CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Tweet

Share

Search

Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Labor Relations, Volume II
of a 3-Volume Series 2017 Edition, 5th Revised Edition,

Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

Custom Search

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm

ChanRobles Intellectual Property Division

Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

November-2015 Jurisprudence

G.R. No. 192955, November 09, 2015 - EDILBERTO P. ETOM, JR., Petitioner, v. AROMA LODGING HOUSE
THROUGH EDUARDO G. LEM, PROPRIETOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197458, November 11, 2015 - NICANOR PINLAC Y RESOLME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197802, November 11, 2015 - ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL, AKRAM ARAIN AND/OR VENUS
ARAIN, M.D. DBA ZUNECA PHARMACEUTICAL, Petitioners, v. NATRAPHARM, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 179121, November 09, 2015 - MARGARITA M. BENEDICTO-MUÑOZ, Petitioner, v. MARIA
ANGELES CACHO-OLIVARES, EDGARDO P. OLIVARES, PETER C. OLIVARES, CARMELA Q. OLIVARES,
MICHAEL C. OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B. OLIVARES, AND MELISSA C. OLIVARES, Respondents.; G.R. NO.
179128 - ABACUS SECURITIES CORPORATION AND JOEL CHUA CHIU, Petitioners, v. MARIA ANGELES
CACHO-OLIVARES, PETER C. OLIVARES, CARMELA Q. OLIVARES, MICHAEL Q. OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B.
OLIVARES, [and] MELISSA C. OLIVARES, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 179129 SAPPHIRE SECURITIES, INC.,
Petitioner, v. MARIA ANGELES CACHO-OLIVARES, EDGARDO P. OLIVARES, PETER C. OLIVARES, CARMELA
Q. OLIVARES, MICHAEL C. OLIVARES, ALEXANDRA B. OLIVARES, MELISSA C. OLIVARES, AND THE HON.
COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH DIVISION, Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015 - CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE
OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION) AND JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR.,
Respondents.

A.M. No. P-15-3391, November 16, 2015 - RE: INCIDENT REPORT RELATIVE TO A CRIMINAL CASE FILED
AGAINST ROSEMARIE U. GARDUCE, CLERK III, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT (OCC), REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT (RTC), PARANAQUE CITY

G.R. No. 207041, November 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF
THE CITY PROSECUTOR, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ROXAS CITY, Petitioner, v. JESUS A. ARROJADO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 176908, November 11, 2015 - PURISIMO M. CABAOBAS, EXUPERIO C. MOLINA, GILBERTO V.
OPINION, VICENTE R. LAURON, RAMON M. DE PAZ, JR., ZACARIAS E. CARBO, JULITO G. ABARRACOSO,
DOMINGO B. GLORIA, AND FRANCISCO P. CUMPIO, Petitioners, v. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS, PHILIPPINES,
INC., Respondents.

G.R. No. 196083, November 11, 2015 - MILAGROS C. REYES, Petitioner, v. FELIX P. ASUNCION,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 10671, November 25, 2015 - JOSEPH C. CHUA, Complainant, v. ATTY. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 199601, November 23, 2015 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK (NOW BDO
UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. JOSEPHINE D. GOMEZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 173864, November 23, 2015 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, Petitioner, v. AGUSTIN LIBO-ON,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 10737, November 09, 2015 - ROLANDO TOLENTINO, Complainant, v. ATTY. RODIL L. MILLADO
AND ATTY. FRANCISCO B. SIBAYAN, Respondents.

G.R. No. 193158, November 11, 2015 - PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
OUR LADY OF LOURDES HOSPITAL, Respondent.

G.R. No. 214502, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANCO
DARMO DE GUZMAN Y YANZON, A.K.A. DARMO YAZON Y CORTEZ, A.K.A. FRANCO DE GUZMAN Y
CORTEZ, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 202611, November 23, 2015 - ABNER MANGUBAT, Petitioner, v. BELEN MORGA-SEVA,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 7353, November 16, 2015 - NELSON P. VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. ATTY. ANTOLIN ALLYSON DABON,
JR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 197925, November 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWIN
DALAWIS Y HIDALGO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 213330, November 16, 2015 - ALELI C. ALMADOVAR, GENERAL MANAGER ISAWAD, ISABELA
CITY, BASILAN PROVINCE, Petitioner, v. CHAIRPERSON MA. GRACIA M. PULIDO-TAN, COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.

