Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 131502 June 8, 2000
WILSON ONG CHING KIAN CHUNG n! THE "IRECTOR O# THE NATIONAL
LI$RAR%, petitioners,
vs.
CHINA NATIONAL CEREALS OIL AN" #OO"STU##S IMPORT AN" E&PORT CORP.,
CEROIL#OO" SHAN"ONG CEREAL AN" OILS n! $ENJAMIN IRAO, JR., respondents.

$UENA, J.:
his is an appeal b! "a! of a petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the %&&' Rules of Civil
Procedure of the Decision
1
in Civil Case No. &#()**+) dated Nove,ber -., %&&' of the Re/ional
rial Court, 0ranch ++, Manila, "hich rendered a 1ud/,ent on the pleadin/s a/ainst herein
petitioners, the dispositive portion of "hich reads2
34ERE5ORE, 1ud/,ent is hereb! rendered in favor of plaintiffs, and a/ainst
defendant2
%. Decreein/ the cancellation or annul,ent of the Cop!ri/hted Re/istration No. .(&+(
#&% of defendant 3I6SON ON78
-. Directin/ defendant Director of the National 6ibrar! to effect the cancellation or
annul,ent of the Cop!ri/hted Re/istration No. .(&+(#&% of defendant 3I6SON
ON78 and
Da,a/es cannot be a"arded to Plaintiffs as no evidence "as presented to
substantiate their clai,s.
3ith costs a/ainst defendant 3I6SON ON7.
SO ORDERED.
2
he antecedent facts are undisputed.
On Septe,ber %), %&&+, petitioner 3ilson On/ Chin/ 9ian Chuan, doin/ business under the fir,
na,e of C.9.C. radin/, filed a Co,plaint for Infrin/e,ent of Cop!ri/ht "ith pra!er for "rit of
in1unction before the Re/ional rial Court, 0ranch &# of :ue;on Cit! <hereinafter :ue;on Cit! Court=
a/ainst 6oren;o an, doin/ business under the fir, na,e Mc,aster International Sales, and
doc>eted as :(&+(%')-*. On the sa,e da!, said court issued a te,porar! restrainin/ order
en1oinin/ the defendant, his distributors and retailers fro, sellin/ ver,icelli <sotan/hon= ?usin/ the
plaintiffs cop!ri/hted cellophane "rapper "ith the t"o(dra/ons desi/ned label, and settin/ the
hearin/ of the in1unctive relief for Septe,ber -%, %&&+?.1wphi 1.nt
On October %+, %&&+, the :ue;on Cit! Court issued a Resolution "hich /ranted a "rit of preli,inar!
in1unction in favor of the petitioner, denied therein defendant@s application for a "rit of preli,inar!
in1unction and, issues havin/ been 1oined, set the case for pre(trial on Nove,ber %-, %&&+. On
Dece,ber %$, %&&+, the :ue;on Cit! Court denied defendant@s ,otion for dissolution of the "rit off
preli,inar! in1unction.
On Aanuar! $, %&&#, the China National Cereals Oils B 5oodstuffs I,port and ECport Corporation
<CEROI65OOD S4DNDON7=, and 0en1a,in Irao, Ar., as representative and attorne!(in(fact of
CEROI65OOD S4DNDON7, herein respondents, filed a co,plaint
3
for Dnnul,entECancellation of
Cop!ri/hted Certificate No. :(&+(#&% and da,a/es "ith pra!er for restrainin/ orderE"rit of
preli,inar! in1unction before the Re/ional rial Court of Manila, <hereinafter Manila Court= a/ainst
3ilson On/ Chin/ 9ian Chuan, doin/ business under the fir, na,e and st!le C.9.C. radin/ and
the Director of the National 6ibrar!, doc>eted as Civil Case No. &#()**+).
On Aanuar! ', %&&#, 1ud/e Rodolfo 7. Palattao of the Manila Court issued a te,porar! restrainin/
order
'
en1oinin/ petitioner fro, usin/ his cop!ri/hted labels and sellin/ his ver,icelli products "hich
is si,ilar to that of respondents@. On Aanuar! %#, %&&#, petitioner filed a ,otion to dissolve
te,porar! restrainin/ order
5
pra!in/ that the co,plaint be dis,issed on the follo"in/ /rounds2
%= litis pendentia, -.= the issue involved is one of cop!ri/ht under PD No. #& and does not involve
trade,ar>s under Republic Dct %)), +.= courts of co(eFual and coordinate 1urisdiction cannot
interfere "ith the orders of other courts havin/ the sa,e po"er and 1urisdiction, #.= plaintiff
CEROI65OOD S4DNDON7, bein/ a forei/n corporation and "ith no license to do business in the
Philippines, has no le/al capacit! to sue, and $.= courts should not issue in1unctions "hich "ould in
effect dispose of the ,ain case "ithout trial.
