SC Case
SC Case
SC Case
CAGUIOA, J.:
1
Ro!!u, pp. 5-3S.
Jd. at 40-'58. Penned by As.,ocia(e .lu!>tice Gemnmo Francisco D. Legaspi with Associate .Justices
Marilyn B. Lagura-Y:::p ana Gabriel T. Robe:iiol, concurring.
3
Id.ai61-62.
4 ':>pecial Eighteenth('! ~:1,,1 Divisi(m and Former Special Eighteenth ( I ifh) Division. resrt·ctively.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 228334;
The instant case· stems from a Complaint5 for "[ easements of light, air
and view, lateral_ support, and intermediate distances ~nd damages with
prayer for writ of preliminary injunction and/or i_ssuance of temporary
restraining order]" (Complaint) filed on February 18, 2009 by the Sps.
Garcia against the respondents Spouses Loreta and Winston Santos (the Sps.
Santos) and respondent Conchita Tan (Tan) before the Regional Trial Court
of Iloilo City, Branch 31 (RTC). The case was docketed as Civil Case No.
09-30023.
As alleged in the Complaint, the Sps. Garcia are the registered owners
of Lot 2, Blk. 1, San Jose Street, Southville Subdivision, Molo, Iloilo City
(subject property), covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
130666.6
The subject property, which has been occupied by the Sps. Garcia for
about eleven ( 11) years, has a one-storey residential house erected thereon
and was purchased by them from the Sps. Santos in October 1998. At the
time of the purchase of the subject property from the Sps. Santos, the one-
storey house was already constructed. Also, at the time of the acquisition of
the subject property, the adjoining lot, Lot 1, which is owned by the Sps.
Santos, was an idle land without any improvements. Lot 1 is covered by
TCT No. T-114137, 7 registered under the name of the Sps. Santos. Lot 1
remained empty until the Sps. Santos started the construction of a two-storey
residential house therein on January 24, 2009. Upon inquiry from the
construction workers, Tedy was erroneously informed that Tan was the new
owner of Lot 1.
Hence, in their Complaint, aside from asking for damages, the Sps.
Garcia prayed that: the RTC declare them as having acquired the easement
of light, air, and view against Lot 1; the respondents be prohibited from
5
Rollo, pp. 64-76.
6
Id. at 78-79.
7 Id. at 77.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 228334
constructing any structure on Lot 1 taller than the Sps. Garcia's one-storey
residential house; the respondents be prohibited from building any structure
on Lot 1 at a distance of less than three meters from the boundary line; and
the respondents be prohibited from making excavations on Lot 1 that deprive
sufficient lateral support to the fence located on the subject property.
Further, the respondents argued that the Sps. Garcia failed to allege
how they acquired the easement of light and view either by prescription or
title. The respondents maintained that the mere presence of windows on the
one-storey house of the Sps. Garcia in itself does not give rise to an
easement by title, stressing that there was no tenement standing on Lot 1 at
the time of the construction of the one-storey house standing on the subject
property. The respondents also argued that the Sps. Garcia also failed to
acquire an easement by prescription because they never alleged that they
made a formal prohibition of the construction of a taller structure on Lot 1.
The trial then ensued, with the Sps. Garcia presenting their testimonial
and documentary evidence.
After the Sps. Garcia rested their case, the Sps. Santos filed a Motion
to Dismiss·(By Way of Demurrer to Evidence) 11 which the RTC denied in its
t
8
A copy of which was not attached to the instant Petition. Penned by Presiding Judge Edgardo L. Catilo.
9
Rollo, pp. 6-7.
10
Id. at 98-108.
11
A copy of which was not attached to the instant Petition.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 228334; '.
The Sps. Santos then assailed the RTC's denial of their demurrer to
evidence by filing a petition for certiorari 13 under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court before the CA. The petition was raffled to the Twentieth Division and
was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 06176.
In its Decision 14 dated May 20, 2013, the CA, Twentieth Division
denied the certiorari petition of the Sps. Santos for failing to prove that the
RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the respondents'
demurrer to evidence.
