4. Tating vs Marcella

8/18/2019 4. Tating vs Marcella

1/24

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

.R. No. 155208 March 27, 2007

ENA LAZALIT A* TATING, Petitioner,s.ELICIDAD TATING MARCELLA, represented byALVADOR MARCELLA, CARLOS TATING, and theOURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

USTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:

ssailed in the Special Civil Actionor Certiorari before the Court are theecision 1 dated February 22, 2002 and theesolution dated August 22, 2002 of the Court ofppeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 64122, which

ffirmed the Decisio n 2 of the Regional Trial CourtRTC) of Cadiz City, Negros Occidental, Branch 60.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnta


2/24

he present case arose from a controversy involvingparcel of land denominated as Lot 56 ofubdivision plan Psd-31182, located at Abelarde St.,adiz City, Negros Occidental. The subject lot,

ontaining an area of 200 square meters, was ownedy Daniela Solano Vda. de Tating (Daniela) asvidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.-4393 issued by the Registry of Deeds of the City ofadiz .3

n October 14, 1969, Daniela sold the subjectroperty to her granddaughter, herein petitionerena Lazalita Tating (Nena). The contract of saleas embodied in a duly notarized Deed of Absoluteale executed by Daniela in favor ofena .4 Subsequently, title over the subject propertyas transferred in the name of Nena .5 She declared

he property in her name for tax purposes and paidhe real estate taxes due thereon for the years 1972,973, 1975 to 1986 and 1988 .6 However, the landmained in possession of Daniela.

n December 28, 1977, Daniela executed a swornatement claiming that she had actually no

ntention of selling the property; the true agreement

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt3


3/24

etween her and Nena was simply to transfer titlever the subject property in favor of the latter tonable her to obtain a loan by mortgaging theubject property for the purpose of helping her

efray her business expenses; she later discoveredhat Nena did not secure any loan nor mortgage theroperty; she wants the title in the name of Nenaancelled and the subject property reconveyed toer .7

aniela died on July 29, 198 8 8 leaving her childrens her heirs, namely: Ricardo, Felicidad, Julio, Carlosnd Cirilo who predeceased Daniela and wasepresented by herein petitioner.

n a letter dated March 1, 1989, Carlos informedena that when Daniela died they discovered the

worn statement she executed on December 28,977 and, as a consequence, they are demandingom Nena the return of their rightful shares over

he subject property as heirs of Daniela .9 Nena didot reply. Efforts to settle the case amicably provedutile.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt7


4/24

ence, on September 6, 1989, Carlos and Felicidad,epresented by her son Salvador, filed a complaintith the RTC of Cadiz City, Negros Occidental againstena praying for the nullification of the Deed of

bsolute Sale executed by Daniela in her favor,ancellation of the TCT issued in the name of Nena,nd issuance of a new title and tax declaration inavor of the heirs of Daniela .10 The complaint alsorayed for the award of moral and exemplary

amages as well as attorney’s fees and litigationxpenses. On March 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed anmended complaint with leave of court for theurpose of excluding Ricardo as a party plaintiff, heaving died intestate and without issue in March

991 .11 He left Carlos, Felicidad, Julio, and Nena asis sole heirs.

n her Answer, Nena denied that any fraud ormisrepresentation attended the execution of theubject Deed of Absolute Sale. She also deniedaving received the letter of her uncle, Carlos. Sherayed for the dismissal of the complaint, and in herounterclaim, she asked the trial court for the awardf actual, exemplary and moral damages as well astorney’s fees and litigatio n expense s.12

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt10


5/24

rial ensued. On November 4, 1998, the RTCndered judgment with the following dispositive

ortion:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgmenthereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and

gainst the defendant, and hereby declaring theocument of sale dated October 14, 1969 (Exh. "Q")xecuted between Daniela Solano Vda. de Tating and

ena Lazalita Tating as NULL and VOID and furtherrdering:

1. The Register of Deeds of Cadiz City tocancel TCT No. 5975 and in lieu thereof toissue a new title in the names of CarlosTating, Pro-indiviso owner of one-fourth(¼) portion of the property; Felicidad TatingMarcella, Pro-indiviso owner of one-fourth(¼) portion; Julio Tating, Pro-indiviso ownerof one-fourth (¼) portion and Nena LazalitaTating, Pro-indiviso owner of one-fourth(¼) portion, all of lot 56 after payment ofthe prescribed fees;


6/24

2. The City Assessor of the City of Cadiz tocancel Tax Declaration No. 143-00672 andin lieu thereof issue a new Tax Declarationin the names of Carlos Tating, ¼ Pro-

indiviso portion; Felicidad Tating Marcella,¼ Pro-indiviso portion; Julio Tating, ¼ Pro-indiviso portion; and Nena Lazalita Tating,¼ Pro-indiviso portion, all of lot 56 as wellas the house standing thereon be likewise

declared in the names of the personsmentioned in the same proportions asabove-stated after payment of theprescribed fees;

