1

Lupa Realty explained that it was Moriel and his mother who
registered the sale in the Registry of Deeds, as shown by
the Affidavit executed by Moriel's mother. According to Lupa
Realty, it had no idea that Moriel and his mother had used a
falsified deed of sale with Tranquilino's forged signature in
registering the sale. Thus, Lupa Realty filed a third-party
complaint against Moriel to enforce the latter's warranty of a valid
title and peaceful possession against the claims of third persons.

In his Answer to the Third-Party Complaint, Moriel denied having

caused the registration of the sale to Lupa Realty, and denied
having prepared the falsified deed of sale that was used in
transferring the title to Lupa Realty. Moriel insisted that contrary
to Lupa Realty's assertions, it was actually the latter's personnel
who registered the sale.

Moriel laid the blame squarely on Tranquilino for having entrusted

his original certificate of title to his brother Nonito, thereby
making it possible for the latter to fraudulently transfer the
property to an innocent third person like Moriel. Thus, Moriel filed
a Fourth-Party Complaint against Nonito, praying that if it turns
out that Tranquilino really did not sell the subject property to
Nonito, the latter should be made liable for whatever liability may
be adjudged against [Moriel].

In his Answer (to the Fourth-Party Complaint), Nonito admitted to

having signed the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Moriel, but
qualified that the execution of the same was "attended by undue
pressure considering that at that time, [Nonito] was of confused
state of mind brought about by the numerous unfortunate events
that beset his family." According to Nonito, it was Moriel who
prepared the Deed of Absolute Sale, which [Nonito] mistakenly
believed to be merely one of mortgage to secure a loan that he
had obtained from Moriel. Accordingly, Nonito prayed that the
fourth-party complaint against him be dismissed and that
the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Moriel be nullified.
Curiously, during trial, despite Tranquilino's insistence that his
signature on the deed of sale in favor of Lupa Realty was forged,
he did not present a handwriting expert to prove the alleged
forgery. Neither did Tranquilino present any evidence
controverting Lupa Realty's allegations that he had sold the
property to his brother Nonito, who, in turn, transferred the
property to Moriel, and the latter eventually transferred the same
to Lupa Realty.

Instead, Tranquilino presented only his nephew, Vernold, and his

tenants, Felino Rizaldo (Felino) and Florante Ruiz (Florante).
[Vernold] testified on the matters contained in the Complaint;
i.e., about how he discovered that the land is now registered in
the name of Lupa Realty. While Felino and Florante both testified
that they were instituted as tenants in the property by the family
of Tranquilino since 1992 and no one has ever disturbed them in
their possession thereof.

On the other hand, Lupa Realty presented its former employee,

Demetria Balisi [(Demetria)], who testified that she was one of
the two witnesses to the deed of sale between Lupa Realty and
Moriel.

Demetria further testified that because the OCT was in the name
of Tranquilino and not Moriel, Lupa Realty had asked for proof of
Moriel's ownership thereof, and the latter submitted to them the
deed of sale between Tranquilino and Nonito, and the deed of
sale between Nonito and Moriel. We note that Tranquilino's
counsel admitted in open court the existence of the deed of sale
between Tranquilino and Nonito.

Demetria acknowledged that none of the deeds of conveyances

between Tranquilino and Nonito; between Nonito and Moriel; and
between Moriel and Lupa Realty - was used in registering the
transfer of the subject property to Lupa Realty. According to
Demetria, it was Moriel's mother who processed the registration,
and this was further confirmed by Moriel's mother in an affidavit
stating that they "were able to secure at (their) own ways and
means a new Title of the subject property in favor of [Lupa
Realty]."

To prove that Nonito really sold the subject property to him,

Moriel presented Onorio Rumbaoa [(Onorio)], who testified that
he was the agent of the sale between Nonito and Moriel. Onorio
testified that both Nonito and Moriel are his townmates and he
arranged for the two to meet when Nonito wanted to sell the
subject property. According to Onorio, when he remarked to
Nonito that the OCT was not in his name, Nonito showed him the
deed of sale executed by Tranquilino to prove that he (Nonito)
already own[ed] the subject property. Onorio testified that after
Moriel agreed to purchase the property, the three of them
(Nonito, Moriel and Onorio) went to the notary public where they
signed the deed of sale, with Onorio as witness. Moriel
corroborated the testimony of Onorio with regard to the details of
the sale to him of the subject property by Nonito.

Finally, Nonito testified that he only borrowed money from Moriel

and denied having sold the subject property to him. According to
Nonito, he gave Moriel a collateral for the purported loan but it
was not the subject property. When asked on cross-examination
what the collateral was, Nonito could not say. When asked how
Moriel came into possession of the OCT in Tranquilino's name,
Nonito also could not say.

2
It found, inter alia, that, prior to Vergara's filing of a CoC, she
had already re-acquired her Philippine citizenship under R.A.
9225. The COMELEC likewise found Vergara to be a natural-born
Filipino citizen, a legitimate resident and registered voter of the
Third District of Nueva Ecija.[18] Piccio filed an MR. Later, the
COMELEC en banc issued an Order dated September 8, 2016,
noting Piccio's ex-parte Manifestation stating that he earlier filed
a Petition for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam against Vergara before
the HRET and that, in view thereof, his petition before the
COMELEC should then be considered withdrawn.[19]
Here, Piccio alleges that the HRET gravely abused its discretion
when it declared that Vergara had duly re-acquired her Philippine
citizenship, despite the fact that both she and the BI only have
photocopies of Vergara's R.A. 9225 documents. [36] He insists that
Vergara failed to sufficiently explain the loss of her original
documents, hence, incapacitating her to validly present in
evidence the photocopies of her documents. [37] He likewise
bewails the failure of the BI to explain the missing originals and
asserts that the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official functions may no longer work to its advantage. [38]

Piccio further alleges that the HRET plagiarized the assailed

Decision because most, if not all, of its contents can be found in
Vergara's Answer and Memorandum filed before it. Allegedly, this
casts suspicion as to the HRET's fairness, impartiality, and
integrity.[39]

On the other hand, Vergara, in her Comment [40] dated October

28, 2019, alleges that the Petition suffers from serious procedural
infirmities which warrant its outright dismissal. [41] In any case,
she avers that the Petition must fail on its merits as all of the
issues raised therein were already correctly ruled upon by the
HRET. She maintains that she had proven her compliance with
R.A. 9225 to re-acquire her Philippine citizenship. Finally, she
submits that Piccio's allegations of plagiarism by the HRET must
be stricken down for being misleading and contrary to Piccio's
own cited case law.[42]

In turn, public respondent HRET, through the Office of the

Solicitor General (OSG), in its Comment[43] dated January 8,
2020, avers that the Petition must be dismissed outright for being
moot and academic, as Vergara had already fully served her
2016-2019 term as Representative of Nueva Ecija. [44] At any rate,
the OSG maintains that the HRET did not commit any grave
abuse of discretion as its dismissal of the quo warranto petitions
was supported by the evidence on record. [45] Moreover, it refers
to a number of resolutions from various quasi-judicial bodies
which had ruled on the same issues as the present case, and
attached copies thereof to its Comment. [46] Finally, the OSG
submits that as petitioners before it failed to prove their
allegations, the dismissal of the quo warranto petitions was
warranted and the general rule that the HRET's judgment is
beyond judicial interference must be upheld.[47]

In Piccio's Reply to Comment [48] dated February 23, 2020, he

argues against the OSG's submission that the present case is
mooted by the expiration of Vergara's first term as Member of the
House. He cited cases which the Court still resolved on the merits
although supervening events have rendered them moot, and
reiterates the exceptional character of the present case as one
being capable of repetition yet evading review.

II

The loan agreement pertinently reads:

ARTICLE 2. AMOUNT AND TERMS OF THE LOAN

2.01 The Loan

During the Commitment Period, the Lender hereby agrees, upon

the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, to advance the
commitment to the Borrower, and the Borrower hereby agrees to
borrow from the Lender, the aggregate amount of the
Commitment which shall not exceed the principal amount of FIVE
MILLION PESOS (P5,000,000.00), funded by SSS to finance [the]
construction of poultry houses.[8]

2.02 Use of Loan Proceeds

The borrowers shall use the loan proceeds exclusively for the
construction of poultry houses.

