BON-MAR REALTY AND G.R. Nos. 182136-37
SPORT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
Nachura, and
Reyes, JJ.
SPOUSES NICANOR
AND ESTHER
DE GUZMAN, EVELYN
UY AND THE
ESTATE OF
JAYME UY, HON. LORNA
CATRIS F.
CHUA-CHENG, Presiding Judge,
Branch 168 of
Branch 160 of RTC-San
Juan, (formerly
DEEDS OF
Respondents.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This
petition for review on certiorari assails the November 14, 2007 Decision[1]
and March 17, 2008 Resolution[2] of
the Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases involving CA-G.R. SP Nos. 94945[3]
and 97812.[4]
In CA-G.R.
SP No. 94945, the Court of Appeals denied Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corporation’s
(BON-MAR) petition to intervene in Civil Case No. 56393, a case filed by Spouses
Nicanor, Jr. and Esther de Guzman (the DE GUZMANS) for annulment of titles and
reconveyance of the properties against Mario and Erlina Siochi (SIOCHIS) and
Jayme and Evelyn Uy (UYS), and affirmed the orders of the trial court granting
the motion for issuance of a writ of possession of the DE GUZMANS.
In CA-G.R.
SP No. 97812, the Court of Appeals granted the DE GUZMANS’ leave to intervene
in SCA No. 2988-SJ, a proceeding for indirect contempt instituted by BON-MAR
against the Registrar of Deeds of San Juan for the latter’s refusal to cancel
the DE GUZMANS’ titles and issue new ones in BON-MAR’s name.
The
antecedent facts:
The DE
GUZMANS were the owners of two lots located in Greenhills, San Juan, Metro
Manila (the subject lots or properties), which were covered by Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 9052 and 9053. Owing to the need for campaign
funds for Nicanor’s candidacy as member of the House of Representatives, the DE
GUZMANS borrowed money from the SIOCHIS.
As collateral, the DE GUZMANS executed a deed of sale dated
The
SIOCHIS, however, caused the cancellation of TCT Nos. 9052 and 9053 by virtue
of the
Thereafter,
the SIOCHIS sold the subject lots to the UYS who were issued TCT Nos. 277-R and
278-R. Subsequently, the UYS entered
into a lease agreement with Roberto Salapantan.
Upon
learning of the said transfers, the DE GUZMANS filed Civil Case No. 56393[5] seeking
to annul the sales to the SIOCHIS and the UYS, as well as the lease to
Salapantan. On December 28, 1990, the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 168 rendered a Decision[6] finding
the agreement between the DE GUZMANS and the SIOCHIS as a mere equitable
mortgage, which precluded the latter from selling or foreclosing upon the
subject lots without the knowledge and consent of the DE GUZMANS. Thus the trial court ordered the nullification
of the deeds of sale to the SIOCHIS and the UYS, as well as the lease to
Salapantan; the reconveyance of the subject lots to the DE GUZMANS; and the
cancellation of the certificates of title issued in the name of the UYS.
The
SIOCHIS and the UYS appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the ruling
of the trial court.
From the
appellate court’s adverse decision, the SIOCHIS appealed to this Court, docketed
as G.R. No. 109217; the UYS likewise appealed docketed as G.R. No. 109197.
On
Meanwhile,
on March 10, 1999 or while the UYS’ petition in G.R. No. 109197 was pending,
BON-MAR filed Civil Case No. 67315[7] for
nullification of title against the UYS and the Register of Deeds of San Juan. BON-MAR claimed that after G.R. No. 109217 became
final and executory (on December 11, 1994), the UYS’ titles were cancelled and in
lieu thereof new titles were issued in the name of the DE GUZMANS (TCT Nos.
6982-R and 6983-R); that thereafter, the DE GUZMANS sold the subject lots to spouses
Abundia and Jose Garcia (the GARCIAS); that on January 23, 1996, BON-MAR bought
the lots from the GARCIAS and, as a result, TCT Nos. 7480-R and 7481-R were
issued in its name; that on April 1, 1996, BON-MAR caused the subdivision of
the properties into four (4) lots, under TCT Nos. 7650-R to 7653-R; that TCT
Nos. 7650-R to 7653-R were transferred to the UYS on January 10, 1997, to whom
TCT Nos. 8238-R to 8241-R were issued; however, the said January 10, 1997 transfer
in favor of the UYS was a forgery, as the latter allegedly forged the signature
of BON-MAR’s President (Bonifacio Choa or CHOA) on the deed of sale and other
related documents.