Afterwards, the trial ensued before the RTC, with the Sps. Santos
presenting their evidence.
In its Decision 18 dated May 28, 2015, the RTC ruled in favor of the
Sps. Santos and dismissed the Complaint. The dispositive portion of the
aforesaid Decision reads:
Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED. 19
In sum, the RTC held that the Sps. Garcia never acquired any
easement of light and view either by title or by prescription.
12 A copy of which was not attached to the instant Petition. Penned by Presiding Judge Florian Gregory
D. Abalajon.
13 A copy of which was not attached to the instant Petition.
14 Rollo, pp. 122-137-A. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate
Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of the Court) and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan,
concurring.
15 A copy of which was not attached to the instant Petition.
16 Rollo, pp. 141-143. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices
Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Edward B. Contreras, concurring.
17
Id. at 147-148.
18
Id. at 109-120. Penned by Presiding Judge Rene S. Hortillo.
19
Id. at 120.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 228334
Hence, the Sps. Garcia appealed the RTC's Decision before the CA,
Special 18th Division. 20 The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CV No.
05701.
SO ORDERED. 21
Agreeing in toto with the RTC, the CA held that the Sps. Garcia never
acquired an easement of light and view under the pertinent provisions of the
Civil Code.
Henc'e, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by the Sps.
Garcia under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The respondents filed their Comment (To the Petition dated October
28, 2016)23 dated June 20, 2017, to which the Sps. Garcia responded with
their Reply 24 dated November 9, 2017.
Issues
Stripped to its core, the instant Petition presents two main issues for
the Court's disposition: (1) whether, in view of the CA, Twentieth
Division's final and executory Decision dated May 20, 2013 in CA-G.R. SP
No. 06176, the doctrine of the law of the case finds application; and (2)
whether the Sps. Garcia have acquired an easement of light and view with
respect to Lot 1 owned by the Sps. Santos.
20 The instant Petition and the attached records fail to indicate whether the Sps. Garcia filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the RTC's Decision dated May 28, 2015.
21
Rollo, p. 58.
22 A copy of which was not attached to the instant Petition.
23
Rollo, pp. 158-184.
24
Id. at 194-204.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 228334,
In deciding the merits of the instant Petition, the Court shall resolve
the issues in seriatim.
In the instant Petition, the Sps. Garcia make the argument that the
doctrine of the law of the case applies in the instant case, considering that the
CA, Twentieth Division's final and executory Decision dated May 20, 2013
in CA-G.R. SP No. 06176 expressly and categorically found that "[t]here is
an acquired easement of light, air and view in favor of [the Sps. Garcia]" 25
based on Article 624 of the Civil Code 26 and the decided cases of Amor v.
Florentino 27 and Gargantos v. Tan Yanon, 28 and that "the contention of [the
respondents] that the mere opening of windows and doors does not constitute
an easement is therefore refuted. " 29
The doctrine of the law of the case states that wha~ver has once been
irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of decision between the
same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, whether
correct on general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the
court. 30
Citing Mercury Group of Co., Inc. v. Home Dev't Mutual Fund, 31 the
CA, Special 18 th Division was correct in explaining that the aforesaid
doctrine applies only when there has been a prior decision on the merits:
Having disposed of the first issue, the Court shall now decide whether
the Sps. Garcia have indeed acquired an easement of light and view,
imposing a burden on Lot 1 not to obstruct the subject property's free access
to light and view. The Court notes that the issues surrounding the alleged
easement of lateral and subjacent support were no longer pursued by the Sps.
Garcia in the instant Petition. Hence, the Court's Decision shall focus
exclusively on the easement of light and view purportedly acquired by the
Sps. Garcia as against the Sps. Santos' Lot 1.
33
Rollo, p. 132; underscoring supplied.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 228334,
established either by law or by the will of the owner. The former are called
legal, and the latter, voluntary easements." 34 An easement has been
described as "a real right which burdens a thing with a prestation consisting
of determinate servitudes for the exclusive enjoyment of a person who is not
its owner or of a tenement belonging to another." 35
Legal easements are ones imposed by law, and which have, for their
object, either public use or interest of private persons, 36 as opposed to
voluntary easements that are established by the agreements of the parties.