G.R. No. 202859, November 11, 2015 - NEW FILIPINO MARITIME AGENCIES, INC., TAIYO NIPPON KISEN
CO., LTD., AND ANGELINA T, RIVERA, Petitioners, v. VINCENT H. D ATAYAN -HEIR OF SIMON VINCENT H.
DATAYAN III, Respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-10-1760, November 16, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v.
RETIRED JUDGE FILEMON A. TANDINCO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), CALBAYOG CITY,
SAMAR AND RONALDO C. DIONEDA, CLERK OF COURT OF THE MTCC, CALBAYOG CITY, SAMAR,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 195654, November 25, 2015 - REYNALDO INUTAN, HELEN CARTE, NOEL AYSON, IVY CABARLE,
NOELJAMILI, MARITES HULAR, ROLITOAZUCENA, RAYMUNDO TUNOG, ROGER BERNAL, AGUSTEV ESTRE,
MARILOU SAGUN, AND ENRIQUE LEDESMA, JR., Petitioners, v. NAPAR CONTRACTING & ALLIED
SERVICES, NORMAN LACSAMANA, JONAS INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND PHILIP YOUNG, Respondent.

G.R. No. 179257, November 23, 2015 - UNITED ALLOY PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED
COCONUT PLANTERS BANK [UCPB] AND/OR PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION [PDIC],
JAKOB VAN DER SLUIS AND ROBERT T.CHUA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 187464, November 25, 2015 - CABIB ALONTO TANOG, Petitioner, v. HON. RASAD G.
BALINDONG, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, 12th Judicial Region, MARAWI CITY,
AND GAPO SIDIC, Respondent.

G.R. No. 205760, November 09, 2015 - FRANCISCO T. INOCENCIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 199087, November 11, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY
PUNZALAN AND PATRICIA PUNZALAN, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 203883, November 10, 2015 - HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF TALAYAN VILLAGE INC.,
Petitioner, v. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., TALAYAN HOLDINGS, INC., QUEZON CITY MAYOR AND
EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION (NOW BANCO DE ORO BANKING CORPORATION), Respondents.;
G.R. NO. 203930 - J.M. TUASON & CO., AND TALAYAN HOLDINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION OF TALAYAN VILLAGE, INC. AND QUEZON CITY MAYOR, Respondent.
G.R. No. 217456, November 24, 2015 - MARILOU S. LAUDE AND MESEHILDA S. LAUDE, Petitioners, v.
HON. ROLINE M. GINEZ-JABALDE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 74, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF THE CITY
OF OLONGAPO; HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; HON. ALBERT F. DEL ROSARIO,
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS; HON. GEN. GREGORIO PIO P. CATAPANG, CHIEF
OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES; HON. EMILIE FE DELOS SANTOS, CHIEF CITY
PROSECUTOR OF OLONGAPO CITY; AND L/CPL JOSEPH SCOTT PEMBERTON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 202664, November 20, 2015 - MANUEL LUIS C. GONZALES AND FRANCIS MARTIN D. GONZALES,
Petitioners, v. GJH LAND, INC. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS S.J. LAND, INC.), CHANG HWAN JANG A.K.A.
STEVE JANG, SANG RAK KIM, MARIECHU N. YAP, AND ATTY. ROBERTO P. MALLARI II, Respondent.

G.R. No. 193821, November 23, 2015 - PHIL-AIR CONDITIONING CENTER, Petitioner, v. RCJ LINES AND
ROLANDO ABADILLA, JR., Respondent.

A.C. No. 8507, November 10, 2015 - ELENA BIETE LEONES VDA. DE MILLER, Complainant, v. ATTY.
ROLANDO B. MIRANDA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 211056, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIENVENIDO
REMEDIOS y SARAMOSING, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 205915, November 10, 2015 - ASSET POOL A (SPV-AMC), INC., Petitioner, v. CLARK
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent. - JUDGMENT [BASED ON COMPROMISE AGREEMENT]

G.R. No. 203087, November 23, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGARDO
ZABALA y BALADA AND ROMEO ALBIUS JR. y BAUTISTA, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 201830, November 10, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, REPRESENTED BY HON. CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS TANODBAYAN, AND HON. GERARD A. MOSQUERA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, Petitioners, v. ROGER F. BORJA, Respondent.; G.R. NO.
201882 - LERMA S. PRUDENTE AND DAMASO T. AMBRAY, Petitioners, v. ROGER F. BORJA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 188372, November 25, 2015 - BEAMS PHILIPPINE EXPORT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
MARIANITA CASTILLO AND NIDA QUIRANTE, Respondents.