2.03 Procedure for Borrowing

The Borrower shall avail of the amount of the Commitment in one
or more Drawdowns but always subject to the availability of funds
on the agreed date of disbursement. Initial availment shall be
subject to the fulfillment of all the conditions for Lending specified
in Article 7.

xxxx

Article 7. CONDITIONS ON LENDING

1. Receipt of Promissory Note/s and Loan Agreement signed by

borrowers.
2. Receipt of copies of duly executed, notarized and registered
instruments covering or evidencing the Real Estate
Mortgage.
3. Receipt of certification that financial information previously
submitted to DBP is correct and that there are (sic) no
undisclosed direct or contingent liability.
4. Receipt of certification of no adverse change from the latest
financial statements and no default as a result of this
drawdown.

xxxx

Extra case parole evidence: G.R. No. 243733. January 12, 2021 ]

EDITA A. DE LEON, LARA BIANCA L. SARTE, AND RENZO EDGAR

L. SARTE, PETITIONERS, VS. THE MANUFACTURERS LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY (PHILS.) INC., ZENAIDA S. SARTE,
JESSICA SARTE-GUSTILO, VILMA C. CAPARROS, EDGAR ALVIN C.
CAPARROS, AND ROBERTO MORENO, RESPONDENTS.

Order of examination

Extra case: G.R. No. 212436. October 02, 2019 ]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG),
PETITIONER, V. SANDIGANBAYAN 2ND DIVISION, TRADERS
ROYAL BANK, ROYAL TRADERS HOLDING CO., INC. AND BANK OF
COMMERCE, AS SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST OF TRADERS ROYAL
BANK

Notarial practice Extra case: A.C. No. 11870. July 07, 2020 ]

HEIRS OF ODYLON UNITE TORRICES, REPRESENTED BY SOLE

HEIR MIGUEL B. TORRICES, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. HAXLEY M.
GALANO, RESPONDENT.

WHEN TO OFFER

Extra case: G.R. No. 233209. March 11, 2019 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HEROFIL

OLARTE Y NAMUAG

Admittedly, the practice of testimonial sponsorship of object

evidence in the Federal Rules is not specifically mentioned in the
Rules on Evidence. Nothing in the Rules on Evidence deals with
the authentication of object evidence during the trial.

UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE, CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS.

PASCUAL LINER, INC., RESPONDENT.:
[Link]
m_files/[Link]?cmd=getdoc&DocId=67126&Index=
%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=3&hits=157
a+157b+157c+&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev2%5csearch
%5csearch%5fform
G.R. No. 205333. February 18, 2019 ]

MA. MELISSA VILLANUEVA MAGSINO, PETITIONER, VS.

ROLANDO N. MAGSINO, RESPONDENT

:
[Link]
m_files/[Link]?cmd=getdoc&DocId=64829&Index=
%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=3&hits=43c
+43d+43e+&SearchForm=C%3a%5celibrev2%5csearch
%5csearch%5fform

1. Misleading Question

Case: SPOUSES ISIDRO DULAY III AND ELENA DULAY VS.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 215132. September 13, 2021

ATTY. HIDALGO:
Q Madam Witness, is it not that when you paid that more than
Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P450,000.00) already,
you went to Baguio City to verify the title?
A Yes, sir.
Q When in fact that verification that was by reason of the
statement made by the accused that they are processing the
title?
A Yes sir.
Q And that is also the very reason why you made the initial
payment of One Hundred Fifty Thousand (P150,000.00) Pesos,
am I correct?
ATTY. ARCHOG:
Objection Your Honor. The counsel is misleading the witness.
He is already asking on the reason of the verification after
 payment of P450,000.00. He is going back again to
P150,000.00.
ATTY. HIDALGO:
They just went back to Baguio.
ATTY. ACHOG:
Confusing Your Honor. He is confusing the witness Your
Honor.
ATTY. HIDALGO:
I am not confusing Your Honor. I am asking Your Honor the
reason for the payment of P150,000.00.
ATTY. ARCHOG:
That was already answered Your Honor P150,000.00.
COURT:
Atty. Hidalgo, you do your questioning in a manner that is
clear.

2. Hearsay Answer

Case: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JONATHAN WESTLIE

KELLEY, A.K.A. "DADDY WESTLIE," CARLOTA CERERA DELA
ROSA, A.K.A. "MOMMY LOTA," CHERRIE NUDAS DATU, A.K.A.
MOMMY CHERRIE," REY KELLEY ALIAS "BUROG," ALIAS DADDY
KELLEY," AND GLENDA L. JIMENEZ, ACCUSED, JONATHAN
WESTLIE KELLEY, CARLOTA CERERA DELA ROSA, AND CHERRIE
NUDAS DATU, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

G.R. No. 243653. June 22, 2020

[Link]: (To the Witness)

Q: When did you appl[y] for work at [redacted]?
A: Last week of April, 2013, ma'am.
Q: That was when you applied for work. When did you start
working at [redacted]?
A: On the same week, ma'am.
Q: As a dancer, what were your duties and functions at
[redacted]?
 A: I was entertaining customers, ma'am.
Q: How do you entertain customers?
A: I danced for them and I was "tabled" by them and also
"nagpapa-bar fine," ma'am.
Q: How do you mean "nagpapa-bar fine?"
A: That I will be paid by the customers to go out with them
for xxx sexual intercourse, ma'am.
Q: Can you please tell xxx this Honorable Court if other
dancers at [redacted] [were] doing the same thing, if you
know?
Atty. Duro: Objection, your Honor, hearsay.

Atty. Your Honor, I am asking her if she knows for she [wa]s
Piccio:working at [redacted] so she witnessed everything inside
the bar.
Court:     Objection overruled. Let the witness answer.

3. Question calls for a conclusion

Case: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EDWIN LABADAN Y

MANMANO AND RAQUEL SAGUM Y MARTINEZ
G.R. No. 237769. March 11, 2019

PO3 Diomampo's testimony proved likewise, viz:

Court:So, was there any Barangay Official who witnessed the

marking of the specimen?
A: I marked the evidence at the area, ma'am.
Q: The marking was done without the presence of Barangay
Kagawad?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So, there is a clear violation of section 21 of RA 9165,
right?
Court:Your question calls for a conclusion.
Q: When the photographs were taken, who were the persons
who were present if you can recall, Mr. witness?
A: I, the accused, BSDO and a Barangay Kagawad, sir

4. Credibility of witness

Case: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.

ZZZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
G.R. No. 229862. June 19, 2019

PROS. BALBUENA ON CROSS EXAMINATION:

Q: Now, Mrs. (sic) Witness, can you recall having testified in this
case?
A: Yes.
Q: In fact, it was I who presented you as our witness, Mrs. (sic)
Witness?
A: Yes.
Q: And when you testified Mrs. (sic) Witness, of course, this
Fiscal did not force you to testify, is that not right?
A: I was not forced.
Q: So, in your testimony when you were presented by the
prose[cu]tion as our witness[,] you were not under duress
then, Mrs. (sic) Witness?
ATTY. CABUSAO: Objection Your honor. What has be[e]n testified
by the witness, Your Honor, it is not the Prosecutor who forced
her, Your Honor.
PROS. BALBUENA: I am on cross examination, Your Honor and
the credibility of this witness is questioned, Your Honor.
COURT: Okay, let her answer.

5. Argumentative

Case: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FRANKIE MAGALONG Y

MARAMBA  @ ANGKIE
G.R. No. 231838. March 04, 2019
Q: If I tell you that there is a Police Precinct at the western part
of the Japanese Garden, do you agree with me?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: [Had] it been better if you conducted the inventory at the

Police Station [substation] rather than conducting partial
inventory and going to your office?

PROS. NACHOR:
Objection, your Honor. Argumentative.

COURT:
[Sustained].

6. Against warrantless arrest

Case: CANDY A.K.A. BABY/JILLIAN MURING FERRER,
PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 223042. October 06, 2021

It is settled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest of the

accused must be made before one enters his or her plea,
otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.

7. Disqualification of witness
Case:

Continuing objection on the qualification of the witness. 

(magsino)

8. Lack of jurisdiction

Case: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JOEL NAZARENO Y PAULO

G.R. No. 253653, June 16, 2021

 Objection involving arrest or the procedure for acquiring

jurisdiction over the person.
 9. Leading question
Case: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ARNEL AMAGOS Y LABAJO
A.K.A. YOYOY, ACCUSED; AND CHAGO OBRERO, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT
G.R. No. 236835, September 14, 2020

PROS. FORROSUELO: After arresting the two accused Mr. Witness

Yoyoy and Chago and after recovering the buy[-]bust money and
the matchbox containing tin foil with suspected shabu and placing
it separately from the shabu you bought from the accused, what
did you do next?
A. I was also looking for our security because prior to our
operation our service vehicle was previously stoned in that area.

Q. And then what did you do next?

A. I heard some of my teammates signaling us to pull back that
there were many children and people and our safety is our
primary security (sic).

