THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 152364. April 15, 2010.]

ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO, assisted by her husband, ISAURO M.

LAZARO; LEONCIO D. SANTOS; ADOLFO SANTOS; NENITA S. LACAR;
ANGELINA S. SAGLES, assisted by her husband, ALBERTO SANTOS,
JR.; REGINA SANTOS and FABIAN SANTOS , petitioners, vs . MODESTA
AGUSTIN, FILEMON AGUSTIN, VENANCIA AGUSTIN, MARCELINA
AGUSTIN, PAUL A. DALALO, NOEL A. DALALO, GREGORIO AGUSTIN
and BIENVENIDO AGUSTIN , respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA , J : p

Assailed in the present petition for review on certiorari is the Decision 1 dated
February 21, 2002 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 63321. The CA had
a rmed, with modi cation, the Decision 2 dated February 6, 2001 of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 13, in Civil Case No. 11951-13, which also a rmed,
with modi cation, the Decision 3 dated January 6, 2000 of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC) of Laoag City, Branch 1, in Civil Case No. 2834.
The factual and procedural antecedents of the case are as follows:
On November 4, 1998, herein petitioners led against herein respondents a
Complaint 4 for partition with the MTCC of Laoag City, alleging as follows:
xxx xxx xxx

II
That the plaintiffs and the defendants are the descendants of the late
Simeon C. Santos, married to Trinidad Duldulao, who died intestate leaving a
parcel of land situated in the Barrio of Natividad Nstra. Sra., Municipality of
Laoag, designated as Lot No. 10675 of the Cadastral Survey of Laoag;

III

That Simeon C. Santos during his lifetime, married to Trinidad Duldulao,

begot four (4) legitimate children, namely: Basilisa D. Santos, Alberto D. Santos,
Leoncio D. Santos and Alejandra D. Santos. Basilisa D. Santos, [who] was
married to Petronilo Agustin, is now deceased; Alberto Santos, married to Rizalina
Guerrero, is now deceased, while Leoncio D. Santos, married to Dictinia Tabeta,
and Alejandra D. Santos married to Isauro M. Lazaro, are still living; TAIEcS

IV

That in the desire of the children of Simeon C. Santos from whom the
parcel of land originated as owner, his children, namely[:] Alberto, Leoncio and
Alejandra, all surnamed Santos, consented that the parcel of land mentioned in
paragraph II of this complaint be titled in the name of Basilisa, the latter being the
eldest and so Original Certi cate of Title No. 20742 in the name of Basilisa
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Santos was obtained although it was agreed among them that it did not and does
not necessarily mean that Basilisa Santos is the sole and exclusive owner of this
parcel of land, and as embodied in the Title obtained in the name of Basilisa
Santos, the parcel of land is particularly described as follows:

A parcel of land (Lot No. 10676 of the Cadastral survey of Laoag),

with the improvements thereon, situated in the Barrio of Natividad Nstra.
Sra., Municipality of Laoag. Bounded on the NE. by Lot No. 10677; on the
SE. by Panganiban Street; on the SW. by Lot No. 10672; and on NW. by Lot
No. 1065, containing an area of three hundred and one (301) square
meters, more or less, covered by Tax Declaration No. 010-00224 for the
year 1994 in the names of Modesta Agustin, et al. with a market value of
P96,320.00 and an assessed value of P14,450.00.

That there is a residential house constructed on the lot described in

paragraph IV of this complaint and in the construction of which plaintiff
Alejandra Santos, then still single, spent the amount of P68,308.60, while Basilisa
Santos and her children spent the amount of P3,495.00. Afterwards, Alejandra
Santos got married to Isauro M. Lazaro who was employed in a private company
and when he retired from the service, some additional constructions were made
on the residential house and lot such as a bedroom, azotea, two (2) toilets, two (2)
kitchens, a car garage, the money spent for these additional constructions came
from the earnings of the spouses Alejandra Santos-Lazaro and Isauro M. Lazaro.
The said residential house is now covered by Tax Declaration No. 010-00225 in
the names of Basilio Agustin (should be Basilisa Agustin) and Alejandra Santos
for the year 1994 with a market value of P93,920.00 and an assessed value of
zero;
VI