The different legal easements are: ( a) easement relating to waters; (b)
right of way; (c) party wall; (d) light and view; (e) drainage; (f)
intermediate distances; (g) easement against nuisance; and (h) lateral and
subjacent support. 37
The easement of light and view has two components. The easement
of light or jus luminum has the purpose of admitting light and a little air,
as in the case of small windows, not more than 30 centimeters square, at
the height of the ceiling joists or immediately under the ceiling. 39 On the
other hand, the easement of view or servidumbre prospectus 40 has the
principal purpose of affording view, as in the case of full or regular
windows overlooking the adjoining estate. 41
34 Unisource Commercial and Dev 't Corp. v. Chung, 610 Phil. 642, 649 (2009).
35 Eduardo P. Caguioa, COMMENTS AND CASES ON CIVIL LAW, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 3'd ed.,
1966, Vol. II, p. 261.
36
Civil Code, Art. 634.
37 Edgardo L. Paras, CIVIL CODE OF THE PIIILIPPINES ANNOTATED, 17 th ed., 2013, Vol. ll, pp. 684-685.
38
Id. at 715. ~
39
Id. See CIVIL CODE, Art. 669.
40
Also known asjus prospectus. Caguioa, supra note 35, at 309.
41
Paras, supra note 37, at 715.
42
Caguioa, supra note 35, at 309-310, citations omitted.
43
Id.at310.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 228334
"because an easement of light and view requires that the owner of the
servient estate shall not build to a height that will obstruct the window." 44
In the instant case, the Sps. Garcia assert that since they have
acquired by title an easement of light and view, the owner of the adjacent
servient estate, i.e., the Sps. Santos, is proscribed from building a
structure that obstructs the window of their one-storey house.
44
Amor v. Florentino, supra note 27, at 409.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 228334 .
if the window or opening is thru one's own wall, i.e., thru a wall of the
dominant estate. 45 However, "[e]ven if the window is on one's own wall,
still the easement would be positive if the window is on a balcony or
projection extending over into the adjoining land." 46
In the instant case, it is not disputed that the windows and other
openings, which are allegedly now prevented from receiving light and view due
to the structure built by the Sps. Santos on Lot 1, are made in the wall of Sps.
Garcia's one-storey-house. There is no party wall alleged to be co-owned by
the parties.
In the very early case of Cortes v. Yu-Tibo, 47 the Court held that the
easement of light and view in the case of windows opened in one's own
wall is negative. As such easement is a negative one, it cannot be acquired
by prescription except where sufficient time of possession has elapsed after
the owner of the dominant estate, by a formal act, has prohibited the owner
of the servient estate from doing something which would be lawful but for
the easement. 48
The phrase "formal act" would require not merely any writing, but one
executed in due fonn and/or with solemnity. 49 This is expressly stated in
Article 668 of the Civil Code which states that the period of prescription for the
acquisition of an easement oflight and view shall be counted: (1) from the time
of the opening of the window, ifit is through a party wall; or (2) from the time
of the formal prohibition upon the proprietor of the adjoining land or
tenement, if the window is through a wall on the dominant estate.
It is from these legal premises that the RTC anq CA, Special 18 th
Division based their holdings that the Sps. Garcia "never acquired an easement
of light and view under Article 668 of the Civil Code for failure to serve a
notarial prohibition." 50 It is not disputed that the Sps. Garcia never sent the Sps.
Santos any formal notice or notarial prohibition enjoining the latter from
constructing any building of higher height on Lot 1. Hence, the RTC and CA,
Special 18th Division made the conclusion that the Sps. Garcia failed to acquire
an easement of light and view in relation to the adjacent Lot 1.
45
Paras, supra note 37, at 716-717, citing Cortes v. Yu-Tibo, 2 Phil. 24 (1903).
