G.R. No.

159926 January 20, 2014

PINAUSUKAN SEAFOOD HOUSE, ROXAS BOULEY ARD, INC.,

Petitioner,
vs.
FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY, NOW BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS AND HECTOR I. GALURA, Respondents.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

Extrinsic fraud, as a ground for the annulment of a judgment, must emanate from
an act of the adverse party, and the fraud must be of such nature as to have
deprived the petitioner of its day in court. The fraud is not extrinsic if the act was
committed by the petitioner's own counsel.

The Case

This appeal seeks to undo the dismissal by the Court of Appeals (CA) of the
petitioner's action for annulment of judgment through the assailed resolution
promulgated on July 31, 2003,1 as well as the denial of its motion for
reconsideration on September 12, 2003.2

Antecedents

On various dates in 1993, Bonier de Guzman (Bonier), then the President of

petitioner corporation (Pinausukan, for short), executed four real estate
mortgages involving the petitioners 517 square meter parcel of land situated in
Pasay City3 in favor of Far East Bank and Trust Company (now Bank of
Philippine Islands), to be referred to herein as the Bank. The parcel of land was
registered in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 126636 of the Register of Deeds of
Pasay City under the name of Pinausukan.4 When the unpaid obligation secured
by the mortgages had ballooned to P15,129,303.67 as of June 2001, the Bank
commenced proceedings for the extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgages on
August 13, 2001 in the Office of the Ex Officio Sheriff, Regional Trial Court
(RTC), in Pasay City.5 Two weeks thereafter, the sheriff issued the notice of
sheriffs sale, setting the public
1 auction on October 8, 2001 at the main entrance

of the Hall of Justice of Pasay City.6

Learning of the impending sale of its property by reason of the foreclosure of the
mortgages, Pinausukan, represented by Zsae Carrie de Guzman, brought against
the Bank and the sheriff an action for the annulment of real estate mortgages in
the RTC on October 4, 2001 (Civil Case No. 01-0300), averring that Bonier had
obtained the loans only in his personal capacity and had constituted the
mortgages on the corporate asset without Pinausukans consent through a board
resolution. The case was assigned to Branch 108.7 Pinausukan applied for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction to
enjoin the Bank and the sheriff from proceeding with the extrajudicial
foreclosure and the public auction.

In the ensuing trial of Civil Case No. 01-0300, Pinausukan presented Zsae Carrie
de Guzman as its first witness on May 30, 2002. However, the subsequent
hearing dates were reset several times. In August 2002, the parties informed the
RTC about their attempts to settle the case.

The counsels of the parties did not appear in court on the hearing scheduled on
September 5, 2002 despite having agreed thereto. Accordingly, on October 31,
2002, the RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 01-0300 for failure to prosecute.8 The
order of dismissal attained finality.9

On June 24, 2003, the sheriff issued a notice of extrajudicial sale concerning the
property of Pinausukan.10 The notice was received by Pinausukan a week later.

Claiming surprise over the turn of events, Pinausukan inquired from the RTC and
learned that Atty. Michael Dale Villaflor (Atty. Villaflor), its counsel of record,
had not informed it about the order of dismissal issued on October 31, 2002.

On July 24, 2003, Pinausukan brought the petition for annulment in the CA
seeking the nullification of the order of October 31, 2002 dismissing Civil Case
No. 01-0300. Its petition, under the verification of Roxanne de Guzman-San
Pedro (Roxanne), who was one of its Directors, and concurrently its Executive
Vice President for Finance and Treasurer, stated that its counsel had been guilty
of gross and palpable negligence in failing to keep track of the case he was
handling, and in failing to apprise Pinausukan of the developments on the case. It
further pertinently stated as follows:

6. Inquiry from counsel, Atty. Michael Dale T. Villaflor disclosed that although
the Registry Return Receipt indicated
2
that he received the Order on November
28, 2002, according to him, as of said date, he no longer holds office at 12th
Floor, Ever Gotesco Corporate Center, 1958 C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila but has
transferred to Vecation (sic) Club, Inc., with office address 10th Floor Rufino
Tower, Ayala Avenue, Makati City. Petitioner was never notified of the change of
office and address of its attorney.
7. The palpable negligence of counsel to keep track of the case he was handling
constituted professional misconduct amounting to extrinsic fraud properly
warranting the annulment of the Order dated October 31, 2003 as petitioner was
unduly deprived of its right to present evidence in Civil Case No. 01-0300
through no fault of its own.11

On July 31, 2003, the CA dismissed the petition for annulment,12 citing the
failure to attach the affidavits of witnesses attesting to and describing the alleged
extrinsic fraud supporting the cause of action as required by Section 4, Rule 47 of
the Rules of Court; and observing that the verified petition related only to the
correctness of its allegations, a requirement entirely different and separate from
the affidavits of witnesses required under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

On September 12, 2003,13 the CA denied Pinausukans motion for

reconsideration.

Issue

Pinausukan posits that the requirement for attaching the affidavits of witnesses to
the petition for annulment should be relaxed; that even if Roxanne had executed
the required affidavit as a witness on the extrinsic fraud, she would only repeat
therein the allegations already in the petition, thereby duplicating her allegations
under her oath; that the negligence of Atty. Villaflor, in whom it entirely relied
upon, should not preclude it from obtaining relief; and that it needed a chance to
prove in the RTC that Bonier had no right to mortgage its property.

