Spouses Villanueva vs. CA

7/27/2019 Spouses Villanueva vs. CA

1/18

Conracts

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

SPOUSES NELSON R.

VILLANUEVA and MYRA P.

VILLANUEVA,

Petitioners,

- versus -

THE COURT OF APPEALS,

PROVIDENT RURAL BANK OF

SANTA CRUZ (LAGUNA), INC.,

and THE CLERK OF COURT OF

THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

OF LAGUNA AS EX-OFFICIO

PROVINCIAL SHERIFF,

Respondents.

G.R. No. !"#""

P$%&%n':

VELASCO, R.,J., Chairperson,

LEO!AR"O#"E CAS$RO%

PERAL$A,

A&A",and

ME!"O'A,JJ.

P$o*+a'%d:

Au(ust )), )*++

# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote1symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote1sym


2/18

D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J.

Assailed in the present petition for re-ie on certiorariunder Rule /0 of the Rules of

Court are the "ecision+and Resolution)of the Court of Appeals 1CA2 dated une +3,

)**4 and April )5, )**/, respecti-el6, in CA#7.R. CV !o. 84)03. $he CA "ecision

affirmed the ul6 4+, )**+ Order4of the Re(ional $rial Court 1R$C2 of Santa Cru9,

La(una, &ranch +, hich dismissed herein petitioners; petition for declarator6 relief,

hile the CA Resolution denied petitioners; Motion for Reconsideration.

$he pertinent facts of the case are as follos:

Sometime in +/, herein petitioners applied for separate loans amountin( to

P+**,***.** and P+)0,***.**, hich ere (ranted b6 herein respondent Pro-ident

Rural &an< of Sta. Cru9, La(una, =nc. 1respondent &an


3/18

real estate mort(a(es o-er the same parcel of a(ricultural land located in Sta. Cru9,

La(una.0

Petitioners failed to pa6 their loans hen the6 became due.

As a conse>uence, on une +/, +3, respondent &an< filed a petition for etra?udicial

foreclosure of the abo-ementioned mort(a(es ith the Office of the Pro-incial Sheriff

of La(una. As of une +*, +3, petitioners; obli(ations amounted to P)58,+58.0*,

plus interests, char(es and epenses. On une )0, +3 the Pro-incial Sheriff issued a

!otice of Sale of the sub?ect mort(a(ed propert6.3=t ould appear, hoe-er, that the

auction sale did not push throu(h because on une , )***, respondent &an< re#

applied for etra?udicial foreclosure of the same mort(a(e. On ul6 )0, )***, the

Pro-incial Sheriff issued a !otice of Sale Re#Application of @oreclosure Case and set

the public auction of the sub?ect propert6 on Au(ust )0, )***.8As of une +0, )***,

petitioners; mort(a(e debt as P8+4,/30.40, plus interests, char(es and epenses.

Petitioners then rote a letter#re>uest addressed to the Officer#in#Char(e of the Office

of the Cler< of Court of the R$C, Santa Cru9, La(una >uestionin( the amount of its

outstandin( obli(ations to respondent &an< and re>uestin( that the public auction

scheduled on Au(ust )0, )*** be suspended until after its ob?ection to the amount

bein( sou(ht b6 respondent &an< is resol-ed b6 the court.5

oe-er, petitionersB letter#re>uest as denied.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote6symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote7symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote8symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote9symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote6symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote7symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote8symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote9sym


4/18

A((rie-ed, petitioners filed, on Au(ust ), )***, a Petition for "eclarator6 Relief,

Accountin( and "ama(es pra6in( that the stipulated interests, char(es and epenses

on its loans be declared null and -oid for bein( contrar6 to la, morals, (ood customs,

public order or public polic6 as the6 are eorbitant, usurious, ini>uitous and

unconscionable. $he Petition as docuentl6, on ul6 4+, )**+, the R$C issued an Order dismissin( petitioners;

Petition for "eclarator6 Relief holdin( that the said Petition is barred b6 prior
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote10symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote11symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote12symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote10symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote11symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote12sym


5/18

?ud(ment, considerin( that the decision of the CA in CA#7.R. SP !o. /*30 alread6

settled the issues of usur6 and the ri(ht of petitioners to claim the abolition or

reduction of the sub?ect interest rates, hich are the same issues raised b6 petitioners

in their Petition for "eclarator6 Relief.+)

Petitioners then filed an appeal ith the CA assailin( the abo-ementioned Order of

the R$C.

