roberto E. Gomez for private respondents.
SYLLABUS
1.
CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; DONATION; REVOCATION; ALL
CRIMES WHICH OFFEND THE DONOR SHOW INGRATITUDE AND CAUSES REVOCATION.
As noted in Tolentino's Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code on paragraph
(1) of Article 765 "all crimes which offend the donor show ingratitude and are causes for
revocation." Petitioners' attempt to categorize the offenses according to their
classification under the Revised Penal Code is therefore unwarranted considering that
illegal detention, threats and coercion are considered as crimes against the person of the
donor despite the fact that they are classified as crimes against personal liberty and
security under the Revised Penal Code.
2.
REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY; TESTIMONY OF NBI
HANDWRITING EXPERT GIVEN MORE WEIGHT AND CREDENCE THAN THE TESTIMONY
OF EXPERT FROM THE PC CRIME LABORATORY WHERE THE FORMER WAS COMPLETE,
THOROUGH AND SCIENTIFIC. Respondent Court of Appeals and the trial court cannot
be faulted for giving more weight and credence to the testimony of the NBI handwriting
expert considering that the examination of the said witness proved to be complete,
thorough and scientific. Confronted with contradicting testimonies from two handwriting
experts, the trial court and respondent Court of Appeals were convinced by the opinion of
the NBI handwriting expert as it was more exhaustive, in contrast with the testimony of
petitioners' witness from the PCCL which was discarded on account of the several flaws.
At the same time, petitioners' witness failed to rebut the convincing testimony of the NBI
handwriting expert presented by private respondents. We therefore find no reason to
deviate from the assailed conclusions as the same are amply supported by the evidence
on record.
3.
CIVIL LAW; LAND TITLES AND DEED; TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND REGISTRATION;
POSSESSION CANNOT DEFEAT TITLE. The rule is well-settled that mere possession
cannot defeat the title of a holder of a registered torrens title to real property. Moreover,
reliance on the doctrine that a forged deed can legally be the root of a valid title is squarely
in point in this case.
4.
ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. When herein petitioner purchased the subject property
from Helen Doria, the same was already covered by TCT No. T-23205 under the latter's
name. And although Helen Doria's title was fraudulently secured, such fact cannot
prejudice the rights of herein petitioners absent any showing that they had any knowledge
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

or participation in such irregularity. Thus, they cannot be obliged to look beyond the
certificate of title which appeared to be valid on its face and sans any annotation or notice
of private respondents' adverse claim.
5.
ID.; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; SALE; PURCHASER DEEMED IN GOOD FAITH
WHERE DISPUTED PROPERTY WAS BOUGHT WITHOUT NOTICE THAT SOME OTHER
PERSON HAS A RIGHT OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY. Contrary therefore to the
conclusion of respondent Court, petitioners are purchasers in good faith and for value as
they bought the disputed property without notice that some other person has a right or
interest in such property, and paid a full price for the same at the time of the purchase or
before they had notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the property.
6.
ID.; ID.; ID.; INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE MUST BE RESPECTED AND
PROTECTED DESPITE FRAUD EMPLOYED BY THE SELLER IN SECURING HIS TITLE.
Respondent Court therefore committed a reversible error when it affirmed the ruling of the
trial court annulling and setting aside the deed of absolute sale dated March 25, 1988
between petitioners and Helen Doria, as well as the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T27434 issued under petitioners' name, the established rule being that the rights of an
innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected notwithstanding the fraud
employed by the seller in securing his title.
RHLY

7.
REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; ACTION FOR DAMAGES AGAINST THE TREASURER OF
THE PHILIPPINES, PROPER REMEDY OF TRUE OWNER OF PROPERTY FRAUDULENTLY
DISPOSSESSED OF THE SAME. In this regard, it has been held that the proper recourse
of the true owner of the property who was prejudiced and fraudulently dispossessed of
the same is to bring an action for damages against those who caused or employed the
fraud, and if the latter are insolvent, an action against the Treasurer of the Philippines may
be filed for recovery of damages against the Assurance Fund.
8.
ID.; ID.; APPEALS; PERSON WHO FRAUDULENTLY ACQUIRED TITLE OVER DISPUTED
PROPERTY ADJUDGED LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO TRUE OWNERS. Conformably with the
foregoing, having established beyond doubt that Helen Doria fraudulently secured her title
over the disputed property which she subsequently sold to petitioners, Helen Doria should
instead be adjudged liable to private respondents, and not to petitioners as declared by
the trial court and respondent Court of Appeals, for the resulting damages to the true
owner and original plaintiff, Pedro Calapine.
DECISION
FRANCISCO , J :
p

A donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right

in favor of another, who accepts it. 1 On the part of the donor, it is an exercise of one's
generosity. However, on several occasions, instead of being accorded recognition and
appreciation for this act of beneficence, the donor ends up as a victim of greed and
ingratitude. This was the fate that befell Pedro Calapine (herein original plaintiff)
constraining him to cause the revocation of the donation that he made to his niece in 1984.
The instant petition for certiorari is interposed by the spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte,
assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 29175 which affirmed the
revocation of the donation made by Pedro Calapine to his niece, Helen Doria, and at the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

same time declared petitioners as purchasers in bad faith of the property donated.
As set out in the appealed decision, the undisputed facts are as follows:
"Pedro Calapine was the registered owner of a parcel of land located in San
Cristobal, San Pablo City, with an area of 12,199 square meters, as evidenced by
Original Certificate of Title No. P-2129 (Exhibits A and 1). On April 26, 1984, he
executed a deed entitled 'Pagbibigay-Pala (Donacion Inter-Vivos)' ceding one-half
portion thereof to his niece Helen S. Doria (Exhibit B).
"On July 26, 1984, another deed identically entitled was purportedly executed by
Pedro Calapine ceding unto Helen S. Doria the whole of the parcel of land covered
by OCT No. P-2129 (Exhibits C and D), on the basis of which said original
certificate was cancelled and in lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of Title No. T23205 was issued in her name (Exhibits G and 2).
"On February 26, 1986, Helen S. Doria donated a portion of 157 square meters of
the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-23205 to the Calauan Christian Reformed
Church, Inc. (Exhibit H), on the basis of which said transfer certificate of title was
cancelled and TCT No. T-24444 was issued in its name covering 157 square
meters (Exhibit 2-A) and TCT No. T-24445, in the name of Helen S. Doria covering
the remaining portion of 12,042 square meters (Exhibit 3).
"On March 25, 1988, Helen S. Doria sold, transferred and conveyed unto the
spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte the parcel of land covered by TCT No. T24445, save the portion of 700 square meters on which the vendor's house had
been erected (Exhibits 1 and 3-F), on the basis of which TCT No. 24445 was
cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT No. T-27434, issued in the name of the vendees
(Exhibit 4).
"Claiming that his signature to the deed of donation (Exhibits C and D) was a
forgery and that she was unworthy of his liberality, Pedro Calapine brought suit
against Helen S. Doria, the Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc. and the
spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte to revoke the donation made in favor of Helen
S. Doria (Exhibit B), to declare null and void the deeds of donation and sale that
she had executed in favor of the Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc. and the
spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte (Exhibits H, l and 3-F) and to cancel TCT Nos.
T-24444, 24445 and T-27434.
"Answering the complaint, the defendants spouses denied knowledge of the first
deed of donation and alleged that after a part of the property was donated to the
defendant Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc., the remaining portion thereof
was sold to them by the defendant Helen S. Doria; and that the plaintiff's
purported signature in the second deed of donation was his own, hence genuine.
They prayed that the complaint against them be dismissed; that upon their
counterclaim, the plaintiff be ordered to pay them moral and exemplary damages
and attorney's fees; and that upon their cross-claim the defendant Helen S. Doria
be ordered to reimburse them the purchase price of P110,000 and to pay them
moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees (pp. 23-31, rec.).
"The defendant Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc. manifested in its answer
the willingness to reconvey to the plaintiff that part of the property donated to it
by Helen S. Doria (pp. 36-38, rec.). And having executed the corresponding deed
of reconveyance, the case as against it was dismissed (pp. 81-83; 84, rec.).
"The defendants Helen S. Doria and the City Assessor and the Registrar of Deeds
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

of San Pablo City did not file answers to the plaintiff's complaint.
"After the plaintiff's death on August 27, 1989, on motion, he was substituted by
his nephews Alexander and Artemis Calapine upon order of the Court (pp. 147152; 250, rec.).
"After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 30, San Pablo
City rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered by