Ruling

The appeals lacks merit.

1.
Nature and statutory requirements for an action to annul a judgment or final order

The remedy of annulment of judgment has been long authorized and sanctioned
in the Philippines. In Banco Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca,14 of 1918 vintage, the
Court, through Justice Street, recognized that there were only two remedies
available under the rules of procedure in force at the time to a party aggrieved by
a decision of the Court of First
3 Instance (CFI) that had already attained finality,

namely: that under Sec. 113, Code of Civil Procedure, which was akin to the
petition for relief from judgment under Rule 38, Rules of Court; and that under
Sec. 513, Code of Civil Procedure, which stipulated that the party aggrieved
under a judgment rendered by the CFI "upon default" and who had been
"deprived of a hearing by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence" and
the CFI had "finally adjourned so that no adequate remedy exists in that court"
could "present his petition to the Supreme Court within sixty days after he first
learns of the rendition of such judgment, and not thereafter, setting forth the facts
and praying to have judgment set aside."15 It categorically ruled out a mere
motion filed for that purpose in the same action as a proper remedy.

The jurisdiction over the action for the annulment of judgment had been lodged
in the CFI as a court of general jurisdiction on the basis that the subject matter of
the action was not capable of pecuniary estimation. Section 56, paragraph 1, of
Act No. 136 (An Act providing for the Organization of Courts in the Philippine
Islands), effective on June 11, 1901, vested original jurisdiction in the CFI over
"all civil actions in which the subject of litigations is not capable of pecuniary
estimation." The CFI retained its jurisdiction under Section 44(a) of Republic Act
No. 296 (The Judiciary Act of 1948), effective on June 17, 1948, which
contained a similar provision vesting original jurisdiction in the CFI over "all
civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is not capable of pecuniary
estimation."

In the period under the regimes of Act No. 136 and Republic Act No. 296, the
issues centered on which CFI, or branch thereof, had the jurisdiction over the
action for the annulment of judgment. It was held in Mas v. Dumara-og16 that
"the power to open, modify or vacate a judgment is not only possessed by, but is
restricted to the court in which the judgment was rendered." In J.M. Tuason &
Co., Inc. v. Torres,17 the Court declared that "the jurisdiction to annul a judgment
of a branch of the Court of First Instance belongs solely to the very same branch
which rendered the judgment." In Sterling Investment Corporation v. Ruiz,18 the
Court enjoined a branch of the CFI of Rizal from taking cognizance of an action
filed with it to annul the judgment of another branch of the same court.

In Dulap v. Court of Appeals,19 the Court observed that the philosophy

underlying the pronouncements in these cases was the policy of judicial stability,
as expressed in Dumara-og, to the end that the judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction could not be interfered with by any court of concurrent jurisdiction.
Seeing that the pronouncements in Dumara-og, J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and
Sterling Investment confining the jurisdiction to annul a judgment to the court or
4
its branch rendering the judgment would "practically amount to judicial
legislation," the Court found the occasion to re-examine the pronouncements.
Observing that the plaintiffs cause of action in an action to annul the judgment
of a court "springs from the alleged nullity of the judgment based on one ground
or another, particularly fraud, which fact affords the plaintiff a right to judicial
interference in his behalf," and that that the two cases were distinct and separate
from each other because "the cause of action (to annul judgment) is entirely
different from that in the action which gave rise to the judgment sought to be
annulled, for a direct attack against a final and executory judgment is not
incidental to, but is the main object of, the proceeding," the Court concluded that
"there is no plausible reason why the venue of the action to annul the judgment
should necessarily follow the venue of the previous action" if the outcome was
not only to violate the existing rule on venue for personal actions but also to limit
the opportunity for the application of such rule on venue for personal actions.20
The Court observed that the doctrine under Dumara-og, J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc.
and Sterling Investment could then very well "result in the difficulties precisely
sought to be avoided by the rules; for it could be that at the time of the filing of
the second action for annulment, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant resides in
the same place where either or both of them did when the first action was
commenced and tried," thus unduly depriving the parties of the right expressly
given them by the Rules of Court "to change or transfer venue from one province
to another by written agreement a right conferred upon them for their own
convenience and to minimize their expenses in the litigation and renders
innocuous the provision on waiver of improper venue in Section 4 (of Rule 4 of
the Revised Rules of Court)."21 The Court eventually ruled:

Our conclusion must therefore be that a court of first instance or a branch thereof
has the authority and jurisdiction to take cognizance of, and to act in, a suit to
annul a final and executory judgment or order rendered by another court of first
instance or by another branch of the same court. The policy of judicial stability,
which underlies the doctrine laid down in the cases of Dumara-og, J.M. Tuason
& Co., Inc. and Sterling Investment Corporation, et al., supra, should be held
subordinate to an orderly administration of justice based on the existing rules of
procedure and the law.22 x x x

In 1981, the Legislature enacted Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (Judiciary

Reorganization Act of 1980).23 Among several innovations of this legislative
enactment was the formal establishment of the annulment of a judgment or final
order as an action independent from the generic classification of litigations in
which the subject matter was not capable of pecuniary estimation, and expressly
vested the exclusive original5 jurisdiction over such action in the CA.24 The
action in which the subject of the litigation was incapable of pecuniary
estimation continued to be under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC,
which replaced the CFI as the court of general jurisdiction.25 Since then, the
RTC no longer had jurisdiction over an action to annul the judgment of the RTC,
eliminating all concerns about judicial stability. To implement this change, the
Court introduced a new procedure to govern the action to annul the judgment of
the RTC in the 1997 revision of the Rules of Court under Rule 47, directing in
Section 2 thereof that "[t]he annulment may be based only on the grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction."26