On
On June
21, 2001, this Court rendered a Decision[8] in
G.R. No. 109197 finding that the UYS were not buyers in good faith of the
subject lots; that as equitable mortgagees, the SIOCHIS could not validly appropriate
the subject lots since they were not the owners thereof; that the UYS, as mere transferees
of the SIOCHIS, acquired no better right to the subject lots than what the
latter had. The said decision became
final and executory on
Meanwhile,
on September 25, 2001, the trial court in Civil Case No. 67315 rendered a Decision,[9] which
nullified and cancelled UYS’ titles (TCT Nos. 8238-R to 8241-R) and ordered the
Register of Deeds of San Juan to reinstate BON-MAR’s titles (TCT Nos. 7650-R to
7653-R).
Aggrieved,
the UYS appealed to the Court of Appeals,[10] but
it was dismissed on
Meanwhile,
on
In its
Omnibus Motion, BON-MAR alleged that by virtue of the judgment in G.R. No.
109217, the DE GUZMANS were able to re-acquire title over the subject lots (TCT
Nos. 6982-R and 6983-R), and sold the same to the GARCIAS who in turn sold the
subject lots to BON-MAR in 1996; that the DE GUZMANS no longer have any right to
move for execution, for the second time, on the decision in said civil case
because it has been satisfied already; that by allowing the DE GUZMANS to
execute on the judgment anew would constitute unjust enrichment and double
recovery upon a judgment; that since it (BON-MAR) is the successor-in-interest
of the DE GUZMANS, it must be considered as the present lawful registered owner
of the subject lots, such that it possesses actual legal interest to intervene
in Civil Case No. 56393 in order to defend its title. BON-MAR thus prayed for
intervention in the proceedings; for a stay in the execution of the judgment;
for the quashal of the writ of execution; and for the issuance of an order
decreeing that judgment in Civil Case No. 56393 has been fully satisfied.
On
BON-MAR appealed
the denial of its Omnibus Motion to the Court of Appeals which was denied. The appellate court ruled that BON-MAR is a
stranger to the litigation in Civil Case No. 56393, which is a case between the
DE GUZMANS and the UYS, and that the writ of execution that was issued in said
case was directed against the UYS, who were the registered owners of the
property in question at the time, and not BON-MAR. The appellate court likewise found BON-MAR’s attempt
at intervention to be belated and improper since the case was in its execution
stage.
BON-MAR filed
a motion for reconsideration which was denied. BON-MAR did not appeal the aforequoted
decision to this Court, thereby rendering the same final and executory on
Meanwhile,
after finality of the judgment in Civil Case No. 67315 declaring it as owner of
the subject properties, BON-MAR moved for execution which was granted by the
trial court. A writ of execution was
issued on
On the
other hand, the DE GUZMANS in Civil Case No. 56393, moved for the issuance of a
Writ of Possession,[17]
which BON-MAR opposed.[18] The trial court granted[19]
the DE GUZMANS’ prayer for the issuance of a writ of possession, to which BON-MAR
filed a motion for reconsideration. On
On
On
Meanwhile,
after BON-MAR’s request to cancel the titles in UYS’ names and issue new ones
in its favor as decreed by the trial court in its final and executory decision
in Civil Case No. 67315, was denied by the Registrar of Deeds of San Juan, BON-MAR
filed SCA No. 2988-SJ,[23] a
special civil action for contempt against the Registrar of Deeds of San Juan. The DE GUZMANS sought to intervene,[24] but
it was denied[25] by the
trial court. The DE GUZMANS’ motion for
reconsideration was denied,[26] hence
they appealed to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari in
CA-G.R. SP No. 97812.[27]
After the
Court of Appeals ordered the consolidation of CA-G.R. SP No. 97812 and CA-G.R.
SP No. 94945, it rendered the herein assailed November 14, 2007 Decision, the
dispositive portion of which, reads:
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered, as follows:
The petition in CA G.R. SP No. 94945 is DENIED for lack of
merit. The
The petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 97812 is hereby GRANTED.
The
SO ORDERED.[28]
Hence, the
instant petition.
The issues
for resolution are:
I. May BON-MAR
intervene in the proceedings in Civil Case No. 56393? – Yes.
II. Are the DE
GUZMANS entitled to a writ of possession? – No.
III. May the DE
GUZMANS intervene in SCA No. 2988-SJ? – No.