46
Id. at 717, citing Fabie v. lichauco, 11 Phil. 14 ( 1908). This observation should be read in the light of
Article 670 of the Civil Code, which provides that:
x x x No windows, apertures, balconies, or other similar projections which
afford a direct view upon or towards an adjoining land or tenement can be made, without
leaving a distance of two meters between the wall in which they are made and such
contiguous property.
Neither can side or oblique views upon or towards such conterminous property
be had, unless there be a distance of sixty centimeters.
The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to prescription.
47
Supra note 45.
48 Id.
49
Cid v. Javier, 108 Phil. 850, 852 (1960).
50
Rollo, p. 56.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 228334
Nevertheless, the Court finds that the aforesaid holding of the RTC
and CA, Special 18th Division is incorrect in view of Article 624 of the
Civil Code.
51 ART. 620. Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either by virtue of a title or by
prescription of ten years.
xxxx
ART. 622. Continuous nonapparent easements, and discontinuous ones, whether apparent or not,
may be acquired only by virtue of a title.
52
Paras, supra note 37, at 659.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 228334.
This is precisely the situation that has occurred in the instant case.
Prior to the purchase of the subject property by the Sps. Garcia in 1998, the
subject property and its adjoining lot, i.e., Lot 1, were both owned by
singular owners, i.e., the Sps. Santos. On the subject property, a one-storey
house laden with several windows and openings was built and the windows
and openings remained open. Then on October 1998, the subject property,
together with the one-storey structure, was alienated in favor of the Sps.
Garcia, while the Sps. Santos retained the adjoining Lot 1.
I
Decision t 13 G.R. No. 228334
presented therein and the special situation contemplated under then Article
541 of the Spanish Civil Code, which is now Article 624 of the Civil Code,
wherein no formal act is needed to acquire easement of light and view:
In the first of the suits referred to, the question turned upon
two houses which had formerly belonged to the same owner, who
established a service of light on one of them for the benefit of the
other. These properties were subsequently conveyed to two different
persons, but at the time of the separation of the property nothing was said
as to the discontinuance of the easement, nor were the windows which
constituted the visible sign thereof removed. The new owner of the house
subject to the easement endeavored to free it from the incumbrance,
notwithstanding the fact that the easement had been in existence for
thirty-five years, and alleged that the owner of the dominant estate had
not performed any act of opposition which might serve as a starting point
for the acquisition of a prescriptive title. The supreme court, in deciding
this case, on the 7th of February, 1896, held that the easement in this
particular case was positive, because it consisted in the active
enjoyment of the light. This doctrine is doubtless based upon article
541 of the Code, which is of the following tenor: "The existence of
apparent sign of an easement between two tenements, established by the
owner of both of them, shall be considered, should one be sold, as a title
for the active and passive continuance of the easement, unless, at the time
of the division of the ownership of both tenements, the contrary should be
expressed in the deed of conveyance of either of them, or such sign is
taken away before the execution of such deed."
In these cases, like the case at hand, several properties were once
owned by a single owner, wherein in one of the properties, a structure with
windows and other openings was put up. Subsequently, the adjacent
property was transferred to a different owner, wherein a structure was built
thereon obstructing the windows and other openings found on the adjacent
lot.
On September 6, 1885, Maria made a will, devising the house and the
land on which it was situated to Gabriel Florentino, one of the respondents
therein, and to Jose Florentino, father of the other respondents therein. In
said will, the testatrix also devised the warehouse and the lot where it was
situated to Maria Encarnacion Florentino (Maria Encarnacion). Upon the
death of the testatrix in 1892, nothing was said or done py the devisees in
regard to the windows in question. On July 14, 1911, Maria Encarnacion
sold her lot and the warehouse thereon to the petitioner therein, Severo
Amor (Amor). In January 1938, therein Amor destroyed the old warehouse
and started to build instead a two-storey house.