The Court has expounded on the nature of the remedy of annulment of judgment
or final order in Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals,27 viz:

A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in

nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only
if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be annulled was rendered
by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. Yet, the remedy, being
exceptional in character, is not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by
parties aggrieved by the final judgments, orders or resolutions. The Court has
thus instituted safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of
jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing in Section 1 of Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court that the petitioner should show that the ordinary remedies of new
trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies are no longer
available through no fault of the petitioner. A petition for annulment that ignores
or disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper.

The attitude of judicial reluctance towards the annulment of a judgment, final

order or final resolution is understandable, for the remedy disregards the time-
honored doctrine of immutability and unalterability of final judgments, a solid
corner stone in the dispensation of justice by the courts. The doctrine of
immutability and unalterability serves 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 the courts exist. As to the
first, a judgment that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable
and is no longer to be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant
to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or of law, and whether the modification
is made by the court that rendered the decision or by the highest court of the land.
As to the latter, controversies cannot drag on indefinitely because fundamental
considerations of public policy and sound practice demand that the rights and
obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of
6
time.

The objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order is to undo

or set aside the judgment or final order, and thereby grant to the petitioner an
opportunity to prosecute his cause or to ventilate his defense. If the ground relied
upon is lack of jurisdiction, the entire proceedings are set aside without prejudice
to the original action being refiled in the proper court.28 If the judgment or final
order or resolution is set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the CA may on
motion order the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had
been granted therein.29 The remedy is by no means an appeal whereby the
correctness of the assailed judgment or final order is in issue; hence, the CA is
not called upon to address each error allegedly committed by the trial court.30

Given the extraordinary nature and the objective of the remedy of annulment of
judgment or final order, Pinausukan must be mindful of and should closely
comply with the following statutory requirements for the remedy as set forth in
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court.

The first requirement prescribes that the remedy is available only when the
petitioner can no longer resort to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal,
petition for relief or other appropriate remedies through no fault of the
petitioner.31 This means that the remedy, although seen as "a last remedy,"32 is
not an alternative to the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal and petition for
relief. The petition must aver, therefore, that the petitioner failed to move for a
new trial, or to appeal, or to file a petition for relief without fault on his part. But
this requirement to aver is not imposed when the ground for the petition is lack of
jurisdiction (whether alleged singly or in combination with extrinsic fraud),
simply because the judgment or final order, being void, may be assailed at any
time either collaterally or by direct action or by resisting such judgment or final
order in any action or proceeding whenever it is invoked, unless the ground of
lack of jurisdiction is meanwhile barred by laches.33

The second requirement limits the ground for the action of annulment of
judgment to either extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction.

Not every kind of fraud justifies the action of annulment of judgment. Only
extrinsic fraud does.1wphi1 Fraud is extrinsic, according to Cosmic Lumber
Corporation v. Court of Appeals,34 "where the unsuccessful party has been
prevented from exhibiting fully his case, by fraud or deception practiced on him
by his opponent, as by keeping him away from court, a false promise of a
compromise; or where the defendant never had knowledge of the suit, being kept
in ignorance by the acts of the
7 plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or
without authority connives at his defeat; these and similar cases which show that
there has never been a real contest in the trial or hearing of the case are reasons
for which a new suit may be sustained to set aside and annul the former judgment
and open the case for a new and fair hearing."
The overriding consideration when extrinsic fraud is alleged is that the fraudulent
scheme of the prevailing litigant prevented the petitioner from having his day in
court.35 Nonetheless, extrinsic fraud shall not be a valid ground if it was availed
of, or could have been availed of, in a motion for new trial or petition for
relief.36

In contrast, intrinsic fraud refers to the acts of a party at a trial that prevented a
fair and just determination of the case, but the difference is that the acts or things,
like falsification and false testimony, could have been litigated and determined at
the trial or adjudication of the case.37 In other words, intrinsic fraud does not
deprive the petitioner of his day in court because he can guard against that kind
of fraud through so many means, including a thorough trial preparation, a skillful
cross-examination, resorting to the modes of discovery, and proper scientific or
forensic applications. Indeed, forgery of documents and evidence for use at the
trial and perjury in court testimony have been regarded as not preventing the
participation of any party in the proceedings, and are not, therefore, constitutive
of extrinsic fraud.38

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. The former is a
matter of substantive law because statutory law defines the jurisdiction of the
courts over the subject matter or nature of the action. The latter is a matter of
procedural law, for it involves the service of summons or other process on the
petitioner. A judgment or final order issued by the trial court without jurisdiction
over the subject matter or nature of the action is always void, and, in the words of
Justice Street in Banco Espaol-Filipino v. Palanca,39 "in this sense it may be
said to be a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or
ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head."40 But the defect of lack of
jurisdiction over the person, being a matter of procedural law, may be waived by
the party concerned either expressly or impliedly.