On Aanuar! -', %&&#, the Manila Court issued an Order
(
/rantin/ a "rit of preli,inar! in1unction in
favor of respondents and den!in/ petitioner@s ,otion to dis,iss.
On Aanuar! +%, %&&#, petitioner filed before the Court of Dppeals a petition for certiorari doc>eted as
CD ( 7.R. SP No. ++%'*, see>in/ for the annul,ent of the Aanuar! -', %&&# Order of the Manila
Court.
On Aul! --, %&&#, after the parties have eCpounded their respective positions b! "a! of their
co,,ent, repl! and re1oinder, the Court of Dppeals rendered its Decision,
)
the dispositive portion of
"hich reads2
34ERE5ORE, the instant petition is hereb! 7RDNED, and as pra!ed for b!
petitioner, the Order dated Aanuar! -', %&&# issued in Civil Case &#()**+) b!
0ranch ++, Re/ional rial Court, National Capital Audicial Re/ion, Manila, is hereb!
DNNG66ED and SE DSIDE, althou/h the pra!er for dis,issal of the co,plaint in
Manila ,a! be pursued before said court durin/ the proceedin/s.
In the sa,e Decision, the Court of Dppeals ruled that the case "as dis,issible on /rounds of litis
pendentia, ,ultiplicit! of suits, and foru, shoppin/.
On Septe,ber $, %&&#, the Court of Dppeals denied respondents@ ,otion for reconsideration.
8
he
Court of Dppeals@ Decision beca,e final on October +, %&&#. Entr! of Aud/,ent
*
"as ,ade on
Nove,ber %$, %&&#.
On Nove,ber -%, %&&#, petitioner filed a ,otion
10
pra!in/ for the dis,issal of the Manila case on
the stren/th of the findin/s of the Court of Dppeals, particularl! on ?foru, shoppin/.? In an
Order
11
dated March *, %&&$, the Manila Court held in abe!ance the resolution of the ,otion to
dis,iss until further reception of evidence, statin/ therein that the dispositive portion of the Court of
Dppeals Decision did not order the dis,issal of the case. In the ,eanti,e, respondents filed a
,otion to declare petitioners in default for failin/ to file an Dns"er despite the March * Order, "hich
,otion "as opposed b! petitioners, there bein/ at that ti,e a pendin/ ,otion to dis,iss "hich the
court a quo refused to resolve on the ,erits.
In an Order
12
dated Aul! %&, %&&), the Manila court denied the ,otion to declare petitioners in
default, ad,ittedmotu proprio the ,otion to dis,iss filed b! petitioner as its ans"er, and directed the
parties to sub,it their respective pre(trial briefs.
On Septe,ber %', %&&), petitioner filed a ?Motion for the Issuance of a 3rit of ECecution?
1
pra!in/
that a ,otion for eCecution dis,issin/ the Manila case be issued, and citin/ Dtt!. 0en1a,in Irao, Ar.,
counsel of CEROI65OOD S4DNDON7 and his co(counsel, Dtt!. Dntonio Dlbano, /uilt! of foru,
shoppin/, pursuant to the Decision of the Court of Dppeals in CD(7.R. SP. No. ++%'*.
On Aanuar! -+, %&&', respondents filed before the Manila court a Supple,ent o Motion 5or
Aud/,ent On he Pleadin/s, clai,in/ that petitioner failed to tender an issue.
1'
On Nove,ber -., %&&', Aud/e Rodolfo 7. Palattao of the Manila Court rendered a Aud/,ent on the
Pleadin/s in favor of respondents, and ruled that litis pendentia, ,ultiplicit! of suits, and foru,
shoppin/ "ere not present in the case.
4ence, the present appeal on pure Fuestions of la".
Petitioners raise the follo"in/ issues2
I
3hether or not the le/al pronounce,ents of the Court of Dppeals in CD(7.R. SP No.
++%'* that the Manila case is dis,issible on /rounds of litis pendentia, ,ultiplicit! of
suits and foru, shoppin/ constitute the ?6a" of the Case.?