On une +3, )**4, the CA promul(ated the presentl6 assailed "ecision affirmin( the

Order of the R$C and rulin( that all the elements of res judicataare present.

Petitioners; Motion for Reconsideration as denied b6 the CA viaits April )5, )**/

Resolution.

ence, the present petition for re-ie on certiorari.

Petitioners contend that the principle of res judicatadoes not appl6 in the present case

on the (round that there is no identit6 of sub?ect matter and cause of action in Ci-il

Case !os. 4/)) and /*4).


6/18

Petitioners further ar(ue that e-en if all the elements of res judicataare present in the

instant case, e>uit6 dictates that this principle should not be applied otherise, the

court ould be sanctionin( respondent &an


7/18

$he elements of res judicata are: 1+2 the ?ud(ment sou(ht to bar the ne action must

be final 1)2 the decision must ha-e been rendered b6 a court ha-in( ?urisdiction o-er

the sub?ect matter and the parties 142 the disposition of the case must be a ?ud(ment

on the merits and 1/2 there must be as beteen the first and second action, identit6 of

parties, sub?ect matter, and causes of action.+0$he Court finds that the CA and the R$C

did not err in findin( that all of the abo-ementioned elements are present in the instant

case.

$here is no dispute that the first three elements, as enumerated abo-e, are present. As

correctl6 held b6 the CA, the issues raised in Ci-il Case !o. SC#4/)) ere alread6

decided ith finalit6 b6 this Court hen it denied petitioners; petition for re-ie on

certiorariin its Resolution dated Au(ust )4, + in 7.R. !o. +4450. $he said

Resolution became final and eecutor6 on "ecember )*, +.

Fith respect to the fourth element, there is also no dispute that there is identit6 of

parties. oe-er, the Court is not persuaded b6 petitioners; ar(ument that there is no

identit6 of sub?ect matter and cause of action.

On the issue of identit6 of sub?ect matter, this Court has held that the sub?ect of an

action is defined as the matter or thin( ith respect to hich the contro-ers6 has

arisen, concernin( hich a ron( has been done.+3
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote16symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote16symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote17symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote16symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote17sym


8/18

$he sub?ect matters in Ci-il Case !o. SC#4/)) are the interest rates as ell as

penalties and other char(es stipulated in the promissor6 notes and real estate

mort(a(es eecuted b6 petitioners. $hese are the same sub?ect matters in Ci-il Case

!o. SC#/*4).

As to the cause of action, Rule ), Section ) of the Rules of Court defines cause of

action as the act or omission b6 hich a part6 -iolates a ri(ht of another. Fith respect

to the identit6 of causes of action, this Court haslaid don the test in determinin(

hether or not the causes of action in the first and second cases are identical, to it:

ould the same e-idence support and establish both the present and former cause of

actionG =f so, the former reco-er6 is a bar if otherise, it does not stand in the a6 of

the former action.+8

=n the instant case, the cause of action in both Ci-il Case !os. SC#4/)) and /*4) is

the act of respondent &an< in imposin( hat petitioners alle(ed as eorbitant,

unconscionable and usurious interest rates, penalties and other char(es. $here is, thus,

no doubt that the same e-idence is re>uired to establish the cause of action in both of

these cases.

=n fact, the issues 1hether or not the interest rates, penalties and char(es imposed b6

respondent &an< are usurious and unconscionable2 and the reliefs sou(ht 1reduction of

the said interest rates, penalties and surchar(es to an amount not eceedin( +)H per

annum2 in both cases are essentiall6 the same.


9/18

!either is the Court persuaded b6 petitioners; contention that, in an6 case, the Court

should not appl6 the principle of res judicatabecause to do so ould be tantamount to

alloin( respondent &an< to un?ustifiabl6 and ille(all6 enrich itself at the epense of

petitioners b6 imposin( interests, penalties and other char(es be6ond hat the la and

e>uit6 allos.