3. The defendant is furthermore ordered topay plaintiffs the sum of P20,000.00 by wayof moral damages,P10,000.00 by way ofexemplary damages, P5,000.00 by way ofattorney’s fees and P3,000.00 by way oflitigation expenses; and to

4. Pay the costs of suit.

O ORDERED.13

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt13


7/24

ena filed an appeal with the CA. On February 22,002, the CA rendered its Decision affirming theudgment of the RTC .14

ena’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied byhe CA in its Resolution dated August 22, 2002 .15

ence, herein petition for certiorari anchored on theround that the CA "has decided the instant caseithout due regard to and in violation of the

pplicable laws and Decisions of this Honorableourt and also because the Decision of the Regionalrial Court, which it has affirmed, is not supportedy and is even against the evidence on record. "16

t the outset, it must be stated that the filing of thenstant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of theules of Court is inappropriate. Considering that the

ssailed Decision and Resolution of the CA finallyisposed of the case, the proper remedy is a petitionor review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

he Court notes that while the instant petition is

enominated as a Petition for Certiorari under Rule5 of the Rules of Court, there is no allegation that

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt14


8/24

he CA committed grave abuse of discretion. On thether hand, the petition actually avers errors ofudgment, rather than of jurisdiction, which are theroper subjects of a petition for review on certiorari

ence, in accordance with the liberal spiritervading the Rules of Court and in the interest ofustice, the Court decided to treat the presentetition for certiorari as having been filed underule 45, especially considering that it was filed

ithin the reglementary period for filing the same .1

s to the merits of the case, petitioner contends thathe case for the private respondents rests on theroposition that the Deed of Absolute Sale datedctober 14, 1969 is simulated because Daniela’s

ctual intention was not to dispose of her propertyut simply to help petitioner by providing her with aollateral. Petitioner asserts that the sole evidencehich persuaded both the RTC and the CA in holding

hat the subject deed was simulated was the Sworntatement of Daniela dated December 28, 1977.owever, petitioner argues that said Sworntatement should have been rejected outright by thewer courts considering that Daniela has long been

ead when the document was offered in evidence,

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt17


9/24

hereby denying petitioner the right to cross-xamine her.

etitioner also contends that while the subject deed

as executed on October 14, 1969, the Sworntatement was purportedly executed only onecember 28, 1977 and was discovered only after

he death of Daniela in 1994 .18 Petitioner argues thatthe deed of sale is indeed simulated, Daniela would

ave taken action against the petitioner during herfetime. However, the fact remains that up to theme of her death or almost 20 years after the Deedf Absolute Sale was executed, she never uttered aord of complaint against petitioner.

etitioner further asserts that the RTC and the CArred in departing from the doctrine held time andgain by the Supreme Court that clear, strong andonvincing evidence beyond mere preponderance isequired to show the falsity or nullity of a notarialocument. Petitioner also argues that the RTC andhe CA erred in its pronouncement that theansaction between Daniela and petitioner createdtrust relationship between them because of the



10/24

ettled rule that where the terms of a contract areear, it should be given full effect.

n their Comment and Memorandum, private

espondents contend that petitioner failed to showhat the CA or the RTC committed grave abuse ofiscretion in arriving at their assailed judgments;hat Daniela’s Sworn Statement is sufficient evidence

prove that the contract of sale by and between her

nd petitioner was merely simulated; and that, inffect, the agreement between petitioner andaniela created a trust relationship between them.

he Court finds for the petitioner.

he CA and the trial court ruled that the contract ofale between petitioner and Daniela is simulated. Aontract is simulated if the parties do not intend to

e bound at all (absolutely simulated) or if thearties conceal their true agreement (relativelymulated) .19 The primary consideration inetermining the true nature of a contract is thentention of the parties .20 Such intention is

etermined from the express terms of their

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt19


11/24

greement as well as from their contemporaneousnd subsequent acts .21

n the present case, the main evidence presented by

rivate respondents in proving their allegation thathe subject deed of sale did not reflect the truentention of the parties thereto is the swornatement of Daniela dated December 28, 1977. Theial court admitted the said sworn statement as part

f private respondents’ evidence and gave credence it. The CA also accorded great probative weight to

his document.

here is no issue in the admissibility of the subjectworn statement. However, the admissibility ofvidence should not be equated with weight ofvidence .22 The admissibility of evidence depends ons relevance and competence while the weight ofvidence pertains to evidence already admitted ands tendency to convince and persuade .23 Thus, aarticular item of evidence may be admissible, buts evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluationithin the guidelines provided by the rules of

vidence .24 It is settled that affidavits are classifieds hearsay evidence since they are not generally