II
3hether or not the Re/ional rial Aud/e of 0ranch ++, Manila erred in not appl!in/
the la" of the case.
III
3hether or not the court a quo can revie" the le/al conclusions of an appellate court
in the sa,e case, on issues sFuarel! sub,itted to and passed upon b! the appellate
court under identical set of facts and circu,stances obtainin/ in the court a quo.
IV
3hether or not the court a quo erred in motu proprio considerin/ a ,otion to dis,iss as
the ans"er to the co,plaint and, thereafter, render a 1ud/,ent on the pleadin/s on the
/round that the ,otion to dis,iss did not tender an issue.
15
In support thereof, petitioners Fuote the rulin/ of the Court of Dppeals on the issue of "hether there
"as litis pendentia and ,ultiplicit! of suits in the present case, as follo"s2
he Manila court should have considered also that Civil Case :(&+(%')-* involves
practicall! the sa,e parties, sa,e sub1ect(,atter and sa,e relief as in Civil Case .(
&#()**+). Petitioner filed the first case on Septe,ber %), %&&+, for IN5RIN7EMEN
O5 4IS RE7ISERED COPHRI74, "hich covers the cellophane "rapper that he
uses in pac>a/in/ the ver,icelli "hich he i,ports fro, the C4IND NDIOND6
CERED6S OI6S B 5OODSG55S IMPOR DND EIPOR CORPORDION 0DSED
IN 0EIAIN7, C4IND, the ,ain or the principal of private respondent CEROI65OOD
S4DNDON7, the latter bein/ the ?branch? of CEROI65OOD in :uin/dao, China,
and of "hich in Civil Case :(&+(%')-*, 6ORENJO DN avers in his ans"er he is the
?eCclusive and sole distributor.? In Civil Case &#()**+) subseFuentl! filed in Manila,
on Aanuar! $, %&&#, 6ORENJO DN ad,itted that he is the ?sole distributor? of
plaintiff China National Cereals Oil and 5oodstuffs I,port and ECport Corporation of
the latter@s PD7ODD 0RDND ver,icelli products. Dtt!. 0en1a,in Irao, Ar., the attorne!
of private respondents, also the attorne!(in(fact of Ceroilfood Shandon/, ad,itted
that his principal ?does not do business in the Philippines,? and na,ed 6ORENJO
DN as his principal@s ?eCclusive distributor? of said product in the Philippines. hus,
6oren;o an in both Civil Cases :(&+(%')-* and &#()**+) appears as principal
defendant in the first, and as sole distributor of Cereal 5ood Shandon/, in the
second. Indicativel!, he is defendin/ and co,plainin/ substantivel! the sa,e ri/hts
and interests in both cases, and in effect there is identit! of parties representin/ the
sa,e interests. 3hile it is a/ainst DN "ith "ho, the :C RC issued an in1unction,
that "rit should also appl! to CEROI65OOD S4DNDON7, as an is its eCclusive and
sole distributor in the Philippines, as private respondent corporation does business in
the Philippines throu/h DN "ho i,ports his ver,icelli "holl! fro, said forei/n
corporation. Dnd ,ost i,portantl!, DN asserts ri/hts to the trade,ar> PD7ODD,
also alle/edl! o"ned b! CEROI65OOD bet"een DN and CEROI65OOD
S4DNDON7 that he is its corporate distributor. Dlso in &+(%')-*, petitioner@s pra!er
for in1unction is based on his re/istered cop!ri/ht certificate, "hile DN averred in his
ans"er thereon that petitioner@s cop!ri/ht should be annulled and cancelled, and
also pra!ed for in1unction. In &#()**+), private respondent CEROI65OOD
S4DNDON7, as plaintiff, also pra!ed for ?DNNG6MEN DND CDNCE66DION O5
COPHRI74 CERI5ICDE No. .(&+(#&% 3I4 DDMD7ES DND PRDHER 5OR
RESRDININ7 ORDERE3RI O5 PRE6IMINDRH INAGNCION.? Ds can "ell be
seen fro, those pertinent alle/ationsEaver,entsEpra!ers in both cases, the! are
identical "ith each other. he! involved one and the sa,e CERI5ICDE O5
COPHRI74 RE7ISRDION. hou/h the first case is for IN5RIN7EMEN of
cop!ri/ht re/istration, "hile the second is for DNNG6MEN DND CDNCE66DION of
the sa,e cop!ri/ht, since the first involves a breach, infraction, trans/ression, and
the second for invalidation, discontinuance, ter,ination and suppression of the sa,e
cop!ri/ht certificate, "hat the first see>s to preserve is the eCclusive use of the
cop!ri/ht, and the second see>s to ter,inate the ver! use of the sa,e cop!ri/ht b!