The third requirement sets the time for the filing of the action. The action, if
based on extrinsic fraud, must be filed within four years from the discovery of
the extrinsic fraud; and if based on lack of jurisdiction, must be brought before it
is barred by laches or estoppel.
8

Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of

time to do that which by exercising due diligence could nor should have been
done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable
time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned it or declined to assert it.41 Its other name is stale demands, and it is
based upon grounds of public policy that requires, for the peace of society, the
discouragement of stale claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere
question of time but is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of
permitting a right or claim to be enforced or asserted.42 The existence of four
elements must be shown in order to validate laches as a defense, to wit: (a)
conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom a claim is made,
giving rise to a situation for which a complaint is filed and a remedy sought; (b)
delay in asserting the rights of the complainant, who has knowledge or notice of
the defendants conduct and has been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit;
(c) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant
will assert the right on which the latter has based the suit; and (d) injury or
prejudice to the defendant in the event that the complainant is granted a relief or
the suit is not deemed barred.43

Estoppel precludes a person who has admitted or made a representation about

something as true from denying or disproving it against anyone else relying on
his admission or representation.44 Thus, our law on evidence regards estoppel as
conclusive by stating that "whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or
omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing
true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such
declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it."45

The fourth requirement demands that the petition should be verified, and should
allege with particularity the facts and the law relied upon for annulment, as well
as those supporting the petitioners good and substantial cause of action or
defense, as the case may be.46 The need for particularity cannot be dispensed
with because averring the circumstances constituting either fraud or mistake with
particularity is a universal requirement in the rules of pleading.47 The petition is
to be filed in seven clearly legible copies, together with sufficient copies
corresponding to the number of respondents, and shall contain essential
submissions, specifically: (a) the certified true copy of the judgment or final
order or resolution, to be attached to the original copy of the petition intended for
the court and indicated as such by the petitioner;48 (b) the affidavits of witnesses
or documents supporting the cause of action or defense; and (c) the sworn
certification that the petitioner has not theretofore commenced any other action
9
involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the CA or the different divisions
thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or
proceeding, he must state the status of the same, and if he should thereafter learn
that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the
Supreme Court, the CA, or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or
agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the said courts and other tribunal or
agency thereof within five days therefrom.49

The purpose of these requirements of the sworn verification and the

particularization of the allegations of the extrinsic fraud in the petition, of the
submission of the certified true copy of the judgment or final order or resolution,
and of the attachment of the affidavits of witnesses and documents supporting the
cause of action or defense is to forthwith bring all the relevant facts to the CAs
cognizance in order to enable the CA to determine whether or not the petition has
substantial merit. Should it find prima facie merit in the petition, the CA shall
give the petition due course and direct the service of summons on the respondent;
otherwise, the CA has the discretion to outrightly dismiss the petition for
annulment.50

2.
Pinausukans petition for annulment was
substantively and procedurally defective

A review of the dismissal by the CA readily reveals that Pinausukans petition for
annulment suffered from procedural and substantive defects.

The procedural defect consisted in Pinausukans disregard of the fourth

requirement mentioned earlier consisting in its failure to submit together with the
petition the affidavits of witnesses or documents supporting the cause of action.
It is true that the petition, which narrated the facts relied upon, was verified under
oath by Roxanne. However, the submission of the affidavits of witnesses together
with the petition was not dispensable for that reason. We reiterate with approval
the CAs emphatic observation in the resolution of July 31, 2003 dismissing the
petition for annulment to the effect that Roxannes verification related only "to
the correctness of the allegations in the petition" and was "not the same or
equivalent to the affidavit of witnesses that the above-cited Rule requires."51 To
us, indeed, the true office of the verification is merely to secure an assurance that
the allegations of a pleading are true and correct and not the product of the
imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good
faith.52

Pinausukans failure to include

10 the affidavits of witnesses was fatal to its petition
for annulment.1wphi1 Worthy to reiterate is that the objective of the
requirements of verification and submission of the affidavits of witnesses is to
bring all the relevant facts that will enable the CA to immediately determine
whether or not the petition has substantial merit. In that regard, however, the
requirements are separate from each other, for only by the affidavits of the
witnesses who had competence about the circumstances constituting the extrinsic
fraud can the petitioner detail the extrinsic fraud being relied upon as the ground
for its petition for annulment. This is because extrinsic fraud cannot be presumed
from the recitals alone of the pleading but needs to be particularized as to the
facts constitutive of it. The distinction between the verification and the affidavits
is made more pronounced when an issue is based on facts not appearing of
record. In that instance, the issue may be heard on affidavits or depositions
presented by the respective parties, subject to the court directing that the matter
be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony or depositions.53

The substantive defect related to the supposed neglect of Atty. Villaflor to keep
track of the case, and to his failure to apprise Pinausukan of the developments in
the case, which the CA did not accept as constituting extrinsic fraud, because

Based solely on these allegations, we do not see any basis to give due course to
the petition as these allegations do not speak of the extrinsic fraud contemplated
by Rule 47. Notably, the petitions own language states that what is involved in
this case is mistake and gross negligence of petitioners own counsel. The
petition even suggests that the negligence of counsel may constitute professional
misconduct (but this is a matter for lawyer and client to resolve). What is certain,
for purposes of the application of Rule 47, is that mistake and gross negligence
cannot be equated to the extrinsic fraud that Rule 47 requires to be the ground for
an annulment of judgment. By its very nature, extrinsic fraud relates to a cause
that is collateral in character, i.e., it relates to any fraudulent act of the prevailing
party in litigation which is committed outside of the trial of the case, where the
defeated party has been prevented from presenting fully his side of the cause, by
fraud or deception practiced on him by his opponent. Even in the presence of
fraud, annulment will not lie unless the fraud is committed by the adverse party,
not by ones own lawyer. In the latter case, the remedy of the client is to proceed
against his own lawyer and not to re-litigate the case where judgment had been
rendered.54