I. BON-MAR MAY INTERVENE IN CIVIL CASE NO. 56393.
The
decision in Civil Case No. 67315 declared BON-MAR as successor-in-interest of
the DE GUZMANS. Thus, BON-MAR is not a mere
stranger to the litigation in Civil Case No. 56393; it is a necessary party who
must be joined in the suit if complete relief is to be accorded as to those
already parties, or for a complete determination or settlement of the claim
subject of the action.[29] BON-MAR’s intervention is necessary in order
to put an end to Civil Case No. 56393, because if it were established that BON-MAR
obtained its title from the GARCIAS who in turn obtained the same from the DE
GUZMANS, then there is nothing left for the DE GUZMANS to execute, because
their claim in Civil Case No. 56393 has been fully satisfied as early as 1995.[30] There would thus be no further reason for the
proceedings in Civil Case No. 56393 to continue.
The trial
court did not err when it initially denied on December 18, 2003 BON-MAR’s
Omnibus Motion (to intervene and to quash the writ of execution) because at
that time, the decision in Civil Case No. 67315 (which cancelled UYS’ titles
and recognized BON-MAR’s ownership over the subject lots) had not yet become
final and executory. Said decision attained
finality only on
BON-MAR
could not yet intervene in Civil Case No. 56393 until its title to the subject lots
is established, or recognized, by way of a final and executory decision in
Civil Case No. 67315. Since title to the
subject lots were then still registered in the name of the UYS, BON-MAR had
nothing to show to the trial court in Civil Case No. 56393 that it had any legal
interest to protect in the subject lots.
However, with
the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 67315 (declaring BON-MAR as
owner of the subject lots) it acquired legal interest to defend its title
against any threat or challenge. The pronouncement
by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
82807 that BON-MAR is a stranger to the litigation in Civil Case No. 56393 thus
no longer applies, because the facts which gave rise to the decision in said
case no longer holds true. Having been
declared the owner of the subject lots, BON-MAR is now possessed of the legal
interest to intervene in Civil Case No. 56393, and to oppose DE GUZMANS’
attempt to re-acquire the subject lots through execution proceedings.
To warrant
intervention, two requisites must concur: (a) the movant has a legal interest
in the matter in litigation, and (b) intervention must not unduly delay or
prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties nor should the claim of
the intervenor be capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding.[31] The interest, which entitles a person to
intervene in a suit, must involve the matter in litigation and of such direct
and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the
direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.[32]
The
judgment in Civil Case No. 67315 declaring BON-MAR as owner of the subject lots
should have convinced the trial court to conduct an inquiry. Although BON-MAR may have conceded that it is
a stranger to the litigation, the same does not bind the Court. Besides, the facts and the law belie this
claim. While this Court gives
considerable weight to the parties’ formulation of the issues, the resolution
of the controversy may warrant an approach that goes beyond the narrow confines
of the issues raised.[33] Justice
does not depend on the depth of the parties’ arguments; it is based on the
established facts and the applicable law.
Thus, when
BON-MAR moved to reconsider the trial court’s Order denying its motion to
intervene and granting the writ of possession to the DE GUZMANS, the trial
court should have granted the same in view of the final and executory judgment
in Civil Case No. 67315 declaring BON-MAR as owner of the subject lots.
Moreover,
the trial court erred in ignoring BON-MAR’s third-party claim, which the latter
filed after its attempt at intervention was rebuffed. Rule 39 of the Rules of
Court, provides:
Sec. 16. Proceedings
where property claimed by third person.
If the property levied on is claimed by any person other
than the judgment obligor or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of
his title thereto or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds of
such right or title, and serves the same upon the officer making the levy and a
copy thereof upon the judgment obligee, the officer shall not be bound to keep
the property, unless such judgment obligee, on demand of the officer, files a
bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not
less than the value of the property levied on. In case of disagreement as to
such value, the same shall be determined by the court issuing the writ of
execution. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may
be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one
hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond.
The officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking
or keeping of the property, to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from
vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action, or prevent the
judgment obligee from claiming damages in the same or a separate action against
a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim.
When the writ of execution is issued in favor of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of
such bond shall not be required, and in case the sheriff or levying officer is
sued for damages as a result of the levy, he shall be represented by the
Solicitor General and if held liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by
the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of such funds as may be
appropriated for the purpose.
The above provision
bestows upon third parties claiming rights to property under execution the
right to protect their interests by interposing a third-party claim in the same
case, or by instituting a separate reivindicatory action against the executing
creditor.[34] The third-party claim that is heard in the
same case may be tried at length or summarily. Proceedings to resolve the possession of
third-party claimants may proceed independently of the action which said
claimants may bring to enforce or protect their claim of ownership over the
property.[35]
The records
show that BON-MAR’s third-party claim was not even considered by the trial
court, despite its declaration of ownership over the subject lots pursuant to
the judgment in Civil Case No. 67315. BON-MAR
is not an ordinary stranger charged with knowledge of the DE GUZMANS’ pending
suit with respect to the disputed lots; it is one which claims ownership
precisely as a result of that suit.