=t is true that res judicatais to be disre(arded if its ri(id application ould in-ol-e the

sacrifice of ?ustice to technicalit6.+5oe-er, the present case does not fall under this

eception.

Petitioners contend that the interest rate of )/Hper annumstipulated in the mort(a(e

contract, hich the6 eecuted in fa-or of respondent &an


10/18

$he >uestion no is hether the )/Hper annuminterest rate is unreasonable under

the circumstances obtainin( in the present case.

$he Court rules in the ne(ati-e.

=n Spouses Zacarias Bacolor and Catherine Bacolor v. Banco Filipino Savings and

Mortgage Bank, agupan Cit! Branch,)+this Court held that the interest rate of )/H

per annumon a loan of P)//,***.**, a(reed upon b6 the parties, ma6 not be

considered as unconscionable and ecessi-e. As such, the Court ruled that the

borroers cannot rene(e on their obli(ation to compl6 ith hat is incumbent upon

them under the contract of loan as the said contract is the la beteen the parties and

the6 are bound b6 its stipulations.))

Also, in "arcia v. Court o# $ppeals,)4

this Court sustained the a(reement of the parties

to a )/Hper annuminterest on an P5,3/,)0*.** loan findin( the same to be

reasonable and clearl6 e-idenced b6 the amended credit line a(reement entered into

b6 the parties as ell as to promissor6 notes eecuted b6 the borroer in fa-or of

the lender.

&ased on the abo-e ?urisprudence, the Court finds that the )/Hper annuminterest

rate, pro-ided for in the sub?ect mort(a(e contracts for a loan of P))0,***.**, ma6 not

be considered unconscionable. Moreo-er, considerin( that the mort(a(e a(reement
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote22symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote23symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote24symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote22symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote23symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote24sym


11/18

as freel6 entered into b6 both parties, the same is the la beteen them and the6 are

bound to compl6 ith the pro-isions contained therein.

$he Court also upholds the -alidit6 of the 3H per annum penalt6 char(e. =n

evelopment Bank o# the %hilippines v. Famil! Foods Manu#acturing Co., &td.,)/this

Court, sustainin( the -alidit6 of an 5H per annum penalt6 char(e on separate loans of

P0**,***.** and P//*,***.**, held that:

$his Court has reco(ni9ed a penalt6 clause as an accessor6obli(ation hich the parties attach to a principal obli(ation for thepurpose of insurin( the performance thereof b6 imposin( on the

debtor a special prestation 1(enerall6 consistin( in the pa6ment of

a sum of mone62 in case the obli(ation is not fulfilled or isirre(ularl6 or inade>uatel6 fulfilled. $he enforcement of the

penalt6 can be demanded b6 the creditor onl6 hen the non#

performance is due to the fault or fraud of the debtor. $he non#performance (i-es rise to the presumption of fault in order to

a-oid the pa6ment of the penalt6, the debtor has the burden of

pro-in( an ecuse the failure of the performance as due to

either#orce majeureor the acts of the creditor himself.

=n this case, respondents failed to dischar(e the burden. $hus, the6 cannot a-oidthe pa6ment of the a(reed penalt6 char(e.)0

=n a similar manner, herein petitioners bound themsel-es to pa6 the stipulated penalt6

char(e of 3H per annum Dof the principal amount of loan as penalt6 for inecusable

ne(lect to pa6 an6 amount of tIheJ loan hen due.)3Since petitioners failed to present

e-idence that their failure to perform their obli(ation as due to either#orce majeure
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote25symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote25symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote26symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote27symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote25symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote26symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote27sym


12/18

or the acts of respondent &an< or to an6 ?ustifiable or ecusable cause, the6 are

obli(ed to pa6 the penalt6 char(e as a(reed upon.

Lastl6, it is ron( for petitioners to ar(ue that the6 are not (uilt6 of forum shoppin(

on the (round that there is no other pendin( case in-ol-in( the same parties, sub?ect

matter and cause of action as their petition for declarator6 relief.