Q. Did you pull you from the area Mr. Witness?

ATTY. SURALTA. I object, leading question, Your Honor.

COURT. I think that is already testified by the witness several

times that they pulled out from the area because there were
many people and their safety is at risk. As a matter of fact, this
witness testified that their service vehicle was already stoned.

10. Parole evidence

Case: ESTATE OF VALERIANO C. BUENO AND GENOVEVA I.

BUENO, REPRESENTED BY VALERIANO I. BUENO, JR. AND SUSAN
I. BUENO VS. ESTATE OF ATTY. EDUARDO M. PERALTA, SR. AND
LUZ B. PERALTA, REPRESENTED BY DR. EDGARDO B. PERALTA,
G.R. No. 205810. September 09, 2020
The counsel for the Estate of Bueno did object during the
testimony of Dr. Peralta, arguing against the introduction of parol
evidence of the contract between Bueno and Atty. Peralta:

As its last witness, plaintiff presented Dr.

Edgardo Peralta who testified [that] he is
residing in [sic] 3451 M. Villamor Street, Sta.
Mesa, Manila since the year of 1962. He
knows that the [sic] Mr. Bueno is the
previous owner of the address 3450 M.
Villamor Street[,] Sta. Mesa[,] Manila which
[is] just across his present address. He said
that at present they are the owner of the
property because the same has been verbally
given to his parents by Mr. Bueno. (In this
regard, the defense entered its continuing
objection to the question profounded [sic]
citing Articles 1403 and 1358 of the Civil
Code). He said that the title of the property
was not given to his father because this was
made a part of the collateral to a mortgage
by Mr. Bueno. Thus, they made
representation to the bank through a letter
dated January 1, 1996 (Exhibit "G") sent by
registered mail for the bank to honor the
verbal agreement made by and between Mr.
Bueno and his late father to which they
received no reply

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:

On 11 October 1999, Tranquilino, who was by then already

residing in America, filed a Complaint for Reivindicacion,
Cancellation of Title and Document with Damages against Lupa
Realty Holding Corporation (Lupa Realty).
 The Complaint alleged that sometime in April 1999, Vernold
went to the Office of the Municipal Treasurer of Sta. Ana,
Cagayan to pay the real estate taxes on the subject property, but
was told that Lupa Realty was already the new owner thereof and
that the tax declaration had already been transferred to its name.
Tranquilino further alleged that upon verifying with the Registry
of Deeds for Cagayan, Vernold discovered that the subject
property was already registered in the name of Lupa Realty under
TCT No. T-109129 pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale
purportedly executed by Tranquilino on 29 October 1997 in
favor of Lupa Realty, in consideration of the sum of P425,500.00.

In his complaint, Tranquilino denied having executed

said Deed of Absolute Sale, insisting that his signature thereon
must be a forgery because he was in America on 29 October
1997. Accordingly, he prayed for the cancellation of Lupa
Realty's TCT No. T-109129 and the reinstatement of OCT No. P-
46041 in his name, plus damages.

In its Answer, Lupa Realty countered that contrary to the

allegation of Tranquilino that he never sold the subject property,
he sold the same to his brother, Nonito Agbayani (Nonito), as
shown by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale executed on 21
January 1992. In turn, Nonito sold the subject property to
Moriel Urdas (Moriel) in a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale, dated
30 May 1997. According to Lupa Realty, it acquired the subject
property not from Tranquilino but from Moriel by way of a
notarized Deed of Absolute Sale, dated 29 October 1997.

Lupa Realty further insisted that it was an innocent

purchaser for value and in good faith.

RTC: declared the name of Lupa Realty is null and void.

CA: ruled that Tranquilino failed to discharge his burden to
present clear and convincing evidence to overthrow the
presumption of regularity in the execution on January 21, 1992 of
the Deed of Absolute Sale (1992 DAS) in favor of his brother
Nonito and to prove his allegation of forgery regarding his
signature. According to the CA, Tranquilino's insistence that he
could not have signed the 1992 DAS because he was in America
at that time was insufficient. Further, the CA stated that the fact
that there is a Deed of Absolute Sale (1997 DAS) purportedly
executed by Tranquilino on October 29, 1997 in favor of Lupa
Realty, which Moriel and his mother used in registering the sale
to Lupa Realty, is not sufficient in itself to invalidate Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-109129 in the name of Lupa
Realty.

RULING:

As to the 1992 DAS, Tranquilino argues that the unqualified

admission made during the pre-trial proceedings in the RTC by
Nonito, through his counsel on record, Atty. Frederick Aquino,
that there was no such sale between Tranquilino and Nonito is
a judicial admission that it is spurious, which dispenses with the
need to present proof of the matter of fact already admitted. The
Pre-Trial Order dated April 22, 2003 states: "Atty. Aquino denied
that Tranquilino Agbayani executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in
favor of Nonito Agbayani. According to Atty. Aquino there was no
such sale."

Regarding admissions by counsel of a party during the

preliminary conference, Camitan v. Fidelity Investment
Corporation is instructive:

xxx

Unfortunately for petitioners, their counsel

admitted the genuineness of the owner's
duplicate copy of the TCT presented by
Fidelity during the preliminary conference at
the CA. The following exchange is revealing:

J. MARTIN:
 Counsel for the private respondent, will
you go over the owner's copy and
manifest to the court whether that is a
genuine owner's copy?

ATTY. MENDOZA:

Yes, Your Honor.

J. MARTIN:

Alright. Make it of record that after

examining the owner's copy of TCT NO.
(T-12110) T-4342, counsel for the
private respondent admitted that the
same appears to be a genuine owner's
copy of the transfer certificate of title. x
xx

xxxx

The foregoing transcript of the preliminary conference

indubitably shows that counsel for petitioners made
a judicial admission and failed to refute that admission during the
said proceedings despite the opportunity to do so.
A judicial admission is an admission, verbal or written, made by a
party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, which
dispenses with the need for proof with respect to the matter or
fact admitted. It may be contradicted only by a showing that it
was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission
was made.

On the other hand, American jurisprudence sets the

following parameters on judicial admissions:

A judicial admission is a formal statement, either by party or his

or her attorney, in course of judicial proceeding which removes
an admitted fact from field of controversy. It is a voluntary
concession of fact by a party or a party's attorney during judicial
proceedings.

Judicial admissions are used as a substitute

for legal evidence at trial. Admissions made
in the course of judicial proceedings or
judicial admissions waive or dispense with,
the production of evidence, and the actual
proof of facts by conceding for the purpose of
litigation that the proposition of the fact
alleged by the opponent is true. x x x

-
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:

Vergara is a natural-born Filipino citizen, having been born to

Filipino parents, Leopoldo Lucas Vergara and Francisca L. Garcia,
on November 5, 1963 in the City of Manila. In 1994, she moved
to Cabanatuan City where she married her husband and later
established their family home.

On May 20, 1998, prompted by her desire to pursue job

opportunities, Vergara moved to the United States of America
(USA), obtained a Certificate of Naturalization as an American
citizen, and was thereby issued an American passport.

Sometime in November 2006, Vergara filed with the Philippine

Bureau of Immigration (BI) a Petition for the Issuance of an
Identification Certificate (IC) pursuant to Republic Act No. (R.A.)
9225 for the retention/reacquisition of Philippine citizenship (R.A.
9225 Petition). The same was docketed as CRR No. 06-11/28-
11184, No. AFF-06-10552. As part of the documentary
requirements supporting her R.A. 9225 Petition, Vergara took her
Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on November
26, 2006.

Finding that Vergara had complied with all the requirements of

R.A. 9225 and BI Memorandum Circular No. (BI M.C.) AFF-05-
002, the BI Task Force on the Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act of 2003 (BI-TFCRRA) issued a Memorandum
dated November 28, 2006, recommending the approval of
Vergara's R.A. 9225 Petition and the issuance of an IC in her
favor. In an Order dated November 30, 2006, BI Commissioner
Fernandez granted Vergara's R.A. 9225 Petition, holding that she
had taken her Oath of Allegiance and, so, thereby deemed to
have re-acquired her Philippine citizenship. The Order further
stated that Vergara had complied with all the requirements of
R.A. 9225 and directed the issuance of an IC in her favor.

Hence, Vergara was issued IC No. 06-12955 likewise dated

November 30, 2006, recognizing her as having re-acquired her
Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. 9225. Subsequently,
Vergara executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign
Citizenship dated September 4, 2015.

On October 15, 2015, Vergara filed with the Commission on

Elections (COMELEC) a Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for
Representative of the Third District of Nueva Ecija for the May 9,
2016 National and Local Elections.