the Court in the instant case in favor of plaintiff and against defendant
Eduartes to wit:
1.
DECLARING as it is hereby declared, the revocation of the
Deed of Donation dated April 26, 1984;
2.
ANNULLING, voiding, setting aside and declaring of no force
and effect the Deed of Donation dated July 26, 1984, the deed of absolute
sale executed on March 25, 1988 by and between spouses Eduartes and
Helen Doria, and the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-27434 issued under
the name of spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte;
3.
ORDERING the office of the Register of Deeds, San Pablo
City, to cancel TCT No. T-27434 or any other adverse title emanating from
OCT No. P-2129 and in lieu thereof, to issue a new transfer certificate of
title covering the subject property under the names of the substituteplaintiffs Alexander and Artemis both surnamed Calapine, after payment
of the corresponding fees and taxes therefor; and
4.
ORDERING defendant Helen Doria to pay substitute-plaintiffs
the sum of P20,000.00 as and for attorney's fees.
Judgment on the cross-claim of defendant Eduartes against Helen
Doria is further rendered by ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of
P110,000.00 with legal interest thereon starting from March 25, 1988 until
full payment, and the further sum of P20,000.00 as and for attorney's fees.
The counterclaim of defendant Eduartes against plaintiff is hereby
dismissed for lack of merit.
Costs against defendant Helen Doria in both the complaint and the
cross-claim (pp. 11-12, decision, pp. 264-265, rec.).
"Only the defendants Eduarte spouses took an appeal (p. 266, rec.), claiming that
the trial court erred
1.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

In annulling, voiding, setting aside, and declaring of no force and

effect
(a)

the deed of donation (Exhibit C and 1-A), dated July 26,

1984;

(b)

the deed of absolute sale (Exhibit 1 and 3-E) executed on

March 25, 1988 by and between Spouses Eduartes and Helen
Doria;
cdasiaonline.com

(c)

TCT No. T-27434 (Exhibit 4) issued in the name of spouses

Romulo Eduarte and Sally Eduarte; and

in revoking the deed of donation (Exhibit B) dated April 26, 1984;

2.

In declaring the appellants Eduartes buyers in bad faith;

3.

In not finding the plaintiffs guilty of estoppel by silence and/or

guilty of suppression of evidence instead of finding the appellants
Eduartes guilty of suppression of evidence; and

4.

In finding that the signature of Pedro Calapine in the deed of

donation (Exhibits C and 1-A) dated July 26, 1984 a forgery based
on the opposite findings of the handwriting experts presented by
each party and in the absence of the testimony of Pedro Calapine
who was then still alive (pp. 1-2, appellants' brief.)" 2

In its decision dated April 22, 1992, 3 respondent Court of Appeals dismissed petitioners'
appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. Respondent court was in complete
accord with the trial court in giving more credence to the testimony of private
respondents' expert witness, NBI document examiner Bienvenido Albacea, who found
Pedro Calapine's signature in the second deed of donation to be a forgery. It also ruled
that by falsifying Pedro Calapine's signature, Helen Doria committed an act of ingratitude
which is a valid ground for revocation of the donation made in her favor in accordance with
Article 765 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, respondent court upheld the trial court's finding
that petitioners are not buyers in good faith of the donated property as they failed to
exercise due diligence in verifying the true ownership of the property despite the existence
of circumstances that should have aroused their suspicions.
cdll

Petitioners are now before us taking exception to the foregoing findings of respondent
Court of Appeals and contending that the same are not in accord with the law and
evidence on record.
Anent the revocation of the first deed of donation, petitioners submit that paragraph (1) of
Article 765 of the Civil Code does not apply in this case because the acts of ingratitude
referred to therein pertain to offenses committed by the donee against the person or
property of the donor. Petitioners argue that as the offense imputed to herein donee Helen
Doria falsification of a public document is neither a crime against the person nor
property of the donor but is a crime against public interest under the Revised Penal Code,
the same is not a ground for revocation.
In support of this contention, petitioners cite the following portions found in Tolentino's
Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code:
"Offense against Donor . . . . The crimes against the person of the donor would
include not only homicide and physical injuries, but also illegal detention, threats
and coercion; and those against honor include offenses against chastity and
those against the property, include robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, arson,
damages, etc. (5 Manresa 175-176)." 4

This assertion, however, deserves scant consideration. The full text of the very same
commentary cited by petitioners belies their claim that falsification of the deed of
donation is not an act of ingratitude, to wit:
"Offense Against Donor. All crimes which offend the donor show ingratitude
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

and are causes for revocation. There is no doubt, therefore, that the donee who
commits adultery with the wife of the donor, gives cause for revocation by reason
of ingratitude. The crimes against the person of the donor would include not only
homicide and physical injuries, but also illegal detention, threats, and coercion;
those against honor include offenses against chastity; and those against the
property, include robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling, arson, damages, etc.
[Manresa 175-176]." 5 (Emphasis supplied).