the re/istrantEo"ner. hou/h the Fuest of petitioner and private respondents in the
t"o cases are ai,ed to"ards different ends K the first to uphold the validit! and
effectiveness of the sa,e cop!ri/ht, the second is ,erel! a conseFuence of the first,
K the real ,atter in controvers! can be full! deter,ined and resolved before the
:ue;on Cit! court, and "ould render the Manila case a surplus a/e and also
constitutes ,ultiplicit! of suits and dis,issible on that /round, althou/h such
dis,issal should be considered as "ithout pre1udice to the continuance of the
proceedin/s before the :ue;on Cit! court. <pp. *(%., CD Decision, DnneC ?0? of the
Petition=
On the issue of foru, shoppin/, the Court of Dppeals ruled further, thus2
5inall!, the Manila court should also have considered foru, shoppin/ as a third
dra"bac> to private respondent@s cause. It is a ter, ori/inall! used to deno,inate a
liti/ant@s privile/e of choosin/ the venue of his action "here the la" allo"s hi, to do
so, or of an ?election of re,edies? of one of t"o or ,ore co(eCistin/ ri/hts. In either
of "hich situations, the liti/ant actuall! shops for a foru, of his action. 4o"ever,
instead of ,a>in/ a choice of the foru, of their actions, liti/ants throu/h the
encoura/e,ent of their la"!ers, file their actions on all available courts, or invo>e
irrelevant re,edies si,ultaneousl!, or even file actions one after the other, a practice
"hich had not onl! resulted conflictin/ ad1udications a,on/ different courts,
confusion ini,ical to an orderl! ad,inistration of 1ustice and created eCtre,e
inconvenience to so,e of the parties to the action. Dnd thus it has been held in
Villanueva vs. Dndres, %'- SCRD *'), that foru, shoppin/ applies "henever as a
result of an adverse opinion in one foru,, a part! see>s a favorable opinion <other
than b! appeal or certiorari=, in another foru,. . . .
Observedl!, Dtt!s. IRDO and D60DNO, "ho are DN@s la"!ers in :ue;on Cit!, are
also private respondents@ la"!ers in Manila. DH. IRDO "ho entered his
appearance as counsel for private respondents in the Manila case, is also the
?authori;ed representative and attorne!(in(fact? of private respondent corporation in
the Manila case. 3hile Dtt!. Irao ?"ithdre"? as counsel of DN in the :ue;on Cit!,
that did not re,ove the case filed in Manila outside the sphere of the rule on ?foru,
shoppin/.? <pp. %.(%%, CD Decision, DnneC ?0? of the Petition=.
Petitioners contend that the fore/oin/ conclusions of fact and la" of the Court of Dppeals are correct
and should not be disturbed, especiall! since the decision of the Court of Dppeals had alread!
beco,e final and entered in the 0oo>s of Aud/,ent8 that the parties to the case and the Re/ional
rial Aud/e in 0ranch ++, Manila are bound b! the said conclusions of fact and la" and the sa,e
should not be reopened on re,and of the case8 and that it is not "ithin the rial Aud/e@s discretion to
ta>e eCception to, ,uch less overturn, an! factual or le/al conclusions laid do"n b! the Court of
Dppeals in its verdict and to dispose of the case in a ,anner dia,etricall! opposed thereto, citin/
the case of PNB vs. Noah's Ark Sugar e!iner", --) SCRD +), #*.
Petitioners further alle/e that the acts of the trial 1ud/e suffer fro, procedural infir,it!2 and that it
,a>es no sense for the trial 1ud/e to refuse to resolve the ,otion to dis,iss on the ,erits8 to motu
proprio consider the ,otion to dis,iss as the ans"er to the co,plaint8 and to later rule that the
,otion to dis,iss did not tender an issue and, therefore, a 1ud/,ent on the pleadin/s is in order.
Petitioners also aver that a ,otion to dis,iss is not a responsive pleadin/ <citin/ Prudence Realt!