We concur with the CA. Verily, such neglect of counsel, even if it was true, did
not amount to extrinsic fraud because it did not emanate from any act of FEBTC
as the prevailing party, and did not occur outside the trial of the case. Moreover,
the failure to be fully aware 11
of the developments in the case was Pinausukan's
own responsibility. As a litigant, it should not entirely leave the case in the hands
of its counsel, for it had the continuing duty to keep itself abreast of the
developments if only to protect its own interest in the litigation. It could have
discharged its duty by keeping in regular touch with its counsel, but it did not.
Consequently, it has only itself to blame.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the assailed resolutions of the Court of

Appeals promulgated on July 31, 2003 and September 12, 2003; and ORDERS
the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSSAMIN
Associate Justice

12
G.R. No. 163753 January 15, 2014

DR. ENCARNACION C. LUMANTAS, M.D., Petitioner,

vs.
HANZ CALAPIZ, REPRESENTED BY HIS PARENTS, HILARIO
CALAPIZ, JR. and HERLITA CALAPIZ, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

The acquittal of the accused does not necessarily mean his absolution from civil
liability.

The Case

In this appeal, an accused desires the reversal of the decision promulgated on

February 20, 2003,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment
rendered on August 6, 1999 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 13, in
Oroquieta City ordering him to pay moral damages despite his acquittal of the
crime of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries charged
against him.2

Antecedents

On January 16, 1995, Spouses Hilario Calapiz, Jr. and Herlita Calapiz brought
their 8-year-old son, Hanz Calapiz (Hanz), to the Misamis Occidental Provincial
Hospital, Oroquieta City, for an emergency appendectomy. Hanz was attended to
by the petitioner, who suggested to the parents that Hanz also undergo
circumcision at no added cost to spare him the pain. With the parents consent,
the petitioner performed the coronal type of circumcision on Hanz after his
appendectomy. On the following day, Hanz complained of pain in his penis,
which exhibited blisters. His testicles were swollen. The parents noticed that the
child urinated abnormally after the petitioner forcibly removed the catheter, but
the petitioner dismissed the abnormality as normal. On January 30, 1995, Hanz
was discharged from the hospital over his parents protestations, and was directed
to continue taking antibiotics.

On February 8, 1995, Hanz was confined in a hospital because of the abscess

formation between the base and the shaft of his penis. Presuming that the
ulceration was brought about by Hanzs appendicitis, the petitioner referred him
to Dr. Henry Go, an urologist, who diagnosed the boy to have a damaged urethra.
Thus, Hanz underwent cystostomy, and thereafter was operated on three times to
repair his damaged urethra.

When his damaged urethra could not be fully repaired and reconstructed, Hanzs
parents brought a criminal charge against the petitioner for reckless imprudence
resulting to serious physical injuries. On April 17, 1997, the information3 was
filed in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Oroquieta City (MTCC), to which
the latter pleaded not guilty on May 22, 1998.4 Under the order of April 30,
1999, the case was transferred to the RTC pursuant to Supreme Court Circular
No. 11-99.5

At the trial, the Prosecution presented several witnesses, including Dr. Rufino
Agudera as an expert witness and as the physician who had operated on Hanz
twice to repair the damaged urethra. Dr. Agudera testified that Hanz had been
diagnosed to have urethral stricture and cavernosal injury left secondary to
trauma that had necessitated the conduct of two operations to strengthen and to
lengthen the urethra. Although satisfactorily explaining that the injury to the
urethra had been caused by trauma, Dr. Agudera could not determine the kind of
trauma that had caused the injury.

In his defense, the petitioner denied the charge. He contended that at the time of
his examination of Hanz on January 16, 1995, he had found an accumulation of
pus at the vicinity of the appendix two to three inches from the penis that had
required immediate surgical operation; that after performing the appendectomy,
he had circumcised Hanz with his parents consent by using a congo instrument,
thereby debunking the parents claim that their child had been cauterized; that he
had then cleared Hanz on January 27, 1995 once his fever had subsided; that he
had found no complications when Hanz returned for his follow up check-up on
February 2, 1995; and that the abscess formation between the base and the shaft
of the penis had been brought about by Hanzs burst appendicitis.

Ruling of the RTC

In its decision rendered on August 6, 1999,6 the RTC acquitted the petitioner of
the crime charged for insufficiency of the evidence. It held that the Prosecutions
evidence did not show the required standard of care to be observed by other
members of the medical profession under similar circumstances. Nonetheless, the
RTC ruled that the petitioner was liable for moral damages because there was a
preponderance of evidence showing that Hanz had received the injurious trauma
from his circumcision by the petitioner. The decision disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, for insufficiency of evidence, this court renders judgment
acquitting the accused, Dr. Encarnacion Lumantas, of reckless imprudence
resulting in serious physical injuries, but ordering him to pay Hanz Calapiz
P50,000.00 as moral damages. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Ruling of the CA

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC,7 sustaining the award of moral damages. It
opined that even if the petitioner had been acquitted of the crime charged, the
acquittal did not necessarily mean that he had not incurred civil liability
considering that the Prosecution had preponderantly established the sufferings of
Hanz as the result of the circumcision.