Obviously, the first sentence was deleted by petitioners because it totally controverts their
contention. As noted in the aforecited opinion "all crimes which offend the donor show
ingratitude and are causes for revocation." Petitioners' attempt to categorize the offenses
according to their classification under the Revised Penal Code is therefore unwarranted
considering that illegal detention, threats and coercion are considered as crimes against
the person of the donor despite the fact that they are classified as crimes against personal
liberty and security under the Revised Penal Code. 6
Petitioners also impute grave error to respondent Court of Appeals in finding that the
second deed of donation dated July 26, 1984 was falsified. Petitioners deplore the fact
that more credence was given to the testimony of the NBI handwriting expert who found
Pedro Calapine's signature in the second deed of donation to be a forgery despite the
existence of controverting testimony by PC-INP Crime Laboratory (PCCL) Chief Document
Examiner which petitioners adduced as evidence on their part.
We are not persuaded. Respondent Court of Appeals and the trial court cannot be faulted
for giving more weight and credence to the testimony of the NBI handwriting expert
considering that the examination of the said witness proved to be complete, thorough and
scientific.
In gauging the relative weight to be given to the opinion of handwriting experts, we adhere
to the following standards:
"We have held that the value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not
upon his mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the
assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics
and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing which
would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer. The
test of genuineness ought to be the resemblance, not the formation of letters in
some other specimens but to the general character of writing, which is impressed
on it as the involuntary and unconscious result of constitution, habit or other
permanent course, and is, therefore itself permanent." 7

Confronted with contradicting testimonies from two handwriting experts, the trial court
and respondent Court of Appeals were convinced by the opinion of the NBI handwriting
expert as it was more exhaustive, in contrast with the testimony of petitioners' witness
from the PCCL which was discarded on account of the following flaws:
"The Court is not convinced with Cruz's explanations. Apart from the visual
inconsistencies, i.e., the strokes with which some letters were made, the variety in
the sizes of the letters, the depth, the difference in the slant which the Court itself
observed in its own examination of both the questioned signatures and those
standard specimen signatures, there is evidence showing that Cruz did not make
a thorough examination of all the signatures involved in this particular issue.
Thus even in the report submitted by the PCCL it was admitted that they omitted
or overlooked the examination of at least three (3) standard specimen signatures
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

of Pedro Calapine which were previously subject of the NBI examination marked
as Exhibits S-9, S-10 and S-11. When questioned regarding this oversight, Cruz
testified that in his opinion, the inclusion or non-inclusion of said exhibits in their
examination will not affect the same and they would have arrived at the same
conclusion anyway. Again, when asked why they did not bother to have the
original copies of the documents being questioned (Exhs. Q-1 through Q-3) for
their examination, Cruz replied that they are using a special film so it will not
matter whether the documents being examined are the original or a mere
photocopy (TSN 8, 10, 12 and 26, Hearing of Nov. 23, 1989).
"The Court will not attempt to make its own conclusion or resolution on such a
technical issue as the matter at hand in the light of the cavalier attitude of Cruz. In
fine, between the examinations made by the two witnesses, that of Albacea's
proved to be complete, thorough and scientific and is worthy of credence and
belief." 8

The afore-quoted findings confirm beyond doubt the failure of petitioners' expert witness
to satisfy the above-mentioned criteria for evaluating the opinion of handwriting experts.
At the same time, petitioners' witness failed to rebut the convincing testimony of the NBI
handwriting expert presented by private respondents. We therefore find no reason to
deviate from the assailed conclusions as the same are amply supported by the evidence
on record.

Finally, proceeding to the crucial issue that directly affects herein petitioners, it is
reiterated that petitioners are buyers in good faith of the donated property, and therefore,
it was grave error to annul and set aside the deed of sale executed between petitioners
and donee Helen Doria.
In adjudging petitioners as buyers in bad faith, respondent Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's finding that the attendant circumstances, that is, the presence of other
occupants as well as houses built of strong materials and fruit bearing trees in the subject
land, should have aroused the suspicion of petitioners and impelled them to exercise due
diligence in verifying the true ownership of the property being sold. Petitioners dispute the
lower court's conclusion and argue that although there were other occupants in the subject
property, no adverse claim was made by the latter as they were mere tenants therein, thus,
petitioners were not obliged to make any further inquiry because the property being sold
was covered by a certificate of title under Helen Doria's name.
We agree with petitioners. The rule is well-settled that mere possession cannot defeat the
title of a holder of a registered torrens title to real property. 9 Moreover, reliance on the
doctrine that a forged deed can legally be the root of a valid title is squarely in point in this
case:
"Although generally a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title,
however there are instances when such a fraudulent document may become the
root of a valid title. One such instance is where the certificate of title was already
transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger, and while it remained
that way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser. For then, the
vendee had the right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate.
"Where there was nothing in the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in
the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not
required to explore further than what the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

quest for any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his
right thereto. If the rule were otherwise, the efficacy and conclusiveness of the
certificate of title which the Torrens System seeks to insure would entirely be
futile and nugatory." 1 0