Piccio, as registered voter, filed a Petition to Deny Due Course

and/or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy against Vergara, alleging
her failure to comply with the citizenship, residency, and voter
registration requirements for Members of the House.

In the May 11, 2016 elections, Vergara won and was proclaimed
as duly-elected Representative of the Third District of Nueva
Ecija. On June 30, 2016, she took her oath of office and assumed
her position as Member of the House.

In a Resolution dated June 7, 2016, the COMELEC dismissed the

Section 78 Petition for lack of merit.

Meanwhile, Piccio tried to secure from the Office of the Clerk of

Court (OCC) and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the City of Manila a certified
true copy of Vergara's Oath of Allegiance. The Assistant Clerk of
Court, Clemente M. Clemente, issued a Certification stating that
Atty. Alejandro B. Cinco — the Notary Public before whom
Vergara's Oath of Allegiance was acknowledged on November 26,
2006 — did not submit Book IV of his Notarial Report,
corresponding to the period from February 2006 to December
2007, which supposedly contained said Oath of Allegiance.

Likewise, Piccio wrote three letters to the BI asking for certified

true copies of Vergara's R.A. 9225 documents, which documents
she had submitted to the COMELEC in support of her CoC.
However, then BI Commissioner was not able to produce the
original copies.

In response to Vergara, then newly-appointed Commissioner

Jaime H. Morente (Commissioner Morente), in a Letter-Reply
dated August 10, 2016, stated that the Acting Chief of the Board
of Special Inquiry (BI-BSI) confirmed that Vergara's R.A. 9225
Petition had been duly received, processed, and approved by the
BI and that she had been issued IC No. 06-12955. Further, her
R.A. 9225 records reportedly containing photocopied documents
were borrowed by Commissioner Geron on May 16, 2016.
Commissioner Morente likewise declared that he had ordered the
conduct of an investigation on the alleged tampering of Vergara's
R.A. 9225 records.

Piccio filed a quo warranto petition against Vergara before the

HRET, averring that Vergara is ineligible to sit as a Member of the
House, as she remained to be an American citizen, not having
complied with the requirements of R.A. 9225 for re-acquisition of
Philippine citizenship. He cited, as basis: 1) the Certification
dated May 24, 2016 of the Manila City OCC and 2) Commissioner
Geron's three letters. Umali basically only adopted the position of
Piccio.

Vergara, on the other hand, denied Piccio's allegations and

maintained that she had duly re-acquired her Philippine
citizenship in compliance with R.A. 9225.

HRET: found no merit in the quo warranto petitions of Piccio.

Piccio maintains that the acquisition by Vergara of the IC was
irregular because of her failure to produce the original documents
supporting her R.A. 9225 Petition in accordance with the Rules on
Evidence, and the concomitant failure of the BI to explain why it
only has photocopies of the documents in its records. Piccio
further faults Vergara for omitting to offer a plausible explanation
why she only has photocopies in her possession and the original
cannot be produced or found.

RULING:
The photocopies of Vergara's
R.A. 9225 documents were
validly introduced in evidence,
as she had sufficiently
established and explained the
loss of their originals.

--
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:
Maricel L. Rivera (petitioner) alleged that she entered into a
contract of marriage with Woo Namsun (respondent), a South
Korean national, on April 18, 2007 in Quezon City. In September
of the same year, or 5 months after getting married, petitioner
and respondent left for South Korea and lived together therein as
husband and wife. After just a year into the marriage, their
relationship turned sour, with respondent becoming physically
and emotionally abusive towards petitioner. Fed up, petitioner
decided to return to the Philippines in 2008 and returned to South
Korea after one (1) month.

In 2011, petitioner was surprised to discover that respondent had

filed for divorce, which was approved by the Seoul Family Court
on the same year, on June 14, 2011. On the basis thereof,
respondent eventually remarried Kim Seonyeo, a Chinese
national, on November 8, 2011.

Seeking to remarry, as petitioner herself was also involved in a

relationship with another Korean national with whom she begot a
child, she filed the instant petition with the RTC, praying that the
foreign judgment of divorce be recognized in the Philippine
jurisdiction, thereby giving her the capacity to contract another
marriage.

In granting the petition, the RTC held that petitioner's evidence to

prove the Judgment of Divorce, consisting of
an Authentication Certificate issued by the Department of Foreign
Affairs, Manila (DFA), attaching therewith a Letter of
Confirmation issued by the Embassy of the Republic of South
Korea, and the Judgment rendered by the Seoul Family Court,
conformed to Section 24, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which
laid down the requirements to prove the authenticity of a foreign
judgment. Similarly, the law upon which the judgment was
based, the Civil Act of South Korea, was also properly
authenticated and proven, by virtue of
an Authentication Certificate issued by the Department of Foreign
Affairs (DFA), a Letter of Confirmation by the Embassy of the
Republic of South Korea, and a copy of the law, as confirmed and
produced by Counselor and Consul Chin Hyun Yong of the
Embassy of the Republic of South Korea.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:

Young Builders Corporation (YBC) filed before the RTC a

complaint for collection of sum of money against defendant-
appellant Benson Industries, Inc. (BII). In its complaint, YBC
claimed that it was contracted by BII for the purpose of
constructing BII's commercial building located at Escario St.,
corner F. Ramos Extension, Cebu City, pursuant to an
accomplishment billing basis. As of 18 May 1998, YBC alleged
that it had accomplished works on the main contract amounting
to Php54,022,551.39, of which only Php40,678,430 was paid by
BII leaving a balance of Php13,344,121.39. In addition, BII
required YBC to do extra works amounting to Php11,839,110.99
which, after deducting Php350,880 for the water cistern, resulted
in a total collectible of Php24,832,352.38 both on the main
contract and the extra works as per accomplishment billing dated
18 May 1998. However, despite demand, BII failed to pay its
account constraining YBC to file the collection case.

In its Answer, BII admitted that it contracted YBC to

construct the former's building but denied that it was on an
accomplishment billing basis. On the contrary, BII averred that
the construction was pursuant to a timetable with which YBC
failed to comply. Objecting to YBC's monetary claims, BI asserted
that YBC committed prior breaches in the agreement particularly
the latter's delay and eventual abandonment of the construction
as well as its defective and inferior workmanship and materials
which unduly affected the usefulness and value of the building.
BII also denied YBC's claim for extra works, maintaining that
those were remedial not additional works. Even assuming that
YBC still has a collectible, BII contended that the same has been
offset against YBC's liability as a result of the latter's default and
its substandard work. BII consequently prayed for the dismissal
of the complaint.

During the trial, YBC presented its lone witness, architect

Nelson Go Yu as the Vice President of the corporation, who
testified on the material allegations in the complaint.

On 21 November 2008, the RTC resolved the case in favor of

YBC,

The CA: finding that YBC failed to prove that it was entitled
to collect any balance from BII.

T he CA noted that the only evidence showing YBC's alleged

monetary claims against BII was its Accomplishment Billing
(Exhibit "B") which showed BII's purported balance of
P13,344,121.39 on the main contract and P11,488,230.89 on the
extra works. The CA excluded Exhibit "B" as evidence because of
YBC's failure to authenticate it. With the exclusion of the
Accomplishment Billing, the CA concluded that YBC's cause of
action for collection no longer had any leg to stand on.
 -
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:

Respondents Evelina Togle (Evelina) and her daughter

Catherine Geraldine Togle (Catherine) sued DBP for Breach of
Contract, Annulment of Mortgage and Foreclosure Proceedings,
and Reconveyance with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and/or
Temporary Restraining Order before the Regional Trial Court,
Davao City. They essentially alleged:

Evelina and her late husband Jesus Togle are

the owners of two (2) agricultural lots located
in Bangkas Heights, Toril, Davao City under
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos.
239080 and 239081, respectively. 

On April 5, 1995, Catherine wrote the manager of DBP-

Davao City to apply for an agricultural loan to fund a poultry
grower project to be built on the subject properties.

In compliance with DBP's requirements, she submitted a

feasibility study for the construction of four (4) poultry houses
with a total broiler capacity of 20,000. The broilers will be
supplied by Vitarich.

Finding the feasibility study acceptable, DBP approved

Catherine's P5,000,000.00 loan application which was secured by
the subject properties.

On November 15, 1995, Catherine issued a promissory note

for P3,000,000.00 in favor of DBP and received the first
drawdown of P3,000,000.00 two (2) days later. Using the first
drawdown, Catherine was able to put up four (4) poultry houses,
a bodega, and a water tank. She, too, was able to install poultry
machineries, equipment, and a generator set.