G.R. No. 195194, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAMAD
AKMAD Y ULIMPAIN @ "MHADS" AND BAINHOR AKMAD Y ULIMPAIN @ "BHADS,", Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 188118, November 23, 2015 - FEDERAL PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD., Petitioner, v. FORTUNE
SEA CARRIER, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 207105, November 10, 2015 - ARSENIO A. AGUSTIN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND SALVADOR S. PILLOS, Respondent.

G.R. No. 210616, November 25, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDDIE SALIBAD
Y DILO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 174115, November 09, 2015 - PUNONGBAYAN AND ARAULLO (P&A), BENJAMIN R.
PUNONGBAYAN., JOSE G. ARAULLO, GREGORIO S. NAVARRO, ALFREDO V. DAMIAN AND JESSIE C.
CARPIO, Petitioners, v. ROBERTO PONCE LEPON, Respondent.

G.R. No. 189229, November 23, 2015 - REYNALDO NOBLADO, JIMMY ARAGON, ARTURO MALAYO,
MARCIANO VICTORIA, ELINO DALANON, JOSE ESTRIL, DOMINGO MALUPENG, ALFREDIE RAYTA,
ROMULO RECOMES, ADRIAN VERCELES, RUEL MAD RON A, RUBEN MIRAFUENTES, ARNULFO MALAYO,
JAIME REMIAS, JELMER BEROLLA, EDIL CASTILLO, FELICIDAD ROSIMA, MITCHEL VICTORIA, DANIEL
MALUPENG, ZOSIMO RANAS, ROSIETA RAYTA, RAFAEL TUMIMBANG, FLORENCIO VICTORIA, ERNESTO
VICTORIA, CERIA ORTIZ, RAUL ADRA, AND VICENTE CUACHIN, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS,
NAMELY: LILIA LORENO CUACHIN, NILO L. CUACHIN, LEONARDO L. CUACHIN, JUDITH L. CUACHIN, VILMA
CUACHIN LLANZANA, ELVIE CUACHIN MANTES, CRISTINA CUACHIN SARCIA, LILIBETH CUACHIN BELORIA,
AIDA CUACHIN MIRANDILLA, JULIET CUACHIN AWA, Petitioners, v. PRTNCESITA K. ALFONSO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 208842, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REYNALDO
SIMBULAN ARCEO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 162032, November 25, 2015 - RURAL BANK OF MALASIQUI, INC., Petitioner, v. ROMEO M.
CERALDE AND EDUARDO M. CERALDE, JR., Respondent.

G.R. No. 175378, November 11, 2015 - MULTI-INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS DATA SYSTEM, INC.,
Petitioner, v. RUEL MARTINEZ, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-11-2992 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-8-156-RTC), November 09, 2015 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ROGER D. COREA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 39,
POLOMOLOK, SOUTH COTOBATO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 215471, November 23, 2015 - MARLOW NAVIGATION PHILIPPINES INC., MARLOW NAVIGATION
CO. LTD./ CYPRUS, LIGAYA C. DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO GALVEZ, JR., Petitioners, v. BRAULIO A. OSIAS,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 210603, November 25, 2015 - EDITHA B. SAGUIN AND LANI D. GRADO, Petitioners, v. PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 209284, November 10, 2015 - RENEE B. TANCHULING, AND THE HEIRS OF VICENTE N. Y.
TANCHULING, NAMELY REBECCA TANCHULING-TAN, RITA TANCHULING-MAPA, ROSEMARIE
TANCHULING-SALINAS, AND VINCENT RAYMOND B. TANCHULING, Petitioners, v. SOTERO C. CANTELA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 206593, November 10, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMONITO B.
ASIGNAR, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 213679, November 25, 2015 - JAY H. LICAYAN, Petitioner, v. SEACREST MARITIME
MANAGEMENT, INC., CLIPPER FLEET MANAGEMENT, A/S AND/OR REDENTOR ANAYA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 192629, November 25, 2015 - FILINVEST LAND, INC., Petitioner, v. EDUARDO R. ADIA, LITO M.
ADIGUE, CANDIDO M. AMPARO, MARINO S. AMPARO, RODOLFO S. AMPARO, FLORDELIZA L. ARIAS,
BALBINO M. ATIENZA, PEDRO M. ATIENZA, DALMACIO C. AVANILLA, PASTOR M. AVANILLA, VENACIO P.
BAUTISTA, RODOLFO S. BERGADO, ENRIQUE R. BRABANTE, EMMA D. BUBAN, JUANITO A. CANDARE,
ROMEO O. CANDARE, ANTONIO M. CATAPANG, EDUARDO A. CATAPANG, GRACIANO C. CATAPANG,
HERMINIO V. CATAPANG, JUANA P. CATAPANG, REYNALDO P. CATAPANG, ROMEO A. CATAPANG,
RODOLFO A. CATAPANG, VICTORIANO A. CATAPANG, JUAN D. CENTOS, FERNANDO B. CERNETCHEZ,
EDUARDO C. CREENCIA, ARNEL N. M. CREMA, REYNALDO B. CRISTAL, MOISES CUBCUBIN, DELSO
POBLETO, SALVADOR M. DE LEON, MELQUIADES P. DESCALSO, GREGORIO P. DINO, ROBERTO L.
DOMINO, CELSO R. ESCALLAR, ARMAND P. ESCUADRO, ELISA C. FELICIANO, PASTOR C. FERRER, ERLINDO
M. FORMARAN, LEONARDO D. GARINO, RAFAEL R. GRANADO, ALMARIO IBANEZ, CASIMIRO P. IBANEZ,
CEFERINO P. IBANEZ, MIGUEL V. IBANEZ, MONTANO V. IBANEZ, CESAR N. JECIEL, ALFREDO B. LAURENTE,
EFIGENIA B. LAURENTE, CELSO C. MEDINA, EDUARDO A. PANGANIBAN, ROMEO C. PASCUA, DANILO L.
PAULMINO, LAURO A. PEGA, LEONARDO M. PEREZ, FELIPE V. PETATE, LEONARDO V. PETATE,
ESTANISLAO PORTO, MAXIMO D. PORTO, GREGORIO L. REYES, JOSE L. REYES, LEONARDO M.
SALINGYAGA, DEMETRIO A. SALONGA, MANOLITO G. SORILLA, HERMOGENES L. TORRES, JUANITO M.
TORRES, MARIANO B. TAGLE, MARIO D. TAGLE, AND SANCHO V. VILLA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 185058, November 09, 2015 - JOVITA S. MANALO, Petitioner, v. ATENEO DE NAGA UNIVERSITY,
FR. JOEL TABORA AND MR. EDWIN BERNAL, Respondent.