Develop,ent Corporation vs. CD, -+% SCRD +'&=8 that at the ti,e the trial 1ud/e considered the
,otion to dis,iss to be the ans"er to the co,plaint, he >ne" ver! "ell, or at least should have
>no"n that the ,otion to dis,iss did not tender an issue for indeed, it is not "ithin the province of
the ,otion to ad,it or den! the alle/ations of the co,plaint, and there bein/ no le/iti,ate ans"er
and no real 1oinder of issues, the rendition of the sub1ect Aud/,ent on the Pleadin/s beco,es
suspect. Dccordin/ to petitioners, in deviatin/ fro, the usual procedure, the court a quo /ave undue
benefit and advanta/e to the respondents at the eCpense of herein petitioners8 and that the
eCplanation /iven b! the trial 1ud/e that the dispositive portion of the Court of Dppeals decision did
not eCpressl! order hi, to dis,iss the case is fli,s! and untenable.
On the other hand, respondents assert that the doctrine of la" of the case is not applicable to the
present case because the Court of Dppeals never ordered the dis,issal of the case and that the
Order of the Manila Court dated Aanuar! -', %&&# "as annulled and set aside onl! insofar as the
preli,inar! in1unction is concerned. Respondents cite the case of #agdalena $state% &nc. vs.
'aluag, %% SCRD +++ "hich ruled that the deficiencies in the dispositive part of the decision cannot
be supplied b! an! findin/ or opinion found in the bod! of the decision. Respondents also alle/e that
"hile petitioner 3ilson On/ had belatedl! faulted the Court belo" in considerin/ his ,otion to
dis,iss as his ans"er, he never Fuestioned the correctness of the findin/s of the court a quo in the
assailed decision.
Dfter a revie" of the records of the case and an eCa,ination of the pleadin/s filed b! the parties, the
Court finds the petition to be ,eritorious.
0ein/ interrelated, the first, second and third issues shall be discussed 1ointl!.
Indeed, the court a quo erred in not resolvin/ the petitioner@s ,otion to dis,iss in accordance "ith
the decision of the Court of Dppeals "hich found that ?he Manila court should have considered also
that Civil Case :(&+(%')-* involves practicall! the sa,e parties, sa,e sub1ect(,atter and sa,e
relief as in Civil Case &#()**+)?8 that ?the real ,atter in controvers! can be full! deter,ined and
resolved before the :ue;on Cit! court and "ould render the Manila case a surplusa/e and also
constitutes ,ultiplicit! of suits and dis,issible on that /round, althou/h such dis,issal should be
considered as "ithout pre1udice to the continuance of the proceedin/s before the :ue;on Cit!
court?8 and that ?the Manila court should also have considered foru, shoppin/ as a third dra"bac>
to private respondents@ cause.?
3hile the Court of Dppeals stated in the dispositive portion of its decision that ?the pra!er for
dis,issal of the co,plaint in Manila ,a! be pursued before said court durin/ the proceedin/s,? it is
clear fro, the bod! of the Court of Dppeals Decision that the case before the Manila court should be
dis,issed on /rounds of litis pendentia, and foru, shoppin/.
3hile the /eneral rule is that the portion of a decision that beco,es the sub1ect of eCecution is that
ordained or decreed in the dispositive part thereof, there are eCceptions to this rule.
he eCceptions "here the dispositive part of the 1ud/,ent does not al"a!s prevail over the bod! of
the opinion are2
<a= "here there is a,bi/uit! or uncertaint!, the bod! of the opinion ,a!
be referred to for purposes of construin/ the 1ud/,ent because the
dispositive part of a decision ,ust find support fro, the decision@s ratio
decidendi8
1(
<b= "here eCtensive and eCplicit discussion and settle,ent of the issue is
found in the bod! of the decision.
1)
Considerin/ the circu,stances of the instant case, the Court finds that the eCception to the /eneral
rule applies to the instant case. Since the state,ent of the Court of Dppeals re/ardin/ the pra!er for
the dis,issal of the case see,in/l! /ave the Manila court the discretion to dis,iss not to dis,iss
Civil Case No. &#()**+), the Manila court should have referred to the bod! of the decision for
purposes of construin/ the issue of "hether or not the co,plaint should be dis,issed, because the
dispositive part of a decision ,ust find support fro, the decision@sratio decidendi. 5indin/s of the
court are to be considered in the interpretation of the dispositive portion of the 1ud/,ent.