That without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs, the title of the lot
described in paragraph IV of the complaint was transferred into another title
which is now Transfer Certi cate of Title No. T-20695 in the names of Modesta
Agustin, Filemon Agustin, Venancia Agustin, Marcelina Agustin, Monica Agustin,
Gregorio Agustin and Bienvenido Agustin who are the children of the late Basilisa
Santos-Agustin who are herein named as defendants with Monica Agustin now
deceased represented by her children Paul A. Dalalo and Noel A. Dalalo as
defendants; DAEIHT

VII

That during the lifetime of Basilisa Santos-Agustin, plaintiff Alejandra

Santos-Lazaro informed the former, who are sisters, that the transfer of the title
covering the lot described in paragraph IV of this complaint in the name of
Basilisa Santos into the names of her children would erroneously imply that the
lot is solely and exclusively owned by Basilisa Santos-Agustin's children, but
Basilisa Santos-Agustin replied [to] plaintiff Alejandra Santos-Lazaro not to worry
because an a davit was already executed by her recognizing and specifying that
her brothers Alberto Santos and Leoncio Santos, and her sister Alejandra Santos-
Lazaro would each get one fourth (1/4) share of the lot;

VIII

That in a move to determine if the children and the heirs of Basilisa

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Santos-Agustin, namely: Modesta Agustin, Filemon Agustin, Venancia Agustin,
Marcelina Agustin, Paul Dalalo and Noel Dalalo who are the successors of their
mother the late Monica Agustin, Gregorio Agustin and Bienvenido Agustin would
follow the line of thinking of their mother and grandmother of Paul A. Dalalo and
Noel A. Dalalo on the shares of the lot and residential house erected on it, the
plaintiffs initiated a partition in the barangay court where the lot is situated
described in paragraph IV of this complaint, but that the children of Basilisa
Santos-Agustin and her grandchildren Paul A. Dalalo and Noel A. Dalalo refused
and opposed the partition claiming that they are the sole and exclusive owners of
the lot being that the lot is now titled in their names, and hence there was no
settlement as shown by the certi cation of the barangay court hereto attached as
annex "A";

IX

That plaintiffs now invoke the intervention of the court to partition the lot
in accordance with the law on intestate succession and to partition the residential
house as specified below. . . .

xxx xxx xxx 5

Petitioners also prayed for the grant of attorney's fees, moral and exemplary
damages, and costs of suit.
Herein respondents led their Answer with Counterclaim, 6 raising the following
as their Special/Affirmative Defenses:
1. The subject parcel of land is owned exclusively by the defendants
as heirs of the late Basilisa Santos, wife of Petronilo Agustin, who was the
original registered owner of the property evidenced by OCT No. 20742; the
plaintiffs never became owners of said land. There was never any agreement
between the ascendants of the plaintiffs and defendants, neither is there any
agreement between the plaintiffs and defendants themselves that in the
ownership, the plaintiffs have a share over the lot;

2. The defendants are the ones paying for the real estate taxes of said
land; SEHDIC

3. Some of the plaintiffs were able to stay on the subject house

because defendants' mother Basilisa Santos was the eldest sibling and she had
to take care of her brother Leoncio and sister Alejandra when these siblings were
not yet employed and Basilisa allowed them to reside in the house constructed
within the lot; Alejandra Santos stayed in the house up to the present with the
agreement that she will spend for the renovation of the house in lieu of monthly
rentals that she has to pay when she already became financially able;

4. Prior to 1962, subject property was mortgaged by Basilisa Santos

Agustin to the Philippine National Bank and the property was foreclosed by PNB
when the loan was not paid, hence, TCT No. (T-9522)-4495, under the name of the
Philippine National Bank was issued (Annex "A"). Thereafter, Basilisa Santos-
Agustin, purchased it from the PNB and TCT No. T-5662 was issued under her
name (Annex "B"); the property was later on transferred to her direct descendants,
the defendants herein as evidenced by TCT No. T-20695 (Annex "C");