The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied the motion on April
28, 2004.8

Hence, this appeal.

Issue

Whether the CA erred in affirming the petitioners civil liability despite his
acquittal of the crime of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries.

Ruling

The petition for review lacks merit.

It is axiomatic that every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable.9 Nevertheless, the acquittal of an accused of the crime charged does not
necessarily extinguish his civil liability. In Manantan v. Court of Appeals,10 the
Court elucidates on the two kinds of acquittal recognized by our law as well as
on the different effects of acquittal on the civil liability of the accused, viz:

Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil
liability of the accused.1wphi1 First is an acquittal on the ground that the
accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance
closes the door to civil liability, for a person who has been found to be not the
perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such
act or omission. There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the
question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on
grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in
Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. The second instance is an acquittal based on
reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the
accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil
liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only.

The Rules of Court requires that in case of an acquittal, the judgment shall state
"whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of
the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either
case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist."11

Conformably with the foregoing, therefore, the acquittal of an accused does not
prevent a judgment from still being rendered against him on the civil aspect of
the criminal case unless the court finds and declares that the fact from which the
civil liability might arise did not exist.

Although it found the Prosecutions evidence insufficient to sustain a judgment

of conviction against the petitioner for the crime charged, the RTC did not err in
determining and adjudging his civil liability for the same act complained of
based on mere preponderance of evidence.12 In this connection, the Court
reminds that the acquittal for insufficiency of the evidence did not require that
the complainants recovery of civil liability should be through the institution of a
separate civil action for that purpose.13

The petitioners contention that he could not be held civilly liable because there
was no proof of his negligence deserves scant consideration. The failure of the
Prosecution to prove his criminal negligence with moral certainty did not forbid a
finding against him that there was preponderant evidence of his negligence to
hold him civilly liable.14 With the RTC and the CA both finding that Hanz had
sustained the injurious trauma from the hands of the petitioner on the occasion of
or incidental to the circumcision, and that the trauma could have been avoided,
the Court must concur with their uniform findings. In that regard, the Court need
not analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings a quo.
The Court, by virtue of its not being a trier of facts, should now accord the
highest respect to the factual findings of the trial court as affirmed by the CA in
the absence of a clear showing by the petitioner that such findings were tainted
with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error.

Every person is entitled to the physical integrity of his body.1wphi1 Although

we have long advocated the view that any physical injury, like the loss or
diminution of the use of any part of ones body, is not equatable to a pecuniary
loss, and is not susceptible of exact monetary estimation, civil damages should be
assessed once that integrity has been violated. The assessment is but an imperfect
estimation of the true value of ones body. The usual practice is to award moral
damages for the physical injuries sustained.15 In Hanzs case, the undesirable
outcome of the circumcision performed by the petitioner forced the young child
to endure several other procedures on his penis in order to repair his damaged
urethra. Surely, his physical and moral sufferings properly warranted the amount
of P50,000.00 awarded as moral damages.

Many years have gone by since Hanz suffered the injury. Interest of 6% per
annum should then be imposed on the award as a sincere means of adjusting the
value of the award to a level that is not only reasonable but just and
commensurate. Unless we make the adjustment in the permissible manner by
prescribing legal interest on the award, his sufferings would be unduly
compounded. For that purpose, the reckoning of interest should be from the filing
of the criminal information on April 17, 1997, the making of the judicial demand
for the liability of the petitioner.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 20,

2003, with the modification that legal interest of 6% per annum to start from
April 17, 1997 is imposed on the award of:P50,000.00 as moral damages; and
ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
G.R. No. 160758 January 15, 2014

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.
GUARIA AGRICULTURAL AND REALTY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

The foreclosure of a mortgage prior to the mortgagor's default on the principal

obligation is premature, and should be undone for being void and ineffectual. The
mortgagee who has been meanwhile given possession of the mortgaged property
by virtue of a writ of possession issued to it as the purchaser at the foreclosure
sale may be required to restore the possession of the property to the mortgagor
and to pay reasonable rent for the use of the property during the intervening
period.

The Case

In this appeal, Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) seeks the reversal of
the adverse decision promulgated on March 26, 2003 in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
59491,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the judgment rendered on
January 6, 19982 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, in Iloilo City (RTC)
annulling the extra-judicial foreclosure of the real estate and chattel mortgages at
the instance of DBP because the debtor-mortgagor, Guaria Agricultural and
Realty Development Corporation (Guaria Corporation), had not yet defaulted
on its obligations in favor of DBP.

Antecedents

In July 1976, Guaria Corporation applied for a loan from DBP to finance the
development of its resort complex situated in Trapiche, Oton, Iloilo. The loan, in
the amount of P3,387,000.00, was approved on August 5, 1976.3 Guaria
Corporation executed a promissory note that would be due on November 3,
1988.4 On October 5, 1976, Guaria Corporation executed a real estate mortgage
over several real properties in favor of DBP as security for the repayment of the
loan. On May 17, 1977, Guaria Corporation executed a chattel mortgage over
the personal properties existing at the resort complex and those yet to be acquired
out of the proceeds of the loan, also to secure the performance of the obligation.5
Prior to the release of the loan, DBP required Guaria Corporation to put up a
cash equity of P1,470,951.00 for the construction of the buildings and other
improvements on the resort complex.