Subsequently, by Letter dated February 2, 1996, Catherine

requested for the release of an additional P500,000.00.
 But DBP denied the request because they (respondents)
allegedly failed to comply with the loan specifications, i.e., they
should have infused equity in proportion to the amount released
by DBP for the construction of twelve (12) poultry houses which
could house at least 60,000 broilers. This was the first time they
were informed of these alleged requirements.

After due notice, DBP applied the acceleration clause and

declared them in default. On November 22, 1996, DBP foreclosed
the properties and emerged as the highest bidder at the auction
sale. For their failure to redeem the properties, ownership thereof
was consolidated to DBP. Consequently, the Register of Deeds of
Davao City cancelled TCT Nos. 239080 and 239081 and issued
TCT Nos. 300166 and 300167 in DBP's name.

Thereafter, DBP stationed guards on the properties to

prevent them (respondents) from harvesting the fruits and
leasing out the farm. DBP, too, removed the electrical wirings,
electrical and water pipes, iron bars, lights, and speakers from
the structures thereon.

Believing that the acceleration of their loan was

unwarranted, and the foreclosure of the mortgage was
premature, respondents sought to annul the foreclosure
proceedings and have the subject properties reconveyed in their
favor. They, too, claimed moral damages of P10,000,000.00.

Meantime, Catherine was charged with violations of Batas

Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) and estafa by her unpaid suppliers,
forcing her to leave Davao City. She eventually got arrested at
her father's funeral.

In its Answer with Counterclaim, [18] DBP riposted that it

refused to release respondents' remaining credit because the
latter failed to fulfill their end of the bargain. As agreed, the
poultry project called for the construction of twelve (12) poultry
houses for a total of P9,579,600.00.

RTC: nullified DBP's foreclosure of the mortgaged

 It essentially held that the foreclosure was premature as
respondents were not yet in default. On the contrary, it was DBP
which breached the loan agreement and acted in bad faith when
it unilaterally altered its terms by requiring respondents to build
twelve (12) poultry houses for 60,000 broilers instead of only
four (4) poultry houses for 20,000 broilers.

DBP makes much ado of Catherine's Letter dated February

2, 1996 and claims that it is veritable proof that respondents
committed to put up twelve (12) poultry farms.

-
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:
Sanchez learned that her estranged husband, Eldie
Labinghisa (Labinghisa), was among the seven (7) alleged
members of the New People's Army who were gunned down by
the Philippine National Police in Barangay Atabay, San Jose,
Antique.

Upon discovering that the corpses were sent to St. Peter's

Funeral Home, Sanchez went there to verify the news of her
husband's death. At the funeral home, however, the police
officers stationed there took photos of her without her
permission. Fearing what the officers had done, she left without
being able to see or identify her husband's body.

A few hours after Sanchez had returned from the funeral home,
Police Officer 2 Nerissa A. De la Cruz (PO2 Dela Cruz), a close
friend of hers, informed her that her photo was being circulated
at the police station. The officer urged her to tell the investigating
officers her husband's name, otherwise, they would go after
her. PO2 De la Cruz also warned her to voluntarily cooperate with
the investigating officers, or they might suspect her and put her
under surveillance.

The following day, Sanchez went back to the funeral home, where
she was confronted by three (3) police officers who threatened to
apprehend and charge her with obstruction of justice if she
refused to answer their questions. Again fearing for her safety,
Sanchez hurried home without confirming the identity of her
husband's body.

Later that day, two (2) police officers went to Sanchez's house
and showed her a photo of a cadaver. She confirmed the dead
body as Labinghisa.

In the following days, Sanchez noticed the frequent drive-bys of a

police car in front of her house and a vehicle that tailed her and
her family when they went to Iloilo to attend her husband's
wake. She also noticed someone shadowing her when she was
outside her house, causing her to fear for her and her children's
safety.

This fear was shared by her 15-year-old daughter, Scarlet

Labinghisa, who attested that the constant police presence
caused her anxiety as she worried for her mother's security.

Sanchez alleged that the police officers' constant surveillance of

her and her family made them fear for their safety and prevented
them from going out of their house. She pointed out that if the
conduct of surveillance and monitoring was for her and her
family's safety, then the police should have informed them of it
beforehand.

RTC: issued a writ of amparo and a temporary protection order.

It also directed members of the Philippine National Police to file a
verified written return.

The Regional Trial Court held that Sanchez failed to substantiate

her assertion that she became a person of interest to the police
after she had identified her husband's dead body. This was
because she was unable to specifically allege the police officers'
acts or the acts they sanctioned which threatened her security
and liberty.

Thus, Sanchez filed her Petition for Review on Certiorari.

In their Comment, respondents reiterate that petitioner failed to
prove that she was entitled to the grant of the privilege of a writ
of amparo, as her allegations against them were unsubstantiated
and merely speculative. They insist that as the wife of a member
of the National People's Army, she was a proper interview
subject.

-
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:
G.R. No. 211120 (Medel Arnaldo B. Belen v. People of the
Philippines). - Petitioner Medel Arnaldo B. Belen seeks
reconsideration of the Court's Decision dated February 13, 2017,
denying his petition for review on certiorari, and affirming the
Court of Appeals Decision dated April 12, 2013 with modification,
increasing the penalty for libel imposed upon him from Three
Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) to Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00),
with subsidiary imprisonment in case insolvency.

The Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for

Reconsideration are denied for lack of merit.

First, insisting on the absence of the element of publication,

petitioner argues that receipt of the Omnibus Motion and the
subsequent reading of its contents by prosecution witnesses Joey
Flores and Gayne Gamo Enseo, legal staff of the City Prosecutor's
Office of San Pablo City, and Michael Belen, representative of
Nezer Belen in the estafa complaint filed before the said Office,
constituted privileged communication.

-
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:
Two (2) separate Informations filed before the RTC charging
accused-appellants Bernardo, Flores, Cortez,
and Galamay (accused-appellants) and their co-accused with the
crimes of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide and Murder.
 The prosecution alleged that on July 2, 1998, Dr. Eliezer
Andres, Sr. (Dr. Andres, Sr.) and retired Major Igmedio Arcega
(Major Arcega) went to Sta. Lucia Mall in Cainta, Rizal to
separately meet with a group of people selling gold bars.
However, Dr. Andres, Sr. did not return from the meeting. His
son, Dr. Eliezer Andres, Jr. (Dr. Andres, Jr.), informed Major
Arcega that his father was missing. Thus, the two of them
returned to the mall to look for Dr. Andres, Sr. On the way, Major
Arcega described to Dr. Andres, Jr. the appearance of the five (5)
persons whom he and the elder Andres separately met that day.

As Dr. Andres, Jr. went around the mall, he noticed that he was
being followed by four (4) suspicious men whose descriptions
matched those provided by Major Arcega; three (3) of whom
were eventually identified as Flores, Cortez, and Pacpaco. Wary of
being followed, Dr. Andres, Jr. decided to discontinue his search
and went home without finding his father. On the same day,
Major Arcega himself also went missing.

Later that evening, Dr. Andres, Jr. received a phone call from a
woman who claimed to have custody of his father and demanded
ransom money for his release. Dr. Andres, Jr. recognized the
voice of the female caller as that of Galamay, who was a
frequent visitor in the Andres residence and with whom Dr.
Andres, Sr. had previous dealings. Dr. Andres, Jr. then reported
the matter to the Philippine National Police (PNP) and requested
for monitoring and assistance during the payment of the ransom
money, which date and place were earlier agreed upon.

Thus, on July 4, 1998, at the actual payment of the ransom

money in front of Aladdin Bus Terminal at España, Manila with
the furtive presence of P/C Inspector Arthur de Guzman, P/C
Inspector Warren de Leon, and other members of the PNP-
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP CIDG), Dr.
Andres, Jr. saw and identified the group of Bernardo, Pacpaco,
Time, Cabesa, and Ramirez. Dr. Andres, Jr. personally handed
the ransom money in a brown envelope to Bernardo, who gave
it to Cabesa, who then rode a motorcycle and sped away. The
exchange having been completed right there and then, Bernardo,
Pacpaco, Time, and Ramirez were arrested by the PNP-CIDG.
Meanwhile, the police officers followed Cabesa to a house in
Camarin, Caloocan City where they found him together
with Flores, Antonio, and Cortez in the living room, counting the
previously-marked ransom money. They were all arrested and
brought to the police station.

Meanwhile, the cadaver of an unidentified male person was

discovered at Brgy. Amuyong, Mabitac, Laguna the previous day
or on July 3, 1998. The autopsy conducted on the body revealed
various injuries and the cause of death was a gunshot wound on
the head and asphyxia by strangulation. Later on, Dr. Andres, Jr.
positively identified the body as that of his father, Dr. Andres, Sr.