xxx xxx xxx 7

Respondents then prayed that petitioners' complaint be dismissed. In their

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Counterclaim, respondents asked the court to direct petitioners to pay reasonable
compensation for the latter's use of the disputed property, exemplary and moral
damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.
After the issues were joined and the pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits
ensued.
On January 6, 2000, the MTCC rendered its Decision 8 dismissing the complaint
and denying petitioners' prayer for partition.
The MTCC ruled, among others, that no evidentiary value could be given to the
a davit allegedly executed by Basilisa, wherein she purportedly acknowledged her co-
ownership of the subject property with her siblings Alberto, Leoncio and Alejandra,
because the a ant was not presented on the witness stand, such that all the
statements made in her a davit were hearsay. Moreover, the MTCC held that two
credible witnesses testi ed in plain, simple and straightforward manner that at the time
the a davit was supposed to have been signed and sworn to before the notary public,
Basilisa was already bedridden and an invalid who could not even raise her hand to feed
herself. In addition, the MTCC also gave credence to the testimony of the notary public,
before whom the document was supposedly signed and sworn to, that the said
a davit was already complete and thumbmarked when the same was presented to
him by a person who claimed to be Basilisa.
Petitioners filed an appeal with the RTC of Laoag City.
On February 6, 2001 the RTC issued a Decision 9 a rming, with modi cation, the
judgment of the MTCC. The RTC found that the house erected on the disputed lot was
built and renovated by petitioners in good faith. As a consequence, the RTC held that
petitioners were entitled to indemnity representing the costs of the construction and
renovation of the said house. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision, thus, reads:
ESCTIA

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is hereby a rmed with the
modi cation directing the appellees [herein respondents] to indemnify the
appellants [herein petitioners] in the amount of P68,308.60 as proved by them.

Considering the apparent error of the lower court in quoting the questioned
lot as Lot No. 10675, the same is hereby corrected so as to re ect the correct lot
number as Lot No. 10676 to conform to the evidence presented.
SO ORDERED. 1 0

Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, petitioners filed a petition for review with the CA.
On February 21, 2002, the CA issued its presently assailed Decision disposing as
follows:
WHEREFORE, the decision dated February 6, 2001 rendered in Civil Case
No. 11951-13 is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the MODIFICATION that appellees
[herein respondents] pay the amount of P68,308.60 in indemnity solely to
appellant Alejandra Santos-Lazaro.
SO ORDERED. 1 1

Hence, the instant petition based on the following grounds:

I. THE SWORN STATEMENT OF BASILISA S. AGUSTIN IS A DECLARATION
AGAINST INTEREST WHICH ESTABLISHES THE CO-OWNERSHIP OF LOT
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 NO. 10676 BY AND AMONG THE PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS AS
HEIRS OF THE LATE SIMEON C. SANTOS. 1 2
II. THE CO-OWNERSHIP OF LOT NO. 10676 BY AND AMONG BASILISA S.
AGUSTIN, ALBERTO D. SANTOS, ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO AND LEONCIO
D. SANTOS DID NOT TERMINATE AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF
THE LOT'S OWNERSHIP PRECIPITATED BY ACTS OF BASILISA S.
AGUSTIN WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 1 3

III. PETITIONER ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO IS A CO-OWNER OF THE

RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON LOT NO. 10676 NOT MERELY A BUILDER IN
GOOD FAITH WITH RESPECT THERETO AND AS SUCH, IS ENTITLED TO A
PARTITION OF THE SUBJECT HOUSE. 1 4

In their rst assigned error, petitioners contend that Basilisa's sworn statement
which recognizes her siblings' share in the disputed property is a declaration against
interest which is one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule. Petitioners argue
that since the sworn statement was duly notarized, it should be admitted in court
without further proof of its due execution and authenticity; that the testimonies of
Basilisa's nurse and physician cannot qualify as clear and convincing evidence which
could overthrow such notarized document; that the notary public cannot impugn the
same document which he notarized for to do so would render notarized documents
worthless and unreliable resulting in prejudice to the public. CDAcIT