18
Moreover,
eCtensive and eCplicit discussion and settle,ent of the issues are found in the bod! of the Court of
Dppeals decision so that it is /rave error for the court a quo to rule a/ain, as it did, on the issues
of litis pendentia and foru, shoppin/ in its decision, and to overturn that of the Court of Dppeals,
thus2
he ar/u,ent of Defendant On/ in his ,otion for eCecution that the case at bench
should no" be dis,issed on the /rounds of foru, shoppin/ and litis pendentia as
alle/edl! ruled b! the Court of Dppeals, does not i,press this Court. 5or "hile the
appellate court ur/ed this Court to consider litis pendentia and foru, shoppin/ in the trial
resolution of the case at bench, no"here in its <CD= decision could it be deduced that this
Court is ,andated to dis,iss the case on these precise /rounds. he dispositive portion
of the decision does not contain such a ,andate.
1*
In (iva Productions% &nc. vs. 'ourt o! Appeals,
20
this Court set aside the decision of the Ma>ati court
and declared null and void all orders of the RC of Ma>ati after rulin/ that2
hus "e find /rave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ma>ati court, bein/ a ,ere
co(eFual of the ParaLaFue court, in not /ivin/ due deference to the latter before
"hich the issue of the alle/ed violation of the sub(1udice rule had alread! been raised
and sub,itted. In such instance, the Ma>ati court, if it "as "ar! of dis,issin/ the
action outri/htl! under ad,inistrative Circular No. .#(&#, should have, at least
ordered the consolidation of its case "ith that of the ParaLaFue court, "hich had first
acFuired +% of the Revised Rules of Court. <e,phasis ours.=
he :ue;on Cit! court and the Manila court have concurrent 1urisdiction over the case. 4o"ever,
"hen the :ue;on Cit! court acFuired 1urisdiction over the case, it eCcluded all other courts of
concurrent 1urisdiction fro, acFuirin/ 1urisdiction over the sa,e. he Manila court is, therefore,
devoid of 1urisdiction over the co,plaint filed resultin/ in the herein assailed decision "hich ,ust
perforce be declared null and void. o hold other"ise "ould be to ris> instances "here courts of
concurrent 1urisdiction ,i/ht have conflictin/ orders.
21
34ERE5ORE, the assailed decision of the Re/ional rial Court of Manila, 0ranch ++ in Civil Case
No. &#()**+) is DNNG66ED and SE DSIDE. Said case is ordered dis,issed "ithout pre1udice to
the continuance of the proceedin/s before the :ue;on Cit! court "here Civil Case No. :(&+(%')-*
is pendin/.1wphi1.nt
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo% #endo)a% *uisum+ing and ,e -eon% .r.% ...% concur.
#oo+no+e,
% Penned b! Aud/e Rodolfo 7. Palattao.
- Decision, Ori/inal Records, pp. '-#(%#%.
+ Ori/inal Records, pp. %(%'.
# Dated Aanuar! ', %&&#, Ori/inal Records, pp. $$()%.
$ Ori/inal Records, pp. +#(#%.
) Order dated Aanuar! -', %&&#, Ori/inal Records, pp. +&)(#.$.
' In SP ++%'*, ollo, pp, &#(%.#.
* ollo, p. %.).
& ollo, p. %.'.
%. Ori/inal Records, pp. ##$(##).
%% Ori/inal Records, p. $%+.
%- &+id., p. )#%()#+.
%+ &+id., pp. )$+()$).
%# Ori/inal Records, pp. )&$()&&.
%$ Me,orandu, for Petitioners, pp. '(*8 ollo, pp. %*%(%*-.
%) 4eirs of Auan 5resto vs. 7alan/, '* SCRD $+# M%&''N8 Pastor Ar. vs. CD, %--
SCRD **$ M%&*+N8 Mutual Securit! Insurance Corp. vs. CD %$+ SCRD )'* M%&*'N.
%' Du!on/ 4ian vs. CD, $& SCRD %%. M%&'#N8 Millare vs. Millare, %.) Phil. -&+
M%&$&N.
%* D/uirre vs. D/uirre, $* SCRD #)% M%&'#N.
%& Decision of RC Manila, 0ranch ++, Civil Case No. &#()**+), p. %#8 ollo, p. +'.
-. -)& SCRD ))# M%&&'N.
-% Viva Production, Inc. vs. Court of Dppeals, -)& SCRD ))#, )'+8 e,plo vs. dela
Cru;, ). SCRD -&$ M%&'#N.