The loan was released in several instalments, and Guaria Corporation used the
proceeds to defray the cost of additional improvements in the resort complex. In
all, the amount released totalled P3,003,617.49, from which DBP withheld
P148,102.98 as interest.6

Guaria Corporation demanded the release of the balance of the loan, but DBP
refused. Instead, DBP directly paid some suppliers of Guaria Corporation over
the latter's objection. DBP found upon inspection of the resort project, its
developments and improvements that Guaria Corporation had not completed the
construction works.7 In a letter dated February 27, 1978,8 and a telegram dated
June 9, 1978,9 DBP thus demanded that Guaria Corporation expedite the
completion of the project, and warned that it would initiate foreclosure
proceedings should Guaria Corporation not do so.10

Unsatisfied with the non-action and objection of Guaria Corporation, DBP

initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings. A notice of foreclosure sale was
sent to Guaria Corporation. The notice was eventually published, leading the
clients and patrons of Guaria Corporation to think that its business operation
had slowed down, and that its resort had already closed.11

On January 6, 1979, Guaria Corporation sued DBP in the RTC to demand

specific performance of the latter's obligations under the loan agreement, and to
stop the foreclosure of the mortgages (Civil Case No. 12707).12 However, DBP
moved for the dismissal of the complaint, stating that the mortgaged properties
had already been sold to satisfy the obligation of Guaria Corporation at a public
auction held on January 15, 1979 at the Costa Mario Resort Beach Resort in
Oton, Iloilo.13 Due to this, Guaria Corporation amended the complaint on
February 6, 197914 to seek the nullification of the foreclosure proceedings and
the cancellation of the certificate of sale. DBP filed its answer on December 17,
1979,15 and trial followed upon the termination of the pre-trial without any
agreement being reached by the parties.16

In the meantime, DBP applied for the issuance of a writ of possession by the
RTC. At first, the RTC denied the application but later granted it upon DBP's
motion for reconsideration. Aggrieved, Guaria Corporation assailed the granting
of the application before the CA on certiorari (C.A.-G.R. No. 12670-SP entitled
Guaria Agricultural and Realty Development Corporation v. Development Bank
of the Philippines). After the CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, DBP sought
the implementation of the order for the issuance of the writ of possession. Over
Guaria Corporation's opposition, the RTC issued the writ of possession on June
16, 1982.17

Judgment of the RTC

On January 6, 1998, the RTC rendered its judgment in Civil Case No. 12707,
disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby resolves that the extra-
judicial sales of the mortgaged properties of the plaintiff by the Office of the
Provincial Sheriff of Iloilo on January 15, 1979 are null and void, so with the
consequent issuance of certificates of sale to the defendant of said properties, the
registration thereof with the Registry of Deeds and the issuance of the transfer
certificates of title involving the real property in its name.

It is also resolved that defendant give back to the plaintiff or its representative the
actual possession and enjoyment of all the properties foreclosed and possessed by
it. To pay the plaintiff the reasonable rental for the use of its beach resort during
the period starting from the time it (defendant) took over its occupation and use
up to the time possession is actually restored to the plaintiff.

And, on the part of the plaintiff, to pay the defendant the loan it obtained as soon
as it takes possession and management of the beach resort and resume its
business operation.

Furthermore, defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff's attorney's fee of P50,000.00.

So ORDERED.18

Decision of the CA

On appeal (C.A.-G.R. CV No. 59491), DBP challenged the judgment of the RTC,
and insisted that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
DECLARING DBP'S FORECLOSURE OF THE MORTGAGED PROPERTIES
AS INVALID AND UNCALLED FOR.
II
 THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THE GROUNDS
INVOKED BY DBP TO JUSTIFY FORECLOSURE AS "NOT
SUFFICIENT." ON THE CONTRARY, THE MORTGAGE WAS
FORECLOSED BY EXPRESS AUTHORITY OF PARAGRAPH NO. 4 OF
THE MORTGAGE CONTRACT AND SECTION 2 OF P.D. 385 IN
ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONED PAR. NO. 26 PRINTED AT THE
BACK OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE MORTGAGE CONRACT.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THE SALES OF THE
MORTGAGED PROPERTIES TO DBP AS INVALID UNDER ARTICLES
2113 AND 2141 OF THE CIVIL CODE.
IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED AND COMMITTED [REVERSIBLE]
ERROR IN ORDERING DBP TO RETURN TO PLAINTIFF THE ACTUAL
POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF ALL THE FORECLOSED
PROPERTIES AND TO PAY PLAINTIFF REASONABLE RENTAL FOR
THE USE OF THE FORECLOSED BEACH RESORT.
V
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES
AGAINST DBP WHICH MERELY EXERCISED ITS RIGHTS UNDER THE
MORTGAGE CONTRACT.19
In its decision promulgated on March 26, 2003,20 however, the CA sustained the
RTC's judgment but deleted the award of attorney's fees, decreeing:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated January 6, 1998,

rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 25 in Civil Case No.
12707 for Specific Performance with Preliminary Injunction is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that the award for attorney's fees is
deleted.

SO ORDERED.21

DBP timely filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied its motion on
October 9, 2003.

Hence, this appeal by DBP.