Settled is the rule that forum shoppin( is the act of a liti(ant ho repetiti-el6 a-ailed

of se-eral ?udicial remedies in different courts, simultaneousl6 or successi-el6, all

substantiall6 founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and

circumstances, and all raisin( substantiall6 the same issues, either pendin( in or

alread6 resol-ed ad-ersel6 b6 some other court, to increase his chances of obtainin( a

fa-orable decision if not in one court, then in another.)8

@orum shoppin( can be committed in three a6s: 1+2 b6 filin( multiple cases based on

the same cause of action and ith the same pra6er, the pre-ious case not ha-in( been

resol-ed 6et 1here the (round for dismissal is litis pendentia2 1)2 b6 filin( multiple

cases based on the same cause of action and ith the same pra6er, the pre-ious case

ha-in( been finall6 resol-ed 1here the (round for dismissal is res judicata2 and 142

b6 filin( multiple cases based on the same cause of action but ith different pra6ers

1splittin( of causes of action, here the (round for dismissal is also either litis

pendentiaor res judicata2.)5
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote28symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote29symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote28symhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote29sym


13/18

More particularl6, the elements of forum#shoppin( are: 1a2 identit6 of parties or at

least such parties that represent the same interests in both actions 1b2 identit6 of ri(hts

asserted and reliefs pra6ed for, the relief bein( founded on the same facts 1c2 identit6

of the to precedin( particulars, such that an6 ?ud(ment rendered in the other action

ill, re(ardless of hich part6 is successful, amount to res judicatain the action

under consideration.)

All the abo-ementioned elements are present in the instant case. As discussed

earlier, petitionersB petition for declarator6 relief in-ol-es the same parties, cause of

action and reliefs pra6ed for as Ci-il Case !o. SC#4/)) hich case as decided ith

finalit6 b6 this Court as shon b6 the entr6 of ?ud(ment dated "ecember )*, + in

7.R. !o. +4450. =n addition, it has been held abo-e that the ?ud(ment in Ci-il Case

!o. SC#4/)) 17.R. !o. +44502 amounts to res judicatain the present case.

Contrar6 to petitioners; asse-eration, Ci-il Case !o. SC#4/)) need not be pendin( in

order that the rule on forum shoppin( ma6 appl6, because as mentioned abo-e, forum

shoppin( ma6 still be committed if one files multiple cases in-ol-in( the same

partiesB causes of action and pra6er and the pre-ious case has alread6 been finall6

resol-ed.

ence, there is no other conclusion than that petitioners are (uilt6 of forum shoppin(.


14/18

-HEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. $he "ecision and Resolution of the Court

of Appeals dated une +3, )**4 and April )5, )**/, respecti-el6, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate ustice

-E CONCUR

PRESBITERO . VELASCO, R.

Associate ustice

Chairperson


15/18

TERESITA . LEONARDO/DE CASTRO ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate ustice Associate ustice

OSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate ustice

ATTESTATION

= attest that the conclusions in the abo-e "ecision had been reached in consultation

before the case as assi(ned to the riter of the opinion of the CourtBs "i-ision.

PRESBITERO . VELASCO, R.

Associate ustice

$hird "i-ision, Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section +4, Article V=== of the Constitution and the "i-ision

ChairpersonBs Attestation, = certif6 that the conclusions in the abo-e "ecision had


16/18

been reached in consultation before the case as assi(ned to the riter of the opinion

of the CourtBs "i-ision.

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief ustice

%"esi(nated as an additional member in lieu of Associate ustice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno,per Special Order !o. +*3 dated Au(ust )4, )*++.

+Penned b6 Associate ustice "elilah Vidallon#Ma(tolis, ith Associate ustices Remedios A.

Sala9ar#@ernando and Ed(ardo @. Sundiam, concurrin( rollo, pp. )5#4/.

)'d. at 43.

4Penned b6 ud(e @lorencio S. Arellano records, pp. )4#)/).

/Records, pp. +/ and +3.

0'd. at +4 and +0.

3'd. at )/.

8'd. at )0.

5'd. at )3.

'd. at +.

+*'d. at 4.

++'d. at ++.