G.R. No. 217380, November 23, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDUARDO
CUESTA Y ASTORGA A.K.A BOYET CUBILLA Y QUINTANA, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 189509, November 23, 2015 - METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. G & P
BUILDERS, INCORPORATED, SPOUSES ELPIDIO AND ROSE VIOLET PARAS, SPOUSES JESUS AND MA.
CONSUELO PARAS AND VICTORIA PARAS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 208844, November 10, 2015 - F & S VELASCO COMPANY, INC., IRWIN J. SEVA, ROSINA B.
VELASCO-SCRIBNER, MERCEDEZ SUNICO, AND JOSE SATURNINO O. VELASCO, Petitioners, v. DR.
ROMMEL L. MADRID, PETER PAUL L. DANAO, MANUEL L. ARIMADO, AND MAUREEN R. LABALAN,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 170458, November 23, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ASSET
PRIVATIZATION TRUST, NOW PRIVATIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OFFICE (PMO), Petitioner, v. VIRGILIO
M. TATLONGHARI, DOMINGO P. UY, GUILLERMO P. UY, HINOSAN MOTORS CORPORATION, AND
WESTERN GUARANTY CORPORATION, Respondents.
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > November 2015 Decisions > G.R. No. 202611,
November 23, 2015 - ABNER MANGUBAT, Petitioner, v. BELEN MORGA-SEVA, Respondent.:

G.R. No. 202611, November 23, 2015 - ABNER MANGUBAT, Petitioner, v. BELEN MORGA-SEVA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 202611, November 23, 2015 - ABNER MANGUBAT, Petitioner, v. BELEN MORGA-SEVA,
Respondent.

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 202611, November 23, 2015

ABNER MANGUBAT, Petitioner, v. BELEN MORGA-SEVA, Respondent.

DECISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated (i) July
13, 20111 which dismissed for lack of merit petitioner Abner Mangubat's (Abner) Petition for Annulment
of Judgment and, (ii) June 13, 20122 which denied his motion for reconsideration.