Subsequently, Antonio executed two (2) Sinumpaang Salaysay.

In the July 6, 1998 Sinumpaang Salaysay (July 6 Salaysay),
Antonio expressly admitted his and his co-accused's participation
in the kidnapping of Dr. Andres, Sr. and confessed that the latter
was already dead and that his car was brought to Norzagaray,
Bulacan where it was burned. Meanwhile, in the July 8,
1998 Sinumpaang Salaysay (July 8 Salaysay), Antonio recounted
the killing of Major Arcega in a farm in Brgy. Jala-jala, Rizal and
likewise, implicated his co-accused in the crime. Upon recovery of
Major Arcega's body therefrom - which his son. Joel Arcega, later
identified - the autopsy[23] revealed the cause of death to be a
gunshot wound and traumatic injuries on the head.

For their part, all the accused, who were arrested on different
occasions and in various locations, interposed their own defenses
of denial and alibi, each asseverating their own versions of
torture, wrongful accusation, and frame-up.

RTC: found all the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of

Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide.
[28]
The RTC found the confluence of all the elements  of the crime
of Kidnapping for Ransom with Homicide, noting that the
prosecution had established the participation of all the accused in
the crime. On the other hand, the defenses of bare denial
and alibi were not given weight in light of Dr. Andres, Jr.'s
positive identification of the perpetrators of the crime, which were
bolstered by the documentary evidence, as well as
Antonio's voluntary extrajudicial confession.

CA: in Criminal Case No. 115555-H for Murder.

-
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:
Luis T. Arriola (Arriola) was charged with Estafa under Section
315, Paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 146 of Makati City. The
February 11, 2003 Information.

The prosecution alleged that sometime in 2001, Del Rosario met

Arriola, a real estate broker of real properties located in Tagaytay
City. At that time, Del Rosario had already bought a lot in
Tagaytay City owned by one Ernesto Marcelo (Marcelo). Arriola
informed Del Rosario that the lot adjacent to Marcelo's land was
also for sale. He showed her a letter purportedly from the subject
lot owner, Paciencia G. Candelaria (Candelaria), authorizing him
to sell it in her stead. Del Rosario became interested in
Candelaria's lot, as she planned to construct a therapy center
thereon for women.

Del Rosario decided to buy Candelaria's lot and gave Arriola

P100,000.00 as earnest money. Aside from the Authorization
Letter, Arriola also showed Del Rosario a certified copy of
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 33184 proving that the lot
was in Candelaria's name, and a fax transmittal from Candelaria,
who allegedly was then in Australia, authorizing Arriola to
transact and receive the purchase price in her behalf. Del Rosario
paid the balance of the purchase price in the amount of
P337,000.00, for which Arriola issued her a Receipt of Payment
dated June 28, 2001. Del Rosario signed a Deed of Absolute Sale
(Deed) prepared by Arriola and purportedly signed by Candelaria
and one Sister Adela Arabia of the Order of St. Benedict as her
witness.

Arriola told Del Rosario that since the contract still had to be
notarized, he would give her only photocopies of the Deed and
the TCT. After repeated requests to deliver the original
documents, Del Rosario received only a notarized copy of the
Deed and copies of tax receipts appended to Arriola's letter dated
September 22, 2001. Exasperated, Del Rosario asked Arriola to
return the money if he could not give her the copy of the TCT of
Candelaria's lot. In a letter dated December 17, 2001, Arriola
replied to and promised Del Rosario that he would return the total
amount of P437,000.00 on January 7, 2002, plus interest at 16%
per annum from July 1, 2001.

Arriola, however, reneged on his promise. On May 28, 2002,

Arriola issued Del Rosario a check dated June 20, 2002 covering
the purchase price of the lot plus interest. The check, however,
was dishonored for having been drawn from a closed account. Del
Rosario tried contacting Candelaria but discovered that the
latter's number indicated in her purported fax transmittal was an
invalid number. Undeterred, Del Rosario found Candelaria's
number in the White Pages Telephone Directory of Brisbane,
Australia. Candelaria told Del Rosario that she was not selling the
subject property, nor had she authorized Arriola to sell it. On July
11, 2002, Arriola issued Del Rosario another check in the amount
of P524,000.00 plus P5,000.00 cash. Again, the check was
dishonored, this time due to insufficient funds. Del Rosario thus
filed the Estafa case against Arriola.

Arriola's direct examination was stricken off the record and his
right to present evidence was deemed waived after he
consistently failed to appear for cross-examination

RTC: convicting Arriola of the crime charged. Arriola also

admitted having received Del Rosario's money. The evidence
presented by the prosecution was undisputed, as Arriola failed to
rebut the same despite several opportunities given to him to do
so.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:

Petitioner Demata was one of two editors-in-chief of Bagong

Toro, a tabloid newspaper sold and circulated all over the nation.
It is published by Remate News Central, which is owned by one
Baby Antiporda, and has a Circulation Department headed by one
Berna Paredes, who is in charge with the selling and distribution
of the newspaper. It holds offices at the National Press Club
Building in Intramuros, Manila.

The June 21, 2012 issue of Bagong Toro (Vol. 1, Issue 224)

consists of 12 pages and consists of articles on news,
showbusiness gossip, health, and commentary or opinion. But
most relevant to this case, it also has photographs of women,
most of whom are wearing skimpy swimwear, and even blurred
images of a celebrity sex tape. It also has short erotic novellas
written in the Filipino language. Chapters of these novellas are
progressively published from one issue of Bagong Toro to
another.

Private complainant AAA was a student of Accounting

Technology at the University of the East (UE). She was born on
16 February 1995 and only 17 years old at the time the June 21,
2012 issue of Bagong Toro was published.

On August 22, 2012, AAA's brother, BBB, went to a

barbershop in Quezon City. He browsed through the tabloids
available in the shop and was surprised to see a picture of AAA in
the June 21, 2012 issue of Bagong Toro, under a column entitled
"facebook sexy and beauties." AAA's name was not published. In
the picture, she can be seen in a seated position and fully
clothed, wearing shorts and a t-shirt. Beside her picture were
photos of other women wearing revealing swimwear.
 Only Demata took to the witness stand for his defense. He
argues that the publication is not obscene. He emphasized that
AAA's photo alone cannot be considered as obscene,
pornographic, or lascivious as she was fully clothed. and her pose
was net sexually provocative. He testified that the layout artists
of Bagong Toro were tasked to verify the ownership of the photos
submitted to the newspaper for publication. He would rely on the
representations of the layout artists for such verification, proofs
of which were recorded, including the addresses, phone numbers,
and Facebook accounts of contributors. However, he could not
produce these records in open court because they have been
deleted and because he had been terminated from the
newspaper. He said that he just followed the directives of his
superiors, specifically mentioning Antiporda, to maintain his job.

RTC found Demata guilty.

-
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:

On July 19, 2011, petitioner Jerik Estella filed a petition for

declaration of nullity of his marriage with Niña Monria Ava Perez
based on Article 36 of the Family Code.

He essentially averred:

In 2006, he and Niña Monria Ava Perez met

at eTelecare Global Solutions, I.T. Park,
Lahug, Cebu City where they both worked as
recruitment officers.[6] She confided to him
problems about her family and her then
boyfriend of eight (8) years. After some time,
they became close and eventually became
lovers even though she had not broken up
yet with her boyfriend.

Sometime in January 2008, Niña got assigned

in Manila. He followed her and later learned
that she was pregnant for two (2) months. He
got excited about it but she wanted to abort
the baby.[8] She even told him that he might
not be the father of the child. [9] He got
shocked that despite their intimate
relationship, she continued having an
intimate and physical affair with another
man.[10] Nonetheless, he thought that the
baby might, after all, be his. So he continued
his relationship with her until they decided to
live together in his parents' house.
Eventually, on September 20, 2008, she gave
birth to a baby boy.

On October 10, 2010, they got married at

Cebu International Convention Center – North
Reclamation Area, Mandaue City. After a
while, he noticed that she started showing
signs of psychological incapacity in
performing her marital obligations. She was
irresponsible, irritable, and neglectful of their
son. She got jealous of his affection for the
child. One time, the child had fever and
seizures but she just slept the whole night
and did not bother to check the child's
condition. He asked her about her
indifference toward their son. She replied that
motherhood was not for her.