In deciding the case, the Court first explained that easements may be
acquired either through title or prescription and enumerated the different acts
by which an easement may be acquired by virtue of title, namely: ( 1) a deed
of recognition by the owner of the servient estate; (2) a final judgment; and
(3) an apparent sign between two estates, established by the owner of
both, referring to Article 541 (now Article 624) of the Civil Code. Citing
decisions of the Supreme Tribunal of Spain, the Court explained that "under
article 541 [now Article 624] of the Civil Code, the visible and permanent
sign of an easement 'is the title that characterizes its existence' (' es el
titulo caracteristico de su existencia. ')" 58
Applying Article 541 (now Article 624) of the Civil Code, the Court
held that the existence of the four windows constructed on the subject
house was an apparent sign of an easement of light and view, the
subsistence of which after the lots were segregated to different owners
created an easement of light and view by title without the need of any formal
notice to the servient estate. The Court explained that the moment of the
constitution of the easement of light and view, together with that of
altius non tollendi, was the time of the transfer of the other property
adjacent to the lot where the windows were located, which, in that case,
was the death of the original owner of both properties:
It will thus be seen that under article 541 the existence of the
apparent sign in the instant case, to wit, the four windows under
consideration, had for all legal purposes the same character and
effect as a title of acquisition of the easement of light and view by the
respondents upon the death of the original owner, Maria Florentino.
Upon the establishment of that easement of light and view, the
concomitant and concurrent easement of altius non tollendi was also
constituted, the heir of the camarin and its lot, Maria Encarnacion
Florentino, not having objected to the existence of the windows. The
theory of article 541, of making the existence of the apparent sign
equivalent to a title, when nothing to the contrary is said or done by the
two owners, is sound and correct, because as it happens in this case,
there is an implied contract between them that the easements in
question should be constituted.
58
Amor v. Florentino, supra note 27, at 410; emphasis and italics supplied.
59
Id. at 410-411; emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 228334
~
In the said case, the late Francisco Sanz (Sanz) was the former owner
of a parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon, situated in
the poblacion of Rom bl on. He subdivided the lot into three (3) and then sold
each portion to different persons. One portion was purchased by Guillermo
Tengtio who subsequently sold it to Vicente Uy Veza. Another portion, with
the house of strong materials thereon, was sold in 1927 to Tan Yanon, the
respondent therein. This house had on its northeastern side, doors and
windows overlooking the third portion, which, together with the camarin
and small building thereon, after passing through several hands, was finally
acquired by Juan Gargantos (Gargantos ), the petitioner therein. In 195 5,
Gargantos tore down the roof of the camarin and constructed a combined
residential house and warehouse on his lot.
The Court held that Article 538 (now Article 621) of the Civil Code
and the doctrine in Cortes v. Yu-Tibo that the easement of light and view in
situations involving openings situated on the wall of the dominant estate is a
negative easement that may only be acquired by prescription tacked from
formal prohibition "[is] not applicable herein because the two estates, that
now owned by petitioner, and that owned by respondent, were formerly
owned by just one person, Francisco Sanz."60
The Court further explained that the existence of the doors and
windows on the northeastern side of the house was equivalent to a title, for
the visible and permanent sign of an easement was the title that
characterized its existence:
60
Gargantos v. Tan Yanon, supra note 28. at 890; underscoring supplied.
Decision 17 G.R. No. 228334
is no easement to speak of, there being but one owner of both estates
(Article 530, O.C.C., now Article 613, N.C.C.). 61
Hence, in accordance with Article 624 of the Civil Code, from the
time the Sps. Santos transferred the subject property to the Sps. Garcia,
there arose by title an easement of light and view, placing a burden on the
servient estate, i.e., Lot 1, to allow the Sps. Garcia's residence unobstructed
access to light and view, subject to certain limitations as will be discussed
hereunder.
61
Id. at 890-891; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
62
Paras, supra note 37, at 669-670.
63
Rollo, p. 53.
64
Id. at 55.
Decision 18 G.R. No. 228334.
First and foremost, the subject Civil Code provision dealt with by
these two cases, i.e., Article 624 (formerly Article 541) of the Civil Code,
merely states that what is involved in this particular situation is "an apparent
sign of easement between two estates." 65
65
Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
Decision 19 G.R. No. 228334
66
Caguioa, supra note 35, at 276; emphasis supplied.