Factual Antecedents

On March 5, 1974, Gaudencio Mangubat (Gaudencio) and his wife Aurelia Rellora-Mangubat (Aurelia)
filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pili, Camarines Sur a Complaint for Specific Performance with
Damages against respondent Belen Morga-Seva (Belen) and two other defendants. The case was
docketed as Civil Case No. P-279 and raffled to the RTC Branch 31. On August 27, 1985, the RT.C issued a
Decision,3 the dispositive portion of which reads in part, viz.:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

Based on the facts x x x established x x x and the cited applicable law and jurisprudence, this Court
hereby renders judgment and orders:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

xxxx

3. The defendants to reimburse the plaintiffs the total amount the latter have paid the (Development
Bank of the Philippines [DBP]) after 1971, the year the defendants defaulted in their amortization
payments to DBP, and in the event of the failure of the defendants to make such reimbursement, for
plaintiffs to assume the rights of the old creditor (DBP) and take such remedial action as the situation
may warrant, x x x

xxxx

5. The defendants [are] entitled to claim and recover title or ownership over the following properties
held as collaterals by DBP, subject, however, to the encumbrance in favor of the plaintiffs, who have
substituted for DBP as creditors:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

1. The parcel of land covered by TCT No. 6337 with all the improvements thereon; x x x
xxxx

SO ORDERED.4ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

cralawlawlibrary

Since Belen and her co-defendants' appeal to the CA and later to this Court were both unsuccessful, the
RTC Decision became final and executory.

On September 3, 1998, Gaudencio and his children as heirs (the heirs) of the deceased Aurelia filed with
the same court a Complaint for Revival of the Decision in Civil Case No. P-279.5 They averred that the
writ of execution could not be implemented because Belen and her co-defendants evaded service
thereof. And since five years had already lapsed from the date of its entry, Gaudencio and the heirs
prayed for the revival of the RTC Decision.

Gaudencio, assisted by Atty. Reynaldo L. Herrera (Atty. Herrera) and Belen by Atty. Junnel M. Relativo,
entered into a Compromise Agreement6 which states as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

xxxx

The defendants admit that they shall pay the amount of P33.OOO.OO that was previously paid by the
plaintiffs to [the DBP1 prior to the issuance of the decision in Civil Case No. 279, plus its legal interest of
12% per annum since August [1990 until] the year 2000 or a total sum of P72,600.00 plus P5,000.00 for
attorney's fee, payable on or before June 30, 2001;

That upon payment of said amount, the plaintiffs will transfer the title, TCT No. 6337 to defendant Belen
Morga Seva;

All other claims and counterclaims that the parties may have [against each other] are hereby waived.
x x x x7cralawlawlibrary

The RTC approved8 the agreement and on February 23, 2001 rendered a Decision9 in accordance
therewith. Upon its finality, the Writ of Execution was ordered issued by the said court.10

On June 24, 2002, Abner, on his own behalf, moved to substitute his father Gaudencio who died on
January 31, 2002.11 A few months thereafter and now allegedly in behalf of his co-heirs, Abner, through
Atty. Haide B. Vista-Gumba (Atty. Vista-Gumba) filed another motion to substitute Gaudencio
exclusively for the purpose of executing the final judgment in the case on the claim that it was necessary
for the settlement of the intestate estate of his father.12 In an Order13 dated September 13, 2002, the
RTC granted Abner's motion for substitution but for purposes of execution only.

On December 18, 2003, Belen handed to Atty. Herrera her payment of P91,280.0014 in accordance with
the Compromise Agreement.15 Alleging, however, that the heirs refused to convey to Belen the lot
covered by TCT No. 6337, the RTC, upon motion of Atty. Herrera,16 directed (1) Abner, who was
allegedly in possession of the owner's copy of the title, to surrender the same to the Clerk of Court; and
(2) the Clerk of Court to execute in behalf of the heirs a deed of sale or conveyance of the lot in favor of
Belen pursuant to Sec. 10, Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court.17 Abner, however, manifested that as far
as he is concerned, Belen has not yet made any payment to the heirs as he was not notified by Atty.
Herrera of the same.18 Thus, Atty. Herrera reported to the court that out of the P91,280.00 handed to
him by Belen, he had turned-over the amount of P84,480.00 to the Clerk of Court and retained
£6,800.00 as his attorney's fee.19 This was duly noted by the RTC.20

On January 20, 2005, Abner terminated the services of Atty. Herrera.21 Subsequently and purportedly in
behalf of all the heirs, Abner, through Atty. Vista-Gumba, filed a Motion to Declare the Amicable
Settlement Null and Void.22 It was alleged therein that Gaudencio acted only on his own behalf when he
entered into the compromise agreement with Belen, hence, the same is null and void for want of
consent and participation of the heirs who were indispensable parties.