As to the second assigned error, petitioners aver that their co-ownership of the
questioned property with Basilisa did not cease to exist when the Philippine National
Bank (PNB) consolidated its ownership over the said parcel of land. Petitioners assert
that they did not lose their share in the property co-owned when their share was
mortgaged by Basilisa without their knowledge and consent; that the mortgage was
limited only to the portion that may be allotted to Basilisa upon termination of their co-
ownership; that PNB acquired ownership only of the share pertaining to Basilisa; that
when Basilisa bought back the property from PNB, she simply re-acquired the portion
pertaining to her and simply resumed co-ownership of the property with her siblings.
Petitioners also contend that Basilisa's children did not acquire ownership of the
subject lot by prescription, and that neither Basilisa nor respondents repudiated their
co-ownership.
Anent the third assignment of error, petitioners argue that Alejandra Lazaro,
being a co-owner of the disputed parcel of land and not simply a builder in good faith, is
entitled to a partition of the subject residential house.
At the outset, it bears to point out that it is wrong for petitioners to argue that
Basilisa's alleged sworn statement is a declaration against interest. It is not a
declaration against interest. Instead, it is an admission against interest.
Indeed, there is a vital distinction between admissions against interest and
declarations against interest. Admissions against interest are those made by a party to
a litigation or by one in privity with or identi ed in legal interest with such party, and are
admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness. 1 5 Declarations
against interest are those made by a person who is neither a party nor in privity with a
party to the suit, are secondary evidence, and constitute an exception to the hearsay
rule. They are admissible only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness. 1 6 In the
present case, since Basilisa is respondents' predecessor-in-interest and is, thus, in
privity with the latter's legal interest, the former's sworn statement, if proven genuine
and duly executed, should be considered as an admission against interest.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 A cursory reading of the subject sworn statement also reveals that it refers to a
parcel of land denominated as Lot No. 10678 while the property being disputed is Lot
No. 10676. 1 7 On this basis, it cannot be concluded with certainty that the property
being referred to in the sworn statement is the same property claimed by petitioners.
Having made the foregoing observations and discussions, the question that
arises is whether the subject sworn statement, granting that it refers to the property
being disputed in the present case, can be given full faith and credence in view of the
issues raised regarding its genuineness and due execution.
The Court rules in the negative.
Settled is the rule that generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary
weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents
acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.
1 8 However, this presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. 1 9
Moreover, not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on
authentication. 2 0 Thus, an a davit does not automatically become a public document
just because it contains a notarial jurat. 2 1 The presumptions that attach to notarized
documents can be a rmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization
was regular. 2 2 DCATHS

However, a question involving the regularity of notarization as well as the due

execution of the subject sworn statement of Basilisa would require an inquiry into the
appreciation of evidence by the trial court. It is not the function of this Court to review,
examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. A
question of fact would arise in such event. Settled is the rule that questions of fact
cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court and are not
proper for its consideration. 2 3 The rationale behind this doctrine is that a review of the
ndings of fact of the trial courts and the appellate tribunal is not a function this Court
normally undertakes. 2 4 The Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless
there is a showing that the ndings of the lower courts are totally devoid of support or
are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion. 2 5 Although there
are recognized exceptions 2 6 to this rule, none exists in the present case to justify a
departure therefrom.
Petitioners rely heavily on the presumption of regularity accorded by law to
notarized documents. While indeed, a notarized document enjoys this presumption, the
fact that a deed is notarized is not a guarantee of the validity of its contents. 2 7 As
earlier discussed, the presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. 2 8 The presumption cannot be made to apply to
the present case because the regularity in the execution of the sworn statement was
challenged in the proceedings below where its prima facie validity was overthrown by
the highly questionable circumstances under which it was supposedly executed, as well
as the testimonies of witnesses who testi ed on the improbability of execution of the
sworn statement, as well as on the physical condition of the signatory, at the time the
questioned document was supposedly executed. The trial and appellate courts were
unanimous in giving credence to the testimonies of these witnesses. The Court has
repeatedly held that it will not interfere with the trial court's determination of the
credibility of witnesses, unless there appears on record some fact or circumstance of
weight and in uence which has been overlooked or the signi cance of which has been
misinterpreted. 2 9 The reason for this is that the trial court was in a better position to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 do so, because it heard the witnesses testify before it and had every opportunity to
observe their demeanor and deportment on the witness stand. 3 0
Considering the foregoing, the Court nds no reason to reverse the rulings of the
MTCC, the RTC and the CA. Although the questioned sworn statement is a public
document having in its favor the presumption of regularity, such presumption was
adequately refuted by competent witnesses.
The Court further agrees with the ruling of the RTC that:
The testimony of [the notary public] Atty. Angel Respicio did not su ce to
rebut the evidence of the appellees considering his admission that the a davit
was already thumbmarked when presented to him by one who claimed to be
Basilisa Santos and whom, the witness said he did not know personally. Further,
what makes the documents suspect is the fact that it was subscribed on the
same date as the financial statement of Alejandra Santos.