On numerous occasions, she prioritized her

friends more than their family. She would go
out with them at night and only come home
during the wee hours of the morning. One
time, she told him that she felt more
comfortable being with Russel, her male
friend. He confronted her about her close
relation with Russel but she got angry and
left their house.[19] He tried to appease her by
bringing flowers to her in the office. But each
 time, she rejected him by saying "can't you
understand? I don't love you." Even so, he
consistently persuaded her to come back until
eventually, they reconciled.

Not long after, however, she became colder

and distant. She had the habit of picking
fights with him even on trivial matters. And
each time, she would leave the house. She
told him she felt empty and unhappy. For
her, having a family did not give her
happiness. She said she did not really love
him and she would never make any
compromises for him.

Feeling lost, he decided to talk to her mother-in-law. After

the latter heard his story, she got embarrassed of her daughter's
attitude. She felt sorry that her daughter did not care so much for
their family.

He then realized that his efforts to win her back were all in
vain as she never endeavored to make their marriage work. He
felt mentally and emotionally abused by his own wife. In January
2011, she finally moved out of the house and never came back.
They have since been separated.

Meantime, he consulted a clinical psychologist, Dr. Maryjun

Delgado who opined that their marriage should be nullified on
ground of respondent's psychological incapacity. Dr. Delgado
interviewed him, and then, his cousins Francis Malilong and Paula
Estella. These two (2) corroborated the chaotic relationship
between him and his wife. Respondent refused to minimize her
nightly escapades. She had the habit of leaving him and their son
every time she got angry. Respondent was not amenable to
submit herself to psychological examination.

Based on her assessment, Dr. Delgado diagnosed

respondent with "Borderline Personality Disorder and Narcissistic
Personality Disorder”.
 Respondent's incapacity was rooted in her problematic
childhood. She grew up witnessing the constant fights between
her parents, their financial struggles, as well as her mother's illicit
affair. She had been estranged from her mother after she caught
her having sex with another man. She left their house and
worked as a promo girl to sustain herself. The marital woes of her
parents, the infidelity of her mother, and the hard life she went
through caused her to lose her sense of self ever since she was a
child. This dysfunctional life affected her personality and
behavioral pattern which eventually defined her as a
person. More, she did not find any maternal connection with her
son because she herself lost connection with her mother long
ago. As a wife, she was neglectful, irresponsible, and uncaring.
She only used petitioner as a source of attention and affection
whenever she ran out of it from her friends and other men. She
continued to behave like a single woman. Due to her
dysfunctional personality traits embedded in her psyche,
she never found meaning in her marriage with petitioner. Thus,
she could never commit herself into sharing mutual trust,
respect, loyalty, support, and love with petitioner. [43]

In her Answer, respondent denied she loved going out with

her friends or that she neglected her family. It was petitioner who
insisted she stay home and not go out with her workmates. She
denied having an illicit affair with Russel. She admitted, though,
she felt empty and unhappy because of petitioner's
irresponsibility. He was too dependent on his parents about every
matter in his life

RTC: granted the petition and declared void ab initio the marriage

of petitioner and respondent.

-
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:
A Complaint was filed by Johaida Garina Roa-Buenafe
(complainant) before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP Commission), seeks to disbar
Atty. Aaron R. Lirazan (respondent) for grave misconduct in
allegedly notarizing and falsifying a public document.

Complainant alleged that she is the owner of Lot No. 3507 (the
property), covered by Tax Declaration No. 1447, with an area of
11,530 square meters. She acquired the property on the basis of
a document denominated as Declaration of Heirship with
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver and/or Quitclaim of
Rights, dated February 15, 2005, executed by her siblings, which
effectively relinquished their inheritance claims over the property
in favor of complainant. Since then, complainant has religiously
paid the real estate taxes for the property.

In 2008, complainant was surprised that a certain Serena

Garaygay (Serena) had paid the real estate tax for the property.
Upon verification, complainant discovered an undated
but notarized document denominated as Conformity
(document), signed by complainant's brother, Jose G. Roa (Jose),
and notarized by respondent with the following notarial details:
Document No. 469, Page No. 94, Book I, Series of 2002.
Meanwhile, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 269034 was issued by
the Registry of Deeds of Negros Occidental, in favor of Serena, on
the basis of the document allegedly signed by Jose.

According to complainant, the signature of Jose in the document

was forged as it did not match his specimen signatures in another
document and in his voter's ID. Upon further verification with the
National Archives of the Philippines (National Archives),
complainant found out that no such document exists in their
records. The National Archives, however, disclosed that the
notarial details appearing in the document pertained to a
Certification, dated December 1, 2002, executed by a certain
SPO1 Edmundo S. Acosido.

In his Comment, respondent denied the allegations against him

and claimed that he did not falsify the document. He asserted
that Jose, whom he had known since childhood, personally
appeared before him when he notarized the document. According
to respondent, Jose even manifested that the document merely
affirmed the contents and execution of the missing deed of
absolute sale concerning the subject property he had previously
executed in favor of Serena. Thus, due to its notarization, the
document signed by Jose enjoys the presumption of validity as to
its authenticity and due execution.

On the issue of error in the recording of the document in

respondent's notarial book, respondent asserted that the error of
his secretary in encoding the document was made in good faith
and, as such, did not affect the validity and authenticity of the
document.

Respondent also argued that the issue on the authenticity and

validity of the document was pending before the Regional Trial
Court of Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental, Branch 61,
docketed as Civil Case No. 1694.

RULING:

it was emphasized that the act of notarization is impressed with

public interest. A notary public is mandated to discharge with
fidelity the duties of his office, such duties being dictated by
public policy. Moreover, a lawyer commissioned as a notary public
has a responsibility to faithfully observe the rules governing
notarial practice, having taken a solemn oath under the Code of
Professional Responsibility (Code) to obey the laws and to do no
falsehood or consent to the doing of any.

It is settled that notarization is not an empty, meaningless

or routinary act, but rather an act invested with substantive
public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a
public document, making it admissible in evidence without further
proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law,
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason
that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic
requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise,
the public's confidence in the integrity of
a notarized document would be undermined.

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:

Piccio challenges the conclusions of the BI officials in Vergara's

favor for relying solely on the presumption of
regularity. Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando (Justice
Hernando), during the case deliberations, likewise raised the
concern that the BI Investigation Committee, in concluding that
Vergara's R.A. 9225 Petition was duly received, processed, and
approved, merely based such finding on the photocopies of
Vergara's documents and the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties. He opines that the material
contradictions coming from BI Commissioners Geron and
Morente, cast doubt upon the reliability of Commissioner
Morente's letter and defeats the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty by the BI.

RULING:

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:

Purisima De Vera Estrada, Rosalinda De Vera Pascua (Rosalinda),

Teresita T. De Vera and Mario T. De Vera (petitioners) are the
surviving children of Bernardo A. De Vera, Sr. (Bernardo). During
his lifetime, Bernardo acquired from the National Housing
Authority a property described as Block 1-C, Lot 13, Avocado
comer Durian Street, CAA, Las Piñas City (property).

Bernardo died in 1993 without completing payment for the

property. Meanwhile, in the morning of September 9, 1995, and
on the strength of an alleged waiver of rights executed by
petitioners' mother, Emelie Moreno Vda. De Vera (Emelie),
respondent Virgilio Manzanero (Virgilio) forcibly took possession
of the subject property. Virgilio, together with twenty (20) other
men, destroyed the structures and house standing on the
property, and successfully divested petitioners of possession. At
the time, Virgilio was the Barangay Chairman of Barangay CAA,
Las Piñas City.

Petitioners initially endured the injustices committed by Virgilio

and his men who employed threat and intimidation against them.
When they tried to eject them from the property, however,
petitioners filed a complaint dated January 6, 2000 for
destruction to property with the District-Intelligence and
Investigation Division, Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio,
Taguig City. This was followed by a complaint for harassment,
forgery, and destruction to private property filed by petitioner
Rosalinda against respondents before the Commission on Human
Rights on May 13, 2001. In May 2009, Rosalinda also brought
charges against respondents before Barangay CAA, Las Piñas
City.

On August 28, 2012, petitioners received from NHA a Final

Demand of Settlement of Account addressed to Bernardo, giving
him a final opportunity to settle his outstanding obligation for the
property. On December 26, 2013, petitioners, through Rosalinda,
paid the outstanding balance.[9]

On June 19, 2014, petitioners filed a complaint against

respondents before the RTC, docketed as Civil-14-0061.
Petitioners alleged that several demands to vacate the property
were made against respondents, but to no avail. Thus, they
prayed that judgment be rendered ordering respondents and all
other persons claiming rights under them to vacate the subject
property and return its possession to petitioners.