Thus, BON-MAR
should be given the opportunity to ventilate, in Civil Case No. 56393, and not
in another suit, its claim that the DE GUZMANS are unlawfully attempting to
execute anew a judgment that has been previously satisfied. The judgment in Civil Case No. 67315 is superior
to that in Civil Case No. 56393, because the evidence established in the former
renders the decision in the latter case moot. It is therefore unnecessary for BON-MAR to file
a separate action against the DE GUZMANS.
II. THE DE GUZMANS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A WRIT
OF POSSESSION.
A writ of
possession may not be issued in favor of the DE GUZMANS pending resolution of
BON-MAR’s intervention cum
third-party claim. If possession were
surrendered to the DE GUZMANS before BON-MAR’s claim is resolved, and it is later
adjudged that BON-MAR is the true owner such that the disputed lots should then
be returned to it, then the court would have simply engaged in futile endeavor.
(I)t
is impractical to award possession to a party who, after all, purchased the
property with knowledge of the existence of a third-party claim, before said
claim has been decided, even at least preliminarily, after a hearing, only to
return said possession to the third-party claimant should he win. Such a
procedure is liable to give rise to more complications than if the procedure
laid down above were followed.[36]
A
proceeding for the issuance of a writ of possession is a mere incident in the
transfer of title;[37]
the courts may not grant the writ where title is in doubt, as in this case,
where the trial court still has to hear BON-MAR on its claim. The prudent course of action, therefore, is to
hold in abeyance proceedings for the issuance of the writ. Actual possession under claim of ownership
raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process
for the recovery of the property, not summarily through a motion for the
issuance of a writ of possession.[38]
Civil Case
Nos. 56393 and 67315 – despite involving title to real property, are
essentially actions quasi in rem. Judgment in both cases affects only
the parties thereto and their successors-in-interest; it does not bind the
whole world.
A judgment directing a party to deliver possession of a
property to another is in personam;
it is binding only against the parties and their successors in interest by
title subsequent to the commencement of the action. “Suits to quiet title are
not technically suits in rem, nor are
they, strictly speaking, in personam,
but being against the person in respect of the res, these proceedings are characterized as quasi in rem. The judgment in such proceedings is conclusive only
between the parties.” In this case, the action below is basically one for
declaration of nullity of title and recovery of ownership of real property, or
re-conveyance. “An action to recover a parcel of land is a real action but it
is an action in personam, for it
binds a particular individual only although it concerns the right to a tangible
thing.” “Any judgment therein is binding only upon the parties properly
impleaded.”[39]
Thus, the DE GUZMANS
cannot be bound by what has been decreed in Civil Case No. 67315 unless they
are given the opportunity to refute it. Conversely, BON-MAR may not be
prevented from attacking the judgment in Civil Case No. 56393, in order to
preserve its title. Under these
circumstances, there is no other practical venue for both parties to present
their conflicting claims than in Civil Case No. 56393, through BON-MAR’s
intervention cum third-party claim.
III. THE DE GUZMANS CANNOT INTERVENE IN SCA NO.
2988-SJ.
Anent the
propriety of DE GUZMANS’ intervention in SCA No. 2988-SJ, this Court finds that
contempt is not the proper remedy available to BON-MAR for the Registrar of
Deeds’ denial of its request for issuance of titles pursuant to the judgment in
Civil Case No. 67315. Under Presidential
Decree No. 1529, or the Property Registration Decree, BON-MAR should appeal the
Registrar of Deeds’ denial by consulta
to the Commissioner of the Land Registration Authority. Thus:
SECTION 117. Procedure.
— When the Register of Deeds is in doubt with regard to the proper step to be
taken or memorandum to be made in pursuance of any deed, mortgage or other
instrument presented to him for registration, or where any party in interest
does not agree with the action taken by the Register of Deeds with reference to
any such instrument, the question shall be submitted to the Commissioner of
Land Registration by the Register of Deeds, or by the party in interest thru
the Register of Deeds.
Where the instrument is denied registration, the Register
of Deeds shall notify the interested party in writing, setting forth the
defects of the instrument or legal grounds relied upon, and advising him that
if he is not agreeable to such ruling, he may, without withdrawing the
documents from the Registry, elevate the matter by consulta within five days from receipt of notice of the denial of
registration to the Commissioner of Land Registration.