Interestingly, however, two of the heirs namely, Ruth Mangubat Parcia and Job Mangubat filed a
Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw the Heirs['] Respective Shares.23 According to them, they were
seven siblings all in all and each is entitled to P12,068.00 from Belen's payment. They do not agree with
the course of action taken by Abner relative to the case and prayed that the case be considered closed
and terminated and their respective shares from Belen's payment released to them. Belen, on the other
hand, questioned Abner's capacity to assail the compromise agreement. She averred that in the decision
of the probate court regarding the intestate estate of Gaudencio, Abner was disinherited by his
father.24

In an Order25 dated September 8, 2005, the RTC ruled on the Motion to Declare the Amicable
Settlement Null and Void as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

The present action for Declaration of Nullity of the Compromise Agreement was filed by Abner
Mangubat, son and one. of the heirs of Gaudencio and Aurelia Mangubat, who has been disinherited by
final judgment in Spec. Procs. No. P-984 before RTC[,] Branch 33 of this Court x x x thus, Abner
Mangubat is not a real party in interest to bring this present action ([to] declare [the] amicable
settlement null and void] under Rule 3, Section 2 of the Rules of Court. His allegations that the present
motion was brought in behalf of the other heirs of Gaudencio and Aurelia Mangubat is gratuitous and
without basis, there is no evidence to show that he is authorized to represent them. As a matter of fact,
two of the heirs, Ruth Mangubat Parcia and Job Mangubat manifested that they do not want to be
involved and dragged in this proceeding nor in any other action that Abner may institute; that
accordingly, they are satisfied with the decision of the Court, and they want to get their share of the
deposit x x x.

Be it noted that the decision has been partially satisfied when defendant Belen Morga Seva, thru Atty.
Reynaldo Herrera, deposited the amount of P84,480.00 to the Clerk of Court as per [R]eceipt No.
1201439 dated April 6, 2005. Moreover, by his own act, Abner Mangubat is bound by the compromise
agreement when he substituted for his father. Record shows that Abner Mangubat continued to retain
the legal services of Atty. Reynaldo Herrera as counsel for the plaintiffs contrary to his allegations. The
services of Atty. Herrera was terminated only sometime in January 2005. x x x

It is well settled that a judgment on a compromise is not appealable and is immediately executory,
unless a motion is filed to set aside the compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress in which
case an appeal may be taken from the order denying the motion.

The inaction of Abner Mangubat or [the] other heirs of Gaudencio Mangubat and Aurelia Mangubat for
a period of almost four (4) years after becoming aware of the compromise agreement and of the
judgment thereon, amounts to a ratification on their part of said agreement. For laches operates to
validate an agreement otherwise invalid, granting that the herein compromise agreement was invalid,
when the party on becoming aware of the compromise fails to repudiate it promptly. Such ratification is
presumed from his or their inaction.

The validity of a judgment or order of a Court cannot be assailed collaterally unless the ground of attack
is lack of jurisdiction. If the purported nullity of the judgment lies on the party's lack of consent to the
compromise agreement, as claimed by Abner Mangubat being the heir of Aurelia Rellora-Mangubat who
died before the filing of this case for revival of judgment, the remedy of the aggrieved party is to have it
reconsidered, and if denied to appeal from such judgment or if final to apply for relief under Rule 38 of
the Rules of Court or to file an annulment of judgment under Sec. 9 of B.P. 129 before the Honorable
Court of Appeals.

It is unfortunate that Abner Mangubat failed to avail of the remedies provided for under the Rules of
Court and opted to file this instant motion to declare the compromise agreement null and void which
has no leg to stand on.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, for lack of sufficient merit, the motion to declare [the]
amicable settlement null and void is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.26cralawlawlibrary

Again purportedly on behalf of all the heirs, Abner moved for the reconsideration of the above-quoted
Order27 but was denied by the RTC in its Order28 of February 27, 2006. When the same became final,
Belen filed a Motion for Execution of Specific Acts29 wherein she once more prayed that Abner be
ordered to surrender to the RTC the owner's copy of TCT No. 6337 and the Clerk of Court to execute in
her favor and on behalf of the heirs a deed of sale involving the lot covered by the said title. This was
granted by the RTC in an Order30 dated July 14, 2006. Still, Abner refused to comply. Hence, the said
court upon motion of Belen31 issued its Order32 of September 25, 2006, the dispositive portion of
which reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, plaintiffs through Abner Mangubat [are] hereby divested of the
ownership of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 6337 pursuant to the decision of
this Court dated February 23, 2001 and the same is vested to herein defendant Belen Morga-Seva. This
order shall now have the force and effect of a conveyance executed in due form oflaw pursuant to the
last sentence of Sec. 10(a) of Rule 39 of the [R]ules of Court.
SO ORDERED.33ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

cralawlawlibrary

Trie afore-mentioned order became final on November 19, 2006.34 Pursuant thereto, the RTC directed
the Registrar of Deeds of Camarines Sur to transfer title to the property under TCT No. 6337 to Belen.35