In their Answer, respondents, as defendants therein, argued that

the whole property was sold to them by petitioners' mother,
Emelie, on April 20, 1994. As supposed evidence of this, they
attached a document entitled Affidavit of Waiver executed by
Emelie, purportedly transferring a residential house erected at the
property to a certain Florentino A. Manzanero, who was described
as the nearest kin/relative of Emelie.

After petitioners filed their Formal Offer of Evidence, respondents

filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Supplemental Motion to
Dismiss with attached Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. The
Supplemental Motion to Dismiss was subsequently denied by the
RTC, which then ruled that the presentation of evidence by
respondents was considered not availed of. Respondents' motion
for reconsideration was denied.

RTC: dismissed the complaint filed by petitioners.

On the allegation of falsity of the purported Deed of Sale, while
the evidence shows that the notary public was not commissioned
at the time the document was notarized, Emelie has not come to
court to disprove the sale allegedly made by her to the defendant
Virgilio.

RULING:

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:
Respondent and petitioner were married on December 6,
1997 and their union was blessed with two children - one born in
2002 and the other 2003. Sometime in 2005, Melissa started
suspecting that Rolando was sexually molesting his own children,
then aged 3 years old and 2 years old, as she would often see
them playing with their genitalia. When she asked who taught
them of such activity, the children would answer "Papa." Thus, to
protect the minors from further abuse, Melissa left the conjugal
dwelling and took the children to their maternal grandparents.

In July 2008, Rolando filed the aforesaid petition. Melissa filed her

Answer (to the petition) with Prayer for Protection Order.

During pre-trial, Rolando manifested that he would be presenting,

among other witnesses, Dr. Cristina Gates (Gates), who will
testify on the mental status and fitness of Rolando to exercise
parental authority over the minors.

At the hearing, Gates was presented as an expert witness.

Applying clinical hypnosis, phenomenological-existential study
and historical-contextual approach, Gates opined that Rolando
could not have molested the minors. As retrieved from Rolando's
memory while under hypnotic trance, Gates narrated that the
children have accidentally witnessed their parents in the act of
sexual intercourse for several occasions and explained that this
experience caused them to develop sexual hyperactivity.

Gates was then subjected to cross-examination. But before

propounding any questions, Melissa's counsel, in open court,
moved to strike out the direct testimony of Gates on grounds that
her expertise had not been established and that any evidence
derived from hypnotically-induced recollection is inadmissible.

The RTC ruled to retain the testimony as part of the record

subject to a continuing objection on the qualification of the
witness. Melissa's counsel thereafter proceeded with the cross-
examination, grilling Gates about her qualifications and the
methodology used in conducting her sessions with Rolando.

Melissa's counsel filed a Motion to Expunge the testimony of

Gates reiterating the doubts on her expertise and to suppress
related evidence particularly the psychological evaluation report
by reason of inadmissibility of hypnotically-induced recollection.

RTC denied the motion to expunge the testimony on the ground

of waiver of objection for failure to timely question the
qualifications of the witness. On the motion to suppress
psychological evaluation report, the RTC ruled that the same is
premature considering that such documentary evidence has not
yet been formally offered. Melissa moved to reconsider but it was
denied. Hence, Melissa filed a petition for certiorari with the Court
of Appeals (CA) ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the RTC.
 The CA ruled that petitioner's counsel failed to make a timely
objection to the presentation of Gates' testimonial evidence. It
was observed that no objection was raised during the course of
Gates' direct testimony where she confirmed her qualifications
as an expert witness and explained the psychological
examination conducted on respondent. According to the CA,
such silence at the time of the testimony, when there was an
opportunity to speak, operates as an implied waiver of the
objection to the admissibility of evidence. Moreover,
petitioner's counsel repeatedly cross-examined Gates thereby
waiving any objection to her testimony. As to the motion to
suppress the psychological evaluation report, the CA ruled that
an objection thereto cannot be made in advance of the offer of
the evidence sought to be introduced.

-
Factual Antecedents:

On November 21, 2008, a Complaint for Cancellation/Discharge

of Mortgage/Mortgage Liens was filed by Elenita V. Abello
(Elenita), Ma. Elena Elizabeth A. Fider, Jonathan Abello, Manuel
V. Abello (Manuel) and Vincent Edward B. Abello (collectively, the
respondents) against the petitioner before the RTC of Bacolod
City, Branch 49.

The complaint involves parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. T-

127632, T-82974, and T-58311, all located at Bacolod City,
registered under the names of Manuel and Elenita (the Spouses
Abello). Inscribed on the TCTs were various encumbrances. On
TCT No. T-127632, the following mortgages, all in favor of the
petitioner, were entered:

Over the two other lots covered by TCT Nos. T-82974 and T-
58311, inscribed were the real estate mortgage (REM) obtained
by the Spouses Abello from the petitioner on October 30, 1975
for the amount of P227,000.00, under Entry No. 80024, which
was made on November 4, 1975.

Manuel died on October 14, 1998, consequently, his heirs, herein

respondents, executed a Declaration of Heirship [7] on June 5,
2003 authorizing Elenita to act as administrator of the estate.

In their complaint, the respondents sought for the cancellation of

the inscriptions claiming that since the petitioner made no action
against them since 1975, the action has already prescribed.
Accordingly, the respondents argued that they should be
discharged as a matter of right and the encumbrances cancelled.
[8]

RTC: rendered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the

Defendants:

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS:

A letter of the CSC Field Office – Davao Oriental requesting

verification of Teresita B. Ramos' certificates of eligibility was
filed. The CSC Regional Office No. XI issued Spot Verification
Report stating that Ramos declared in her Personal Data
Sheet (PDS) dated March 28, 2005 that she took the Career
Service Sub-Professional Eligibility (CSSPE) examination on April
6, 1994 in Davao City and passed with a rating of 80.03.
However, the records did not show that a career service
examination was conducted on that date and that Ramos was
included in the Register of Eligibles. Instead, Ramos was issued a
Barangay Official Certificate of Eligibility (BOE) on April 26, 1994
in Davao City. On April 21, 2014, the CSC RO No. XI formally
charged Ramos with the administrative offenses of Serious
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest, and Falsification of Official Documents.
In her Answer, Ramos admitted that she did not possess a CSSPE
but only a BOE. She claimed that her supposed rating in the
March 28, 2005 PDS was already deleted when she submitted
another PDS (substitute PDS) to the Human Resource
Management Office (HRMO) of the Municipality of Baganga. In
any case, the false entries in the March 28, 2005 PDS were not
used to deceive for her benefit.

On August 17, 2015, the CSC RO No. XI found Ramos guilty of

the offenses and imposed upon her the penalty of dismissal from
the service. The CSC RO No. XI noted that Ramos declared in her
PDS dated May 21, 1999 and March 28, 2005 that she was a
CSSPE holder.

Ramos sought reconsideration, explaining that entries in the

March 28, 2005 PDS relating to her eligibility status were made
inadvertently. She reiterated that she accomplished another PDS
to correct these erroneous entries, yet, the substitute PDS was
not found in her 201 files brought by the HRMO during the
hearing. On November 20, 2015, Ramos filed a motion to admit
the substitute PDS as newly discovered evidence.

The CSC RO No. XI denied the motion for reconsideration in its

Resolution No. 15-01204 dated December 9, 2015. The CSC RO
No. XI noted that Ramos still wrote "CS Sub-Professional" as her
eligibility in the substitute PDS. Further, the substitute PDS was
not newly discovered evidence because it existed in the records
of the HRMO but not produced during trial.

Unsatisfied, Ramos filed a petition for review before the CSC

arguing that a BOE is equivalent to a CSSPE; hence, she should
not be faulted for writing "CS Sub-Professional" as her eligibility.
She insisted that the substitute PDS should be admissible in
evidence.

CSC affirming Ramos' guilt of the administrative charges, 

Ramos sought reconsideration but was denied.

Ramos insists on the admissibility of the substitute PDS claiming
that she exerted earnest efforts to secure a copy from the HRMO
but failed. She reiterates that she did not intend to falsify her
March 28, 2005 PDS because she honestly believed that a BOE is
the same as a CSSPE. The false entries did not affect her
eligibility for promotion or cause any damage or prejudice to the
government or any party. As such, the dishonesty, if it exists, is
only simple dishonesty that is punishable by suspension. Further,
she cannot be held liable for grave misconduct since the act
complained of is not related to the performance of her official
duties; or for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service
because she did not commit any act that could tarnish the image
or integrity of the public office. Lastly, the mitigating
circumstances of good faith, length of service, first time offender,
acknowledgement of infraction and feeling of remorse, and
humanitarian considerations should be appreciated in her favor in
the imposition of the penalty.

RULING