The Register of Deeds shall make a memorandum of the
pending consulta on the certificate
of title which shall be cancelled motu
proprio by the Register of Deeds after final resolution or decision
thereof, or before resolution, if withdrawn by petitioner.
The Commissioner of Land Registration, considering the consulta and the records certified to
him after notice to the parties and hearing, shall enter an order prescribing
the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. His resolution or ruling in consultas shall be conclusive and
binding upon all Registers of Deeds, provided, that the party in interest who
disagrees with the final resolution, ruling or order of the Commissioner
relative to consultas may appeal to
the Court of Appeals within the period and in manner provided in Republic Act
No. 5434.
Under the
1997 Rules of Procedure, the resolution by the Commissioner of the Land Registration
Authority on the consulta may be
appealed to the Court of Appeals, which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide
the same, within the period and in the manner provided in Rule 43 thereof. SCA
No. 2988-SJ should thus be dismissed for being the wrong mode of remedy.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves as follows:
1) The petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 94945 is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated November 14, 2007 denying BON-MAR Realty and Sport Corporation’s petition
for intervention in Civil Case No. 56393 and granting Spouses Nicanor, Jr. and
Esther de Guzman’s motion for issuance of a writ of possession, and the
Resolution dated March 17, 2008 denying reconsideration thereof, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
2) The petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 97812 is DISMISSED. The November 14, 2007 Decision of the Court of
Appeals granting the leave to intervene of the Spouses Nicanor, Jr. and Esther
de Guzman in SCA No. 2988-SJ, as well as the March 17, 2008 Resolution denying
the motion for reconsideration are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. SCA No. 2988-SJ is
ordered DISMISSED for being the
wrong mode of remedy.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 66-86; penned by Associate
Justice Normandie B. Pizarro and concurred in by Associate Justices Juan Q.
Enriquez, Jr. and Lucenito N. Tagle.
[2]
[3]
Entitled “Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corp. v. Hon. Lorna Catris F. Chua-Cheng.”
[4]
Entitled “Nicanor de Guzman, Jr. v. Hon. Amelia A. Fabros and Bon-Mar Realty
and Sport Corp.”
[5]
[6] Rollo, pp. 383-396.
[7]
Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 167, entitled “Bon-Mar Realty and Sport
Corp. v. Spouses Jayme and Evelyn Uy and the Register of Deeds of San Juan,
Metro Manila.”
[8] Rollo, pp. 397-408; penned by Associate
Justice Jose A.R. Melo and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Vitug,
Artemio V. Panganiban, Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes and Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez.
[9]
[10]
Entitled “Bon-Mar Realty and Sport Corp. v. Spouses Jayme Uy and Evelyn Uy and
the Register of Deeds of
[11] Rollo, pp. 175-182; penned by Associate
Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Regalado E.
Maambong and Lucenito N. Tagle.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 160, entitled “Bon-Mar Realty and Sport
Corp. v. Atty. Corazon Chavez in her capacity as Register of Deeds of San
Juan.”
[24] Rollo, pp. 338, 491-494; Motion for Leave
to Intervene dated
[25]
[26]
[27]
Entitled “Nicanor de Guzman, Jr., as Administrator of the Conjugal Property v.
Hon. Amelia A. Fabros, Presiding Judge of RTC Br. 160,
[28] Rollo, p. 85.
[29]
RULES OF COURT, Rule 3, Sec. 8.
[30]
When the UYS’ titles (TCT Nos. 277-R and 278-R) were cancelled under
Inscription Nos. 13241 and 13242 of the Primary Log Book of the Register of
Deeds of San Juan and TCT Nos. 6982-R and 6983-R in the name of the DE GUZMANS were issued by virtue of the
Certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, Entry of
Judgment issued by this Court in G.R. No. 109217.
[31] Mabayo Farms, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 140058, August 1, 2002, 386 SCRA 110, 116.
[32] Garcia v. David, 67 Phil. 279, 284
(1939).
[33] Integrated Bar of the
[34] China Banking Corp. v. Ordinario, G.R.
No. 121943,
[35] Unchuan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
78775,
[36]
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Barredo in Guevara
v. Ramos, G.R. No. L-24358,
[37] Yu v. Philippine Commenrcial International
Bank, G.R. No. 147902,
[38] Serra Serra v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
Nos. 34080 & 34693, March 22, 1991, 195 SCRA 482, 491-492.
[39] Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, G.R. No.
130876, January 31, 2002, 375 SCRA 390, 408-409.