Riding of the Court of Appeals

On September 21, 2010, Abner filed a Petition for Annulment of Final Order36 with the CA. He
contended that under the Compromise Agreement, Belen was supposed to make her payment on or
before June 30, 2001. However, the same was made only on December 18, 2003 or way beyond the
period agreed upon. Thus to Abner, it was unjust for the RTC to have issued its September 25, 2006
Order divesting the heirs of ownership of the subject property. Moreover, Abner argued that since the
February 23, 2001 RTC Decision approving the Compromise Agreement had long become final and
executory, the RTC had already lost its jurisdiction over the case when it issued the September 25, 2006
Order.

In a Resolution37 dated July 13, 2011, the CA dismissed the Petition for lack of merit. The Motion for
Reconsideration38 thereto was also denied in Resolution39 dated June 13, 2012.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.

The Parties' Arguments

Abner basically reiterates the arguments he advanced before the CA.

For her part, Belen argues that the RTC has jurisdiction over the Complaint for revival of judgment. In
fact, the RTC's issuance of the September 25, 2006 Order is nothing but an exercise of jurisdiction
pursuant to its authority to handle the case until the full satisfaction of its Decision. At any rate, Abner is
guilty of laches as it was only after almost four years from the finality of the said Order that he
questioned the same.

Our Ruling

The Petition fails.

It must be stressed that the remedy of annulment of judgment is only available under certain
exceptional circumstances as this is adverse to the concept of immutability of final judgments.40 Hence,
it is allowed only on two grounds, i.e., extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.41

Abner anchors his Petition for Annulment of Final Order on lack of jurisdiction. He posits that the RTC
had lost jurisdiction over the case when its February 23, 2001 Decision became final, hence, any
issuance subsequent thereto is made without any jurisdiction.

The argument is, however, specious. "Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the
judgment or final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action, or
lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner."42 Here, it is undisputed that the RTC acquired
jurisdiction over the person of Abner, he having asked for affirmative relief therefrom several times.43
As mentioned, what Abner questions is the RTC's jurisdiction over the case.

"In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely
an abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction means
absence of or no jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have taken cognizance of the petition because
the law does not vest it with jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the nature of the
action or subject matter is conferred by law."44 The RTC's jurisdiction over petitions for revival of
judgment had already been upheld by the Court.45 It was held that "[a]n action for revival of judgment
may be filed either 'in the same court where said judgment was rendered or in the place where the
plaintiff or defendant resides, or in any other place designated by the statutes which treat of the venue
of actions in general.'"46 Here, the Complaint for revival of judgment was filed in the same court (RTC-
Pili Camarines Sur, Branch 31) which rendered the August 27, 1985 Decision in Civil Case No. P-279.
Undoubtedly, the RTC has jurisdiction over the action. There is therefore no valid ground for the Petition
for Annulment of Final Order that Abner filed with the CA.
To the mind of the Court, Abner's flawed arguments emanate from his misconception of lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action as a ground for annulment. As aptly observed
by the CA, he has confused lack of jurisdiction with error in the exercise of jurisdiction,
viz.:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

It is settled that once jurisdiction has been acquired, it is not lost until the court shall have disposed of
the case in its entirety. [Abner's] predecessor having elected to enforce the compromise agreement, the
RTC is still vested with jurisdiction until compliance therewith has been fully enforced.

[Abner] clearly confused lack of jurisdiction with error in the exercise of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not
the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is
the authority to decide a case, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is jurisdiction over
the person and the subject matter, the decision on all other questions arising in the case is but an
exercise of such jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the exercise of jurisdiction
are merely errors of judgment which are the proper subject of an appeal. The error raised by [Abner]
pertains to the trial court's exercise of its jurisdiction, not its lack of authority to decide the case. In a
petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of jurisdiction, [a] petitioner must show not merely an
abuse of jurisdictional discretion but an absolute lack of authority to hear and decide the case. On this
basis, there would be no valid ground to grant the petition for annulment of
judgment.47ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