Decision 20 G.R. No. 228334 ..
constructions are done in the servient estate that was previously completely
empty.
Now that the existence of an easement of light and view has been
established in favor of the Sps. Garcia, the Court shall now delve on
whether to grant Sps. Garcia's prayer that "respondents should therefore
remove from Lot 1 their building or structure which blocks or impedes
petitioners' air, light and view." 68
Based on Articles 669 69 and 670 of the Civil Code, there are two
kinds of windows: (1) regular or full 70 or direct view71 windows, and (2)
restricted, 72 or oblique or side view 73 windows. As for openings, they may
be direct views - those openings which are made on a wall parallel or
almost parallel to the line that divides the estates, in such a way that the
neighboring tenement can be seen without putting out or turning the head,
67
Gargantos v. Tan Yanan, supra note 28, at 891. It must be noted, however, that Article 673 of the Civil
Code must be observed in the construction of improvements on the servient estate if by any title there
are, in the dominant estate, openings with direct views, balconies or belvederes overlooking that
adjoining servient estate.
68
Rollo, p. 33.
69
ART. 669. When the distances in Article 670 are not observed, the owner of a wall which is not a
party wall, adjoining a tenement or piece of land belonging to another, can make in it openings to
admit light at the height of the ceiling joints or immediately under the ceiling, and of the size of thirty
centimeters square, and, in every case, with an iron grating imbedded in the wall and with a wire
screen. ~
Nevertheless, the owner of the tenement or property adjoining the wall in which the openings are
made can close them should he acquire part-ownership thereof, if there be no stipulation to the
contrary.
He can also obstruct them by constructing a building on his land or by raising a wall thereon
contiguous to that having such openings, unless an easement of light has been acquired. (581 a)
70
Paras, supra note 37, at 720.
71
CIVIL CODE, Art. 670. Caguioa, supra note 35, at 314.
72
Paras, supra note 3 7, at 718.
73
CIVIL CODE, Art. 670. Caguioa, supra note 35, at 314.
Decision 21 G.R. No. 228334
Firstly, there is the two-meter distance rule under Article 670 of the
Civil Code, which provides: "[n]o windows, apertures, balconies, or other
similar projections which afford a direct view upon or towards an adjoining
land or tenement can be made, without leaving a distance of two meters
between the wall in which they are made and such contiguous property."
This Article is to be read in conjunction with Article 671 as the latter
provides the mechanism by which the two-meter distance is to be measured,
to wit: "[t]he distances xx x shall be measured in cases of direct views from
the outer lihe of the wall when the openings do not project, from the outer
line of the latter when they do, and in cases of oblique views from the
dividing line between the two properties."
Hence, under Article 670, which is the general rule, when a window
or any similar opening affords a direct view of an adjoining land, the
distance between the wall in which such opening is made and the border of
the adjoining land should be at least two meters.
74
Caguioa, supra note 35, at 314, citation omitted.
Decision 22 G.R. No. 228334 ..
ART. 673. Whenever by any title a right has been acquired to have
direct views, balconies or belvederes overlooking an adjoining property,
the owner of the servient estate cannot build thereon at less than a distance
of three meters to be measured in the manner provided in Article 671. Any
stipulation permitting distances less than those prescribed in Article 670 is
void.
In the instant case, the records show that Roberto Planton Baradas
(Baradas ), the construction project engineer who supervised the
construction of the Sps. Santos' house located on Lot 1, testified that
"[t]here is a distance of two meters between [the Sps. Garcia's] fence and
the wall of [the respondents] spouses Santos." 77 Simply stated, the distance
between the structure erected by the Sps. Santos on Lot 1 and the boundary
line is only two meters, which is less than the three-meter distance required
under Article 673.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
t:--~·
ESTELA M.itiR~ERNABE SE C. REYES, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
Decision 24 G.R. No. 228334 ..
AMY (PJio_JA
Associate Justice
VIER
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of Jthe opinion of the
Court's Division.
ad~
ANTONIO T. CAR
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION