8/28/2021 G.R. No.

223610

FIRST DIVISION

July 24, 2017

G.R. No. 223610

CONCHITA S. UY, CHRISTINE UY DY, SYLVIA UY SY, JANE UY TAN, JAMES LYNDON S. UY, IRENE S.
UY,*ERICSON S. UY, JOHANNA S. UY, and JEDNATHAN S. UY, Petitioners 
vs.
CRISPULO DEL CASTILLO, substituted by his heirs PAULITA MANATAD-DEL CASTILLO, CESAR DEL
CASTILLO, A VITO DEL CASTILLO, NILA C. DUENAS, NIDA C. LATOSA, LORNA C. BERNARDO, GIL DEL
CASTILLO, LIZA C. GUNGOB, ALMA DEL CASTILLO, and GEMMA DEL CASTILLO, Respondents

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on  certiorari1  filed by petitioner Conchita S. Uy (Conchita) and her
children, petitioners Christine Uy Dy, Sylvia Uy Sy, Jane Uy Tan, James Lyndon S. Uy, Irene S. Uy, Ericson S. Uy
(Ericson), Johanna S. Uy, and Jednathan S. Uy (Uy siblings; collectively, petitioners), assailing the
Decision2 dated May 26, 2015 and the Resolution3 dated February 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA
G.R. SP No. 07120, which affirmed the twin Orders4 dated December 9, 2011 and the Order5 dated May 1 7,
2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 55 (RTC) in Civil Case No. MAN-2797, denying
petitioners' Omnibus Motion,6  motion to quash the writ of execution,7  and their subsequent motion for
reconsideration.8

The Facts

The present case is an offshoot of an action9 for quieting of title, reconveyance, damages, and attorney's fees
involving a parcel of land, known as Lot 791 and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 29129,10 filed
by Crispulo Del Castillo (Crispulo) against Jaime Uy (Jaime) and his wife, Conchita, on November 12, 1996,
docketed as Civil Case No. MAN-2797 (Quieting of Title Case ).11 However, since Jaime had died six (6) years
earlier in 1990,12  Crispulo amended his complaint13  and imp leaded Jaime's children,  i.e.,  the Uy siblings, as
defendants.14Meanwhile, Crispulo died15  during the pendency of the action and hence, was substituted by his
heirs, respondents Paulita Manalad-Del Castillo, Cesar Del Castillo, Avito Del Castillo, Nila C. Duenas, Nida C.
Latosa, Loma C. Bernardo, Gil Del Castillo, Liza C. Gungob, Alma Del Castillo, and Gemma Del Castillo
(respondents).16

After due proceedings, the RTC rendered a Decision17 dated April 4, 2003 (RTC Decision) in respondents' favor,
and accordingly: (a) declared them as the true and lawful owners of Lot 791; (b) nullified Original Certificate of
Title No. 576,18 as well as TCT No. 29129; and (c) ordered petitioners to pay respondents moral damages and
litigation costs in the amount of P20,000.00 each, as well as attorney's fees equivalent to twenty-five percent
(25%) of the zonal value of Lot 791.19 Aggrieved, petitioners appealed before the CA,20 and subsequently, to the
Court, but the same were denied for lack of merit.21 The ruling became final and executory on April 8, 2010, thus,
prompting the Court to issue an Entry of Judgment22 dated May 4, 2010.

On August 17, 2010, respondents filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution,23 manifesting therein that since
the zonal value of Lot 791 at that time was ₱3,500.00 per square meter (sqm.) and that Lot 791 covers an area of
15,758 sqm., the total zonal value of Lot 791 was ₱55,153,000.00.24  Hence, the attorney's fees, computed at
twenty-five percent (25%) thereof, should be pegged at ₱13,788,250.00.25

Acting on the said motion, the RTC ordered26 petitioners to file their comment or opposition thereto, which they
failed to comply.27 Accordingly, in an Order28 dated November 22, 2010, the RTC granted the motion and ordered
the issuance of a writ of execution. On December 13, 2010, a Writ of Execution29 was issued, to which the sheriff
issued a Notice of Garnishment30 seeking to levy petitioners' properties in an amount sufficient to cover for the
₱13,788,250.00 as attorney's fees and ₱20,000.00 each as moral damages and litigation costs.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_223610_2017.html 1/8
8/28/2021 G.R. No. 223610

Threatened by the Notice of Garnishment, petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion31 praying that the writ of execution
be quashed and set aside, and that a hearing be conducted to re-compute the attorney's fees.32  Petitioners
maintained that the Writ of Execution is invalid because it altered the terms of the RTC Decision which did not
state that the zonal value mentioned therein referred to the zonal value of the property at the time of
execution.33 Before the RTC could act upon petitioners' Omnibus Motion, they filed a Motion to Quash Writ of
Execution on Jurisdictional Ground(s) (motion to quash),34 claiming that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the Uy
siblings in the Quieting of Title Case as they were never served with summons in relation thereto.35

The RTC Proceedings

On December 9, 2011, the RTC issued two (2) orders: (a) one granting petitioners' Omnibus Motion, nullifying the
Notice of Garnishment, and setting a hearing to determine the proper computation of the award for attorney's
fees;36and  (b)  another denying their motion to quash, since they never raised such jurisdictional issue in the
proceedings a quo.37

On January 20, 2012, a hearing was conducted for the determination of attorney's fees.38 Thereafter, the parties
were ordered to submit their respective position papers,39 to which respondents complied with,40 presenting the
following alternative options upon which to base the computation of attorney's fees: (a) ₱3,387,970.00, equivalent
to twenty-five percent (25%) of the zonal value of Lot 791 in 1996, the year when the Quieting of Title Case was
filed; (b) ₱ll,424,550.00, equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the zonal value of Lot 791 in 2003, the year
when the RTC rendered its Decision in the same case; or (c) ₱15,758,000.00, equivalent to twenty-five percent
(25%) of the zonal value of Lot 791 in 2010, the year when the RTC Decision became final and executory.41

On the other hand, instead of filing the required position paper, petitioners filed a Consolidated Motion for
Reconsideration42 of the RTC's December 9, 2011 twin Orders. In said motion, petitioners contended that the
RTC failed to definitely rule on the validity of the writ of execution, and that it erred in holding that the RTC
Decision was already final and executory despite the absence of summons on the Uy siblings.43

In an Order44 dated May 17, 2012, the RTC: (a) pegged the attorney's fees at ₱3,387,970.00,45 using the zonal
value of Lot 791 in 1996, the year when the Quieting of Title Case was instituted, it being the computation least
onerous to petitioners; and (b) denied petitioners' Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.

Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a petition for  certiorari46  with the CA, assailing the RTC's twin Orders dated
December 9, 2011 and the Order dated May 17, 2012. Petitioners argued that instead of just declaring the Notice
of Garnishment void, the RTC should have also declared the writ of execution void because the Uy siblings were
never served with summons; and like the Notice of Garnishment, the Writ of Execution also altered the terms of
the RTC Decision. Petitioners further added that the writ of execution was void because it made them liable
beyond their inheritance from Jaime. They maintain that the estate of Jaime should instead be held liable for the
adjudged amount and that respondents should have brought their claim against the estate, in accordance with
Section 20, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court.47

The CA Ruling

In a Decision48 dated May 26, 2015, the CA affirmed the assailed Orders of the RTC. The CA found no merit in
the claim that the Uy siblings were never served with summons, pointing out that in a
Manifestation/Motion49 dated November 26, 1997, their counsel in the trial proceedings, Atty. Alan C. Trinidad
(Atty. Trinidad), stated that petitioners received the summons with a copy of the amended complaint.50 It likewise
refused to give credence to petitioners' denial of Atty. Trinidad's representation, observing that one of the Uy
siblings, Ericson, even testified in court with the former's assistance, and that none of them showed any concern
or apprehension before the court, which they would have if indeed Atty. Trinidad was not authorized to represent
them.51

Anent petitioners' argument that they cannot be held personally liable with their separate property for Jaime's
liability and that respondents should have filed a claim against Jaime's estate in accordance with Section 20,
Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the CA held that such provision only applies to contractual money claims and not
when the subject matter is some other relief and the collection of any amount is merely incidental thereto, such
as by way of damages, as in this case.52 Besides, petitioners had all the opportunity to raise such perceived error
when they elevated the case to the CA and to this Court, but they did not.53 Following the principle of finality of
judgment, the CA can no longer entertain such assignment of errors.54

With respect to the validity of the writ of execution, the CA ruled that since the Writ of Execution made express
reference to the RTC Decision without adding anything else, the same was valid, unlike the Notice of
Garnishment which expressly sought to levy ₱13,788,250.00 in attorney's fees and, in the process, exceeded the
purview of the said Decision.55

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_223610_2017.html 2/8
8/28/2021 G.R. No. 223610
56
Undaunted, petitioners moved for reconsideration,   which was, however, denied by the CA in its
Resolution57 dated February 22, 2016; hence, the present petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld the twin Orders dated December 9,
2011 and the Order dated May 17, 2012 of the RTC.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is partly meritorious.

At the outset, it is well to reiterate that petitioners are resisting compliance with the ruling in the Quieting of Title
Case, on the grounds that: (a) they were never served with summons in relation thereto; and (b) they were
merely impleaded as substitutes to Jaime therein, and as such, respondents should have proceeded against his
estate instead, pursuant to Section 20, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court. However, a judicious review of the records
would reveal that such contentions are untenable, as will be discussed hereunder.

Anent petitioners' claim that they were never served with summons, the CA correctly pointed out that in the
November 26, 1997 Manifestation/Motion,58  petitioners, through their counsel, Atty. Trinidad, explicitly stated,
among others, that they "received the Summons with a copy of the Second Amended Complaint" and that "the
Answer earlier filed serves as the Answer to the Second Amended Complaint."59 Having admitted the foregoing,
petitioners cannot now assert otherwise. "It is settled that judicial admissions made by the parties in the
pleadings or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in the same case are conclusive and do not require
further evidence to prove them. They are legally binding on the party making it, except when it is shown that they
have been made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was actually made, neither of which was
shown to exist in this case."60

Assuming arguendo that petitioners did not receive summons for the amended complaint, they were nonetheless
deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the RTC's jurisdiction by filing an Answer61 to the amended complaint
and actively participating in the case.62 In fact, one of the petitioners and Uy siblings, Ericson, was presented as a
witness for the defense.63 Moreover, petitioners appealed the adverse RTC ruling in the Quieting of Title Case all
the way to the Court. It is settled that the active participation of the party against whom the action was brought, is
tantamount to an invocation of the court's jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case, and
such will bar said party from later on impugning the court's jurisdiction.64 After all, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant in civil cases is obtained either by a valid service of summons upon him or by his voluntary
submission to the court's authority.65

In this regard, petitioners cannot also deny Atty. Trinidad's authority to represent them. As mentioned earlier, one
of the petitioners, Ericson, even testified with the assistance of Atty. Trinidad.66 Indeed, if Atty. Trinidad was not
authorized to represent them, the natural reaction for petitioners was to exhibit concern. Based on the records,
however, there is no indication that any of the petitioners or Ericson made even the slightest objections to Atty.
Trinidad's representation. This only confirms the CA's finding that such denial was a mere afterthought and a
desperate attempt to undo a final and executory judgment against them.67

As to petitioners' contention that respondents should have proceeded against Jaime's estate pursuant to Section
20, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, it is well to point out that based on the records, the Uy siblings were not merely
substituted in Jaime's place as defendant; rather, they were imp leaded in their personal capacities. Under
Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, substitution of parties takes place when the party to the action
dies pending the resolution of the case and the claim is not extinguished, viz.:

Section 16. Death of party; duty of counsel. - Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the
claim is not thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty
(30) days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his legal
representative or representatives. Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a ground for
disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be substituted for the deceased, without requiring the
appointment of an executor or administrator and the court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the
minor heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal representative or representatives to appear and be
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel for the deceased party, or if the one so named
shall fail to appear within the specified period, the court may order the opposing party, within a

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_223610_2017.html 3/8
8/28/2021 G.R. No. 223610

specified time to procure the appointment of an executor or administrator for the estate of the
deceased and the latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the deceased. The court
charges in procuring such appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may be recovered as
costs. (Emphases supplied)

Here,  Jaime died on March 4, 1990,68  or six (6) years be(ore private respondents filed the Quieting of Title
Case. Thus, after Conchita filed an Answer69  informing the RTC of Jaime's death in 1990, the complaint was
1âwphi1

amended70 to implead the Uy siblings. Accordingly, the Rules of Court provisions on substitution upon the death
of a party do not apply and the Uy siblings were not merely substituted in place of Jaime in the Quieting of Title
Case. Instead, they were impleaded in their personal capacities.71 In this regard, petitioners' argument that they
cannot be held solidarily liable for the satisfaction of any monetary judgment or award must necessarily fail.72

In this light, petitioners can no longer invoke Section 20, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, which reads:

Section 20. Action and contractual money claims. - When the action is for recovery of money arising
from contract, express or implied, and the defendant dies before entry of final judgment in the court
in which the action was pending at the time of such death, it shall not be dismissed but shall instead
be allowed to continue until entry of final judgment. A favorable judgment obtained by the plaintiff
therein shall be enforced in the manner especially provided in these Rules for prosecuting claims
against the estate of a deceased person. (Emphasis supplied)

A cursory reading of the foregoing provision readily shows that like Section 16, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, it
applies in cases where the defendant dies while the case is pending and not before the case was even filed in
court, as in this case.

At this point, the Court notes that if petitioners truly believed that Jaime's estate is the proper party to the Quieting
of Title Case, they could and should have raised the lack of cause of action against them at the earliest
opportunity. Obviously, they did not do so; instead, they actively participated in the case, adopted the answer
earlier filed by Conchita, and even litigated the case all the way to the Court. Petitioners cannot now question the
final and executory judgment in the Quieting of Title Case because it happened to be adverse to them.

Time and again, the Court has repeatedly held that "a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the Highest Court of the
land. This principle, known as the doctrine of immutability of judgment, has a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) to
avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial
business; and (b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why
courts exist. Verily, it fosters the judicious perception that the rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang
in suspense for an indefinite period of time. As such, it is not regarded as a mere technicality to be easily brushed
aside, but rather, a matter of public policy which must be faithfully complied."73 However, this doctrine "is not a
hard and fast rule as the Court has the power and prerogative to relax the same in order to serve the demands of
substantial justice considering:  (a)  matters of life, liberty, honor, or property; (b)  the existence of special or
compelling circumstances; (c)  the merits of the case;  (d)  a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) the lack of any showing that the review sought
is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (j) that the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby."74

In this case, a punctilious examination of the records, especially the Amended Complaint75 in the Quieting of Title
Case reveals that the disputed Lot 791 was covered by TCT No. 29129 in the names of Jaime and Conchita.
Thus, while the Uy siblings were indeed impleaded in their personal capacities, the fact remains that they are
merely succeeding to Jaime's interest in the said lot and title. As successors-heirs, they cannot be personally
bound to respond to the decedent's obligations beyond their distributive shares.76 Verily, this is a special or a
compelling circumstance which would necessitate the relaxation of the doctrine of immutability of judgment, so as
to somehow limit the liability of the Uy siblings in the payment of the monetary awards in favor of respondents in
the Quieting of Title Case - i.e., moral damages and litigation costs in the amount of ₱20,000.00 each, as well as
attorney's fees, equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the zonal value of Lot 79177 - within the value of their
inherited shares, notwithstanding the finality of the ruling therein.

In sum, while the courts  a quo  correctly ruled that the Uy siblings may be held answerable to the monetary
awards in the Quieting of Title Case, such liability cannot exceed whatever value they inherited from their late
father, Jaime. For this purpose, the RTC is tasked to ensure that the satisfaction of the monetary aspect of the
judgment in the Quieting of Title Case will not result in the payment by the Uy siblings of an amount exceeding
their inheritance from Jaime. After all, the other party, i.e., respondents, shall not be unjustly prejudiced by the
same since Jaime's spouse, Conchita, is still alive and the rest of the monetary awards may be applied against
her, if need be.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_223610_2017.html 4/8
8/28/2021 G.R. No. 223610

WHEREFORE,  the petition is  PARTLY GRANTED.  Accordingly, the Decision dated May 26, 2015 and the
Resolution dated February 22, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 07120 are
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION limiting the adjudged monetary liability of petitioners Christine Uy Dy,
Sylvia Uy Sy, Jane Uy Tan, James Lyndon S. Uy, Irene S. Uy, Ericson S. Uy, Johanna S. Uy, and Jednathan S.
Uy to the total value of their inheritance from Jaime Uy.

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Footnotes
*
 Included in the petition as one of the petitioner. See rollo, p. 17.
1
 Id. at 12-37.
2
 Id. at 41-57. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices Renato C.
Francisco and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi concurring.
3
 Id. at 58-60. Penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices Edgardo L.
Delos Santos and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi concurring.
4
 Records, pp. 931-934 and 936-937, respectively. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Silvestre A. Maamo,
Jr.
5
 Id. at 1012-1013.
6
 Dated April 27, 2011. Rollo, pp. 110-137.
7
 See Motion to Quash Writ of Execution on Jurisdictional Ground(s) dated June 10, 201 l; id. at 147- 177.
8
 See Consolidated Motion for Reconsideration dated January 27, 2012; id. at 230-290.
9
  See Complaint dated October 9, 1996; records, Vol. 1, pp. 1-7. See also Amended Complaint dated
December 11, 1996; id. at 12-18.
10
 Id. at 8-9.
11
 Rollo, p. 42.
12
 See copy of Certificate of Death; records, Vol. 1, p. 33 7. See also paragraph 1 in the Answer dated
February 19, 1997; id. at 28.
13
 See Second Amended Complaint dated June 16, 1997; id. at 47-54.
14
 Rollo, p. 42.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_223610_2017.html 5/8
8/28/2021 G.R. No. 223610
15
 See Notice of Death and Substitution of Party dated January 26, 2000; records, Vol. 1, pp. 102-103 and
copy of Certificate of Death; id. at 104.
16
 Rollo, p. 42.
17
 Id. at 61-74. Penned by Judge Ulric R. Cañete.
18
 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 328-329.
19
 Rollo, p. 74.
20
 See Brief for the Defendant-Appellants dated September 16, 2004 before the CA, docketed as CA G.R.
CV No. 81583; records, Vol. 2, pp. 451-517.
21
 See Decision dated May 29, 2008 of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 81583, penned by Associate Justice
Amy C. Lazaro with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Fiorito S. Macalino concurring (rollo, pp.
75-90) and the Resolution dated September 28, 2009 of the Court in G.R. No. 188618 issued by First
Division Clerk of Court Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal (id. at 91).
22
 Id. at 92-93.
23
 Dated August 10, 2010. Id. at 94-97.
24
 Id. at 95-96.
25
 Id. at 96.
26
 See Order dated September 3, 2010; id. at 103.
27
 See id. at 102.
28
 Id. Penned by Acting Presiding Judge Silvestre A. Maamo, Jr.
29
 Id. at 104-105. Issued by Branch Clerk of Court V Atty. Aurora N. Ventura-Villamor.
30
 Dated March 21, 2011. Id. at 107. Issued by Sheriff I Cesar D. Enoc, Jr.
31
 Id. at ll0-137.
32
 Id. at 134.
33
 Id. at 132-133. See also id. at 44-45.
34
 Id. at 147-177.
35
 See id. at 172-173 and id. at 45.
36
 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 931-934.
37
 Id. at 936-937.
38
 See Order dated January 20, 2012; id. at 939.
39
 Id.
40
 See Plaintiffs Position Paper dated January 24, 2012; id. at 940-942.
41
 Id. at 941-942. See also rollo, p. 46.
42
 Rollo, pp. 230-290.
43
 See id. at 281-284. See also id. at 46-47.
44
 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 1012-1013.
45
 Inadvertently indicated as "₱3,387,470.00" in the said Order. See id. at 1013.
46
 Dated August 28-2012. Rollo, pp. 291-358.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_223610_2017.html 6/8
8/28/2021 G.R. No. 223610
47
 See id. at 314-321. See also id. at 49-50.
48
 Id.at41-57.
49
 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 64-65.
50
 Rollo, p. 52.
51
 Id. at 53.
52
 Id. at 55.
53
 Id.
54
 Id.
55
Id. at 55-56.
56
 Dated June 18, 2015. Id. at 481-514.
57
 Id. at 58-60.
58
 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 64-65.
59
Id. at 64.
60
  See  Odiamar v. Valencia,  G.R. No. 213582, June 28, 2016, citing  Josefa v. Manila Electric
Company, 739 Phil. 114, 129 (2014) and Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp., G.R. No.
182864, January 12, 2015, 745 SCRA 98, 121.
61
 Records, Vol. 1, pp. 28-32.
62
 See Manifestation/Motion, id. at 64-65.
63
 TSN, December 12, 2001, p. 1.
64
 Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Sps. Dy Hong Pi,  606 Phil. 615, 635 (2009), citing  Meat
Packing Corporation of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 411 Phil. 959, 977-978 (2001).
65
 Ang Pingv. CA, 369 Phil. 607, 614 (1999). See also Rule 14, Rules of Court.
66
 TSN, December 12, 2001, p. 1.
67
 See rollo, pp. 54-55.
68
 See copy of Certificate of Death; records, Vol. 1, p. 337.
69
 Id. at 28-32.
70
 Id. at 47-54.
71
 Id. at 47-48.
72
 See Torres, Jr. v. CA, 344 Phil. 348 (1997).
73
 National Housing Authority v. CA, 731 Phil. 401, 405-406 (2014).
74
 Bigler v. People, G.R. No. 210972, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 479, 487-488, citing Sumbilla v. Matrix
Finance Corporation,  G.R. No. 197582, June 29, 2015, 760 SCRA 532, 543, further citing  Barnes v.
Padilla, 482 Phil. 903, 915 (2004).
75
 See Second Amended Complaint dated June 16, 1997; records, pp. 47-54.
76
 See Vitug, Jose C., Civil Law Annotated, Vol. II, Second Edition, p. 174 (2006).
77
 Rollo, p. 74.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_223610_2017.html 7/8
8/28/2021 G.R. No. 223610

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_223610_2017.html 8/8