12/24

repared by the affiant but by another who uses hiswn language in writing the affiant’s statements,hich may thus be either omitted or misunderstoody the one writing them .25 Moreover, the adverse

arty is deprived of the opportunity to cross-xamine the affiant .26 For this reason, affidavits areenerally rejected for being hearsay, unless theffiants themselves are placed on the witness stand testify thereon .27 The Court finds that both the

ial court and the CA committed error in giving theworn statement probative weight. Since Daniela iso longer available to take the witness stand as shealready dead, the RTC and the CA should not have

iven probative value on Daniela’s sworn statement

or purposes of proving that the contract of saleetween her and petitioner was simulated and that,s a consequence, a trust relationship was createdetween them.

rivate respondents should have presented othervidence to sufficiently prove their allegation thataniela, in fact, had no intention of disposing of herroperty when she executed the subject deed of salen favor of petitioner. As in all civil cases, the burden

on the plaintiff to prove the material allegations of



13/24

is complaint and he must rely on the strength of hisvidence and not on the weakness of the evidence ofhe defendant .28 Aside from Daniela’s swornatement, private respondents failed to present any

ther documentary evidence to prove their claim.ven the testimonies of their witnesses failed tostablish that Daniela had a different intention whenhe entered into a contract of sale with petitioner.

n Suntay v. Court of Appeals ,29 the Court ruled thathe most protuberant index of simulation is theomplete absence, on the part of the vendee, of anytempt in any manner to assert his rights of

wnership over the disputed property .30 In theresent case, however, the evidence clearly showshat petitioner declared the property for taxationnd paid realty taxes on it in her name. Petitioneras shown that from 1972 to 1988 she religiouslyaid the real estate taxes due on the said lot and thatwas only in 1974 and 1987 that she failed to pay

he taxes thereon. While tax receipts andeclarations and receipts and declarations ofwnership for taxation purposes are not, inhemselves, incontrovertible evidence of ownership,hey constitute at least proof that the holder has a



14/24

aim of title over the property .31 The voluntaryeclaration of a piece of property for taxationurposes manifests not only one’s sincere andonest desire to obtain title to the property and

nnounces his adverse claim against the State and allher interested parties, but also the intention toontribute needed revenues to theovernmen t.32 Such an act strengthens one’s bonade claim of acquisition of ownership .33 On the other

and, private respondents failed to present even angle tax receipt or declaration showing thataniela paid taxes due on the disputed lot as proof

hat she claims ownership thereof. The only Taxeclaration in the name of Daniela, which private

spondents presented in evidence, refers only tohe house standing on the lot in controversy .34 Evenhe said Tax Declaration contains a notation thaterein petitioner owns the lot (Lot 56) upon whichaid house was built.

Moreover, the Court agrees with petitioner that ifhe subject Deed of Absolute Sale did not reallyeflect the real intention of Daniela, why is it that sheemained silent until her death; she never told anyf her relatives regarding her actual purpose in



15/24

xecuting the subject deed; she simply chose tomake known her true intentions through the sworn

atement she executed on December 28, 1977, thexistence of which she kept secret from her

elatives; and despite her declaration therein thathe is appealing for help in order to get back theubject lot, she never took any concrete step toecover the subject property from petitioner untiler death more than ten years later.

is true that Daniela retained physical possession ofhe property even after she executed the subjectbsolute Deed of Sale and even after title to theroperty was transferred in petitioner’s favor. Inact, Daniela continued to occupy the property inispute until her death in 1988 while, in the

meantime, petitioner continued to reside in Manila.owever, it is well-established that ownership andossession are two entirely different legaloncepts .35 Just as possession is not a definite prooff ownership, neither is non-possession inconsistentith ownership. The first paragraph of Article 1498

f the Civil Code states that when the sale is madehrough a public instrument, the execution thereofhall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which



16/24

the object of the contract, if from the deed theontrary does not appear or cannot clearly benferred. Possession, along with ownership, isansferred to the vendee by virtue of the notarized

eed of conveyance .36 Thus, in light of thercumstances of the present case, it is of no legalonsequence that petitioner did not take actualossession or occupation of the disputed propertyfter the execution of the deed of sale in her favor

ecause she was already able to perfect andomplete her ownership of and title over the subjectroperty.

s to Daniela’s affidavit dated June 9, 1983,ubmitted by petitioner, which confirmed thealidity of the sale of the disputed lot in her favor,he same has no probative value, as the swornatement earlier adverted to, for being hearsay.aturally, private respondents were not able to

ross-examine the deceased-affiant on hereclarations contained in the said affidavit.

owever, even if Daniela’s affidavit of June 9, 1983 isisregarded, the fact remains that privateespondents failed to prove by clear, strong and



17/24

onvincing evidence beyond mere preponderance ofvidenc e 37 that the contract of sale between Danieland petitioner was simulated. The legal presumptionin favor of the validity of contracts and the party

ho impugns its regularity has the burden ofroving its simulation .38 Since private respondentsailed to discharge the burden of proving theirlegation that the contract of sale betweenetitioner and Daniela was simulated, the

resumption of regularity and validity of thectober 14, 1969 Deed of Absolute Sale stands.

onsidering that the Court finds the subject contractf sale between petitioner and Daniela to be validnd not fictitious or simulated, there is no moreecessity to discuss the issue as to whether or not aust relationship was created between them.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED . Thessailed Decision and Resolution of the Court ofppeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 64122, affirming theecision of the Regional Trial Court of Cadiz City,egros Occidental, Branch 60, in Civil Case No. 278-, are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. The complaint of

he private respondents is DISMISSED .

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#fnt37


18/24

o costs.

O ORDERED.

MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ ssociate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice

Chairperson

ROMEO J. CALLEJO,SR.

Associate Justice

MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO

Asscociate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice

A T T E S T A T I O N


19/24

attest that the conclusions in the above Decisionad been reached in consultation before the caseas assigned to the writer of the opinion of theourt’s Division.

ONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO ssociate Justicehairperson, Third Division

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

ursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of theonstitution, and the Division Chairperson’stestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions

n the above Decision had been reached inonsultation before the case was assigned to theriter of the opini on of the Court’s Division.

EYNATO S. PUNO hief Justice


20/24

oonotes

* Also spelled as Lasalita in other parts ofthe rollo.

1 Penned by Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.and concurred in by Justices Conchita CarpioMorales (now a member of this Court) andSergio L. Pestaño; rollo , p. 53.

2 Original Records, pp. 318-342.

3 Exhibit "A", id. at 138.

4 Exhibit "Q"/"1", id. at 177.

5 Exhibit "3", id. at 179.

6 Exhibits "8-A" to "8-AA", id. at 183-212.

7 Exhibit "D", id. at 142.

8 Exhibit "I", id. at 149.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rntahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnta


21/24

9 Exhibit "E", id. at 143.

10 Id. at 1.

11 Id. at 55.

12 Id. at 23-25.

13 Id. at 342.

14 CA rollo , p. 86.

15 Id. at 103.

16 Rollo, p. 5.

17 Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 335 Phil. 1066, 1075 (1997).

18 Based on the certification issued by theCivil Registry of Cadiz City, Daniela S. Tatingdied on July 29, 1988.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt9


22/24

19 People’s Aircargo and Wa rehousing Co.,Inc. v. Court of Appeals , 357 Phil. 850, 869-870 (1998).

20 Ramos v. Heirs of Honorio Ramos, Sr ., 431Phil. 337, 345 (2002).

21 Id. at 345.

22 Ayala Land, Inc. v. Tagle , G.R. No. 153667,August 11, 2005, 466 SCRA 521, 532.

23 Id. at 532.

24 Heirs of Lourdes Sabanpan v. Comorposa ,456 Phil. 161, 172 (2003).

25 Lim v. Court of Appeals , 380 Phil. 60, 78

(2000) citing People’s Bank and TrustCompany v. Leonidas , G.R. No. 47815, March11, 1992, 207 SCRA 164; D.M. Consunji, Inc.v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 137873, April 20,2001, 357 SCRA 249, 260-261.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt19


23/24

26 D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , id. at260-261.

27 Id. at 260-261.

28 Dungaran v. Koshnicke , G.R. No. 161048,August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 676, 685.

29 321 Phil. 809, 831-832 (1995).

30 Ramos v. Heirs of Honorio Ramos, Sr. , supranote 20, at 348-349.

31 Heirs of Miguel Franco v. Court of Appeals ,463 Phil. 417, 433 (2003).

32 Calicdan v. Cendaña , G.R. No. 155080,February 5, 2004, 422 SCRA 272, 280.

33 Id. at 280.

34 Exhibit "B"; OR, 139.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt26


24/24

35 Spouses Sabio v. The InternationalCorporate Bank, Inc., 416 Phil. 785, 820(2001).

36 Id. at 820; Ong Ching Po v. Court of Appeals , G.R. Nos. 113472-73, December 20,1994, 239 SCRA 341, 347.

37 Mendezona v. Ozamiz , 426 Phil. 888, 904(2002).

38 People’s Aircargo and Warehousing Co.,Inc. v. Court of Appeals , supra note 19, at870; Ramos v. Heirs of Honorio Ramos, Sr .,supra note 20, at 346.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt35http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt38http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt37http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt36http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_155208_2007.html#rnt35

4. Tating vs Marcella

Documents

Transcript of 4. Tating vs Marcella