It may not be amiss to point out, at this juncture, that the principal function of a
notary public is to authenticate documents. 3 1 When a notary public certi es to the due
execution and delivery of a document under his hand and seal, he gives the document
the force of evidence. 3 2 Indeed, one of the purposes of requiring documents to be
acknowledged before a notary public, in addition to the solemnity which should
surround the execution and delivery of documents, is to authorize such documents to
be given without further proof of their execution and delivery. 3 3 A notarial document is
by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and
the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed before a
notary public and appended to a private instrument. 3 4 Hence, a notary public must
discharge his powers and duties, which are impressed with public interest, with
accuracy and delity. 3 5 A notary public should not notarize a document unless the
persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. 3 6
CSAaDE

In the instant case, the notary public should have exercised utmost diligence in
ascertaining the true identity of the person executing the said sworn statement.
However, the notary public did not comply with this requirement. He simply relied on
the a rmative answers of the person appearing before him attesting that she was
Basilisa Santos; that the contents of the sworn statement are true; and that the
thumbmark appearing on the said document was hers. However, this would not su ce.
He could have further asked the person who appeared before him to produce any
identi cation to prove that she was indeed Basilisa Santos, considering that the said
person was not personally known to him, and that the thumbmark appearing on the
document sought to be notarized was not a xed in his presence. But he did not. Thus,
the lower courts did not commit any error in not giving evidentiary weight to the subject
sworn statement.
The second and third assigned errors proceed on the presumption that
petitioners are co-owners of the disputed property. Since the Court has already ruled
that the lower courts did not err in nding that petitioners failed to prove their claim
that they were co-owners of the said property, there is no longer any need to discuss
the other assigned errors.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The February 21, 2002 Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 63321 is AFFIRMED .
SO ORDERED .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Corona, Velasco, Jr., Nachura and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1.Penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, with Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr.
and Sergio L. Pestaño, concurring; rollo, pp. 62-72.

2.Records, pp. 301-305.

3.Id. at 266-269.
4.Id. at 1-7.
5.Id. at 2-4.
6.Id. at 20-23.

7.Id. at 21-22.
8.Rollo, pp. 53-56.
9.Id. at 57-61.
10.Id. at 61.

11.Id. at 72.
12.Id. at 21.
13.Id. at 26.
14.Id. at 29.
15.Unchuan v. Lozada, G.R. No. 172671, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 421, 435.

16.Id.
17.See Exhibit "C," records, p. 85.
18.De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127857, June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 325, 334; Pan
Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125283, February 10, 2006,
482 SCRA 164, 174.

19.Potenciano v. Reynoso, 449 Phil. 396, 406 (2003).

20.Cequeña v. Bolante, 386 Phil. 419, 427 (2000).
21.Id.
22.Dela Rama v. Papa, G.R. No. 142309, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 233, 244.

23.Cabang v. Basay, G.R. No. 180587, March 20, 2009, 582 SCRA 172, 186.
24.Id.
25.Id. at 186-187.
26.These recognized exceptions are: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues
of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the
appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the
findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply
briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on
the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record (Bernaldo
v. The Ombudsman and the Department of Public Works and Highways, G.R. No.
156286, August 13, 2008, 562 SCRA 60); and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion (Superlines Transportation Co., Inc. v.
Philippine National Coordinating Council, G.R. No. 169596, March 28, 2007, 519 SCRA
432, 441, citing Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, 428 SCRA 79, 85-86
[2004]; see also Grand Placement and General Services Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 142358, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 189, 202, citing Mayon Hotel & Restaurant
v. Adana, 458 SCRA 609, 624 [2005]; Castillo v. NLRC, 367 Phil. 603, 619 [1999] and
Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. CA, supra; Sampayan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
156360, January 14, 2005, 448 SCRA 220, 229, citing Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Court of Appeals,, supra, citing Langkaan Realty Development, Inc. v. United Coconut
Planters Bank, 400 Phil. 1349, 1356 [2000]; Nokom v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 390 Phil. 1228, 1242-1243 [2000] and Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals, 349
Phil. 275, 282-283 [2000]; Aguirre v. Court of Appeals, 421 SCRA 310, 319 [2004]; C & S
Fishfarm Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 442 Phil. 279, 288 [2002]).
27.San Juan v. Offril, G.R. No. 154609, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 439, 445-446.
28.China Banking Corporation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 155299, July 24, 2007, 528
SCRA 103, 110.
29.San Juan v. Offril, supra note 27.
30.Id. at 446-447.
31.Vda. de Bernardo v. Restauro, 452 Phil. 745, 751 (2003).
32.Id.
33.Id.
34.Id.
35.Id.
36.Bautista v. Bernabe, A.C. No. 6963, February 9, 2006, 482 SCRA 1, 6.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com