When herein petitioners purchased the subject property from Helen Doria, the same was
already covered by TCT No. T-23205 under the latter's name. And although Helen Doria's
title was fraudulently secured, such fact cannot prejudice the rights of herein petitioners
absent any showing that they had any knowledge or participation in such irregularity. Thus,
they cannot be obliged to look beyond the certificate of title which appeared to be valid on
its face and sans any annotation or notice of private respondents' adverse claim. Contrary
therefore to the conclusion of respondent Court, petitioners are purchasers in good faith
and for value as they bought the disputed property without notice that some other person
has a right or interest in such property, and paid a full price for the same at the time of the
purchase or before they had notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the
property. 1 1
Respondent Court therefore committed a reversible error when it affirmed the ruling of the
trial court annulling and setting aside the deed of absolute sale dated March 25, 1988
between petitioners and Helen Doria, as well as the Transfer Certificate of Title No. T27434 issued under petitioners' name, the established rule being that the rights of an
innocent purchaser for value must be respected and protected notwithstanding the fraud
employed by the seller in securing his title. 1 2
In this regard, it has been held that the proper recourse of the true owner of the property
who was prejudiced and fraudulently dispossessed of the same is to bring an action for
damages against those who caused or employed the fraud, and if the latter are insolvent,
an action against the Treasurer of the Philippines may be filed for recovery of damages
against the Assurance Fund. 1 3
Conformably with the foregoing, having established beyond doubt that Helen Doria
fraudulently secured her title over the disputed property which she subsequently sold to
petitioners, Helen Doria should instead be adjudged liable to private respondents, and not
to petitioners as declared by the trial court and respondent Court of Appeals, for the
resulting damages to the true owner and original plaintiff, Pedro Calapine.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED and the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED.
The portions of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 30, as
affirmed by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 29175 which ordered the following:
"xxx xxx xxx
"2.
ANNULLING, voiding, setting aside and declaring of no force and effect . . .
, the deed of absolute sale executed on March 25, 1988 by and between spouses
Eduartes and Helen Doria, and the Transfer Certificate of Title No T-27434 issued
under the name of spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte;
"3.
ORDERING the office of the Register of Deeds, San Pablo City, to cancel
TCT No. T-27434 or any other adverse title emanating from OCT No. P-2129 and
in lieu thereof, to issue a new transfer certificate of title covering the subject
property under the names of the substitute-plaintiffs Alexander and Artemis both
surnamed Calapine, after payment of the corresponding fees and taxes therefor;
and
"4

...

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

"Judgment on the cross-claim of defendant Eduartes against Helen Doria is

further rendered by ordering the latter to pay the former the sum of P110,000.00
with legal interest thereon starting from March 25, 1988 until full payment, . . ."

are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Instead, Helen Doria is hereby ordered to pay herein private respondents the sum of
P110,000.00 with legal interest counted from March 25, 1988 until full payment, as
damages for the resulting loss to original plaintiff Pedro Calapine.
In all other respects, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed.

LLpr

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1.

Article 725, New Civil Code.

2.

Decision, pp. 1-5, Rollo, pp. 32-36.

3.

Rollo, 32.

4.

Petition, p. 11; Rollo, p. 23, citing Vol. II, ed., p. 550.

5.

Vol. II, 1983 Ed., p. 538.

6.

See Revised Penal Code, Title Nine Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security;
Articles 267, 268, 282, 283, 286, 287, 289.

7.

People vs. Domasian, 219 SCRA 245, 252, (1993) citing Alcos v. IAC, 162 SCRA 823,
Moran, Comments on Rules of Court, 434, Nolasco ed., 1980; People v. Bustos, 45 Phil. 9
(1923).

8.

Decision, pp. 5-6, Rollo, pp. 36-37.

9.

Abad vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 817, 826 (1989) citing J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, 93 SCRA (1979).

10.

Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 187 SCRA 735, 740 (1990) citing
Fule vs. Legare, 7 SCRA 351.

11.

Tenio-Obsequio vs. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 550, 556 (1994) citing De Santos vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., 157 SCRA 295; Co, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, et al.,
196 SCRA 705; Casipit, et al., vs. Court of Appeals, 204 SCRA 684.

12.

Pino vs. Court of Appeals, 189 SCRA 434, citing Director of Lands vs. Abache, et al., 73
Phil. 606.

13.

Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al., supra, citing Blanco, et al., vs.
Esquierdo, 110 Phil. 494; Tenio-Obsequio vs. Court of Appeals, supra.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com