cralawlawlibrary

Even assuming that the claim of lack of jurisdiction is well-grounded, Abner's Petition for Annulment of
Final Order is barred by laches. An action for annulment of judgment or final order if based on lack of
jurisdiction, must brought before it is barred by laches.48 "The principle of laches or 'stale demands'
ordains that the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which
by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier ~ negligence or omission to assert a
right within a reasonable time, warrants a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has
abandoned it or declined to assert it."49 In this case, it was only after almost four years from the finality
of the September 25, 2006 Order that Abner brought an action to annul the same. He did not even care
to provide in his petition any justification for his inaction for such a long period of time. Such
unreasonable delay warrants the presumption that Abner has declined to assert his right to the property
covered by TCT No. 6337. Verily, to permit him now to assert the same would be unfair and inequitable.
In any event, Abner's Petition for Annulment of Final Order was not the proper remedy to nullify the
September 25, 2006 Order which is an interlocutory order. "An interlocutory order refers to a ruling
respecting some point or matter between the commencement and end of the suit, but is not a final
adjudication of the claims and liabilities of the parties that are in dispute in that suit.50 The September
25, 2006 Order merely dealt with the incidental matter of causing the transfer of the title to the
property covered by TCT No. 6337 under the name of Belen in accordance with the final and executory
February 23, 2001 RTC Decision after Abner refused to comply with the directive to deliver the owner's
copy thereof. No further settlement of any claim or imposition of any further liability was made in the
said order.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed Resolutions of the Court of
Appeals dated July 13, 2011 and June 13, 2012 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr.,* Brion, (Acting Chairperson),* Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.chanrobleslaw

Endnotes:

* Per Special Order No. 2282 dated November 13, 2015.

** Per Special Order No. 2281 dated November 13, 2015.

1 CA rollo, pp. 28-36; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate
Justices Mario V. Lopez and Socorro B. Inting.

2 Id. at 51-52.

3 Records, pp. 6-22; penned by Executive Judge Simon D. Encinas.

4 Id. at 20-22.

5 Id. at 2-5; docketed as Civil Case No. P-2145.

6 Id. at 111.

7 Id.

8 Id. at 113.

9 Id. at 114-115; penned by Presiding Judge Martin P. Badong, Jr.

10 Id. at 118-120.

11 Id. at 121-122.

12 Id. at 126-127.

13 Id. at 128; penned by Acting Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon.

14 Broken down as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

P72,600.00

- amount payable as of year 2000

11,880.00
- interest earned for years 2000-2003

5,000.00

- attorney's fees

1,800.00

- interest earned for years 2000-2003

P91,280.00

15 Records, pp. 135-137.

16 Id. at 141-142.

17 Order dated January 17, 2005, id. at 157-158.

18 Id. at 159-160.

19 Id. at 174-176.

20 Id. at 180.

21 Id. at 195.

22 Id. at 183-190.

23 Id. at 201-203.
24 See Belen's Supplemental Opposition, id. at 224-225.

25 Id. at 250-253.

26 Id. at 250-253.

27 Id. at 254-258.

28 Id. at 281-282.

29 Id. at 296.

30 Id. at 300.

31 Id. at 301-302.

32 Id. at 303-304.

33 Id. at 304.

34 Id. at 318.

35 Id. at 320.

36 CA rollo, pp. 3-9.

37 Id. at 28-36.

38 Id. at 37-39.

39 Id. at 51-52.

40 Antonino v. The Register of Deeds of Makati City, 688 Phil. 527, 536 (2012) citing Ramos v. Judge
Combong, Jr., 510 Phil. 277, 281-282 (2005).

41 Id.

42Pinausukan Seafood House, Roxas Boulevard, Inc. v. Far East Bank & Trust Company, now Bank of the
Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 159926, January 20, 2014, 714 SCRA 226, 244.

43Miranda v. Tuliao, 520 Phil. 907, 920 (2006).

44 Spouses Manila v. Spouses Mamo, 672 Phil. 460,473 (2011).

45Heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr. v. Miranda, G.R. No. 179638, July 8,2013,700 SCRA 746,757.

46 Id.

47 CA rollo, pp, 33-34.

48Pinawukan Seafood House, Roxas Boulevard, Inc. v. Far East Bank & Trust Company, now Bank of the
Philippine Islands, supra note 42 at 245.
49Spouses Manila v. Spouses Manzo, supra note 44 at 476,

50 Heirs and/or Estate of Atty. Rolando P. Siapian v. Intestate Estate of the late Eufrocina G Mackay, 644
Phil. 207, 214 (2010).

G.R. No. 202611, November 23, 2015 - ABNER MANGUBAT, Petitioner, v. BELEN MORGA-SEVA,
Respondent.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910
1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935
1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1951

1952

1953

1954

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960
1961

1962

1963

1964

1965

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985
1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010
2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

cralaw

Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 2017 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

RED