+)'d.at )4#)/).

+4(eirs o# Ma)imino erla, et al. v. (eirs o# Catalina erla *da. de (ipolito, et al., 7.R. !o.

+088+8, April +4, )*++.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote1anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote2anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote3anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote4anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote5anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote6anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote7anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote8anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote9anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote10anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote11anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote12anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote13anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote14anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote1anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote2anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote3anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote4anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote5anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote6anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote7anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote8anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote9anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote10anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote11anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote12anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote13anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote14anc


17/18

+/'d.

+0Social Securit! Commission v. +ial %oultr! and &ivestock $ssociation, 'nc., et al., 7.R. !o.

+38*0*, une +, )*++.

+3$gustin v. Spouses elos Santos, 7.R. !o. +35+4, anuar6 )*, )**, 083 SCRA 083, 053#058 aganas v. muslan, /08 Phil. 4*0, 4+4 1)**42, citin( /usingco v. 0ng (ing &ian, 7.R. !o.

L#)30)4, "ecember )/, +8+, /) SCRA 05, 3*4.

+8"overnment Service 'nsurance S!stem v. "roup Management Corporation1"roup

Management Corporation and &apu-&apu evelopment and (ousing Corporation, 7.R. !os.+38***+38+, une 5, )*++, citin(%e2alosa v. uason, Phil. 4*4, 4)) 1++)2.

+5%hilippine 3ational Bank v. he 'ntestate state o# Francisco de "uman, 7.R. !o. +5)0*8,

une +3, )*+*, 3)+ SCRA +4+, +/+.

+Chua v. iman, 7.R. !o. +8*/0), Au(ust +4, )**5, 03) SCRA +/3, +0+, citin(Medel v.Court o# $ppeals, 7.R. !o. +4+3)), !o-ember )8, +5, ) SCRA /5+, /5.

)*Jocel!n M. oledo v. Marilou M. (!den, 7.R. !o. +8)+4, "ecember 5, )*+* Castro v. an,

7.R. !o. +35/*, !o-ember )/, )**, 3*0 SCRA )4+, )45 Spouses oring v. "anon-0lan,

7.R. !o. +3585), October +*, )**5, 035 SCRA 483, 454, citin(+ui v. Court o# $ppeals, 7.R.!o. +/3/), April )), )**4, /*+ SCRA /+*, /)+.

)+7.R. !o. +/5/+, @ebruar6 5, )**8, 0+0 SCRA 8.

))'d. at 58

)4)/ Phil. 84 1+552.

)/7.R. !o. +5*/05, ul6 4*, )**, 0/ SCRA /3+, /84, citin(evelopment Bank o# the

%hilippines v. "o, 7.R. !o. +3588, September +/, )**8, 044 SCRA /3*, /8*#/8+.

)0'd.

)3See Promissor6 !otes, records, pp. +/ and +3.

)8%ilipino elephone Corporation v. +adiomarine 3et4ork, 'nc., 7.R. !o. +0)*), Au(ust /,

)*+*, 3)3 SCRA 8*), 8)5#8) okio Marine Mala!an 'nsurance Compan!, 'ncorporated v.*alde, 7.R. !os. +0*+*8+0*+*5, anuar6 )5, )**5, 0/) SCRA /00, /3/#/30.

)5$sia 5nited Bank v. "oodland Compan!, 'nc., 7.R. !o. ++455, March , )*++.

)%entacapital 'nvestment Corporation v. Mahina!, 7.R. !os. +8+843+5+/5), ul6 0, )*+*,

3)4 SCRA )5/, 4++.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote15anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote16anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote17anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote18anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote19anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote20anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote21anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote22anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote23anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote24anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote25anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote26anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote27anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote28anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote29anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote30anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote15anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote16anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote17anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote18anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote19anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote20anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote21anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote22anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote23anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote24anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote25anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote26anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote27anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote28anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote29anchttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/163433.html#sdfootnote30anc


18/18

Spouses Villanueva vs. CA

Documents

Transcript of Spouses Villanueva vs. CA