Issues
DBP submits the following issues for consideration, namely:

WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

DATED MARCH 26, 2003 AND ITS RESOLUTION DATED OCTOBER 9,
DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WERE
ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, PREVAILING JURISPRUDENTIAL
DECISION AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE;

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ADHERED

TO THE USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IN DECIDING
C.A.-G.R. CV NO. 59491 AND THEREFORE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
"LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE."22

Ruling

The appeal lacks merit.

1.
Findings of the CA were supported by the
evidence as well as by law and jurisprudence

DBP submits that the loan had been granted under its supervised credit financing
scheme for the development of a beach resort, and the releases of the proceeds
would be subject to conditions that included the verification of the progress of
works in the project to forestall diversion of the loan proceeds; and that under
Stipulation No. 26 of the mortgage contract, further loan releases would be
terminated and the account would be considered due and demandable in the event
of a deviation from the purpose of the loan,23 including the failure to put up the
required equity and the diversion of the loan proceeds to other purposes.24 It
assails the declaration by the CA that Guaria Corporation had not yet been in
default in its obligations despite violations of the terms of the mortgage contract
securing the promissory note.

Guaria Corporation counters that it did not violate the terms of the promissory
note and the mortgage contracts because DBP had fully collected the interest
notwithstanding that the principal obligation did not yet fall due and become
demandable.25

The submissions of DBP lack merit and substance.

The agreement between DBP and Guaria Corporation was a loan. Under the
law, a loan requires the delivery of money or any other consumable object by one
party to another who acquires ownership thereof, on the condition that the same
amount or quality shall be paid.26 Loan is a reciprocal obligation, as it arises
from the same cause where one party is the creditor, and the other the debtor.27
The obligation of one party in a reciprocal obligation is dependent upon the
obligation of the other, and the performance should ideally be simultaneous. This
means that in a loan, the creditor should release the full loan amount and the
debtor repays it when it becomes due and demandable.28

In its assailed decision, the CA found and held thusly:

xxxx

x x x It is undisputed that appellee obtained a loan from appellant, and as

security, executed real estate and chattel mortgages. However, it was never
established that appellee was already in default. Appellant, in a telegram to the
appellee reminded the latter to make good on its construction works, otherwise, it
would foreclose the mortgage it executed. It did not mention that appellee was
already in default. The records show that appellant did not make any demand for
payment of the promissory note. It appears that the basis of the foreclosure was
not a default on the loan but appellee's failure to complete the project in
accordance with appellant's standards. In fact, appellant refused to release the
remaining balance of the approved loan after it found that the improvements
introduced by appellee were below appellant's expectations.

The loan agreement between the parties is a reciprocal obligation. Appellant in

the instant case bound itself to grant appellee the loan amount of P3,387,000.00
condition on appellee's payment of the amount when it falls due. Furthermore,
the loan was evidenced by the promissory note which was secured by real estate
mortgage over several properties and additional chattel mortgage. Reciprocal
obligations are those which arise from the same cause, and in which each party is
a debtor and a creditor of the other, such that the obligation of one is dependent
upon the obligation of the other (Areola vs. Court of Appeals, 236 SCRA 643).
They are to be performed simultaneously such that the performance of one is
conditioned upon the simultaneous fulfilment of the other (Jaime Ong vs. Court
of Appeals, 310 SCRA 1). The promise of appellee to pay the loan upon due date
as well as to execute sufficient security for said loan by way of mortgage gave
rise to a reciprocal obligation on the part of appellant to release the entire
approved loan amount. Thus, appellees are entitled to receive the total loan
amount as agreed upon and not an incomplete amount.
The appellant did not release the total amount of the approved loan. Appellant
therefore could not have made a demand for payment of the loan since it had yet
to fulfil its own obligation. Moreover, the fact that appellee was not yet in default
rendered the foreclosure proceedings premature and improper.

The properties which stood as security for the loan were foreclosed without any
demand having been made on the principal obligation. For an obligation to
become due, there must generally be a demand. Default generally begins from
the moment the creditor demands the performance of the obligation. Without
such demand, judicial or extrajudicial, the effects of default will not arise
(Namarco vs. Federation of United Namarco Distributors, Inc., 49 SCRA 238;
Borje vs. CFI of Misamis Occidental, 88 SCRA 576).

xxxx

Appellant also admitted in its brief that it indeed failed to release the full amount
of the approved loan. As a consequence, the real estate mortgage of appellee
becomes unenforceable, as it cannot be entirely foreclosed to satisfy appellee's
total debt to appellant (Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 139
SCRA 46).

Since the foreclosure proceedings were premature and unenforceable, it only

follows that appellee is still entitled to possession of the foreclosed properties.
However, appellant took possession of the same by virtue of a writ of possession
issued in its favor during the pendency of the case. Thus, the trial court correctly
ruled when it ordered appellant to return actual possession of the subject
properties to appellee or its representative and to pay appellee reasonable rents.

However, the award for attorney's fees is deleted. As a rule, the award of
attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule and counsel's fees are not to be
awarded every time a party wins a suit. Attorney's fees cannot be recovered as
part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the
right to litigate (Pimentel vs. Court of Appeals, et al., 307 SCRA 38).29

xxxx

We uphold the CA.

To start with, considering that the CA thereby affirmed the factual findings of the
RTC, the Court is bound to uphold such findings, for it is axiomatic that the trial
court's factual findings as affirmed by the CA are binding on appeal due to the
Court not being a trier of facts.
Secondly, by its failure to release the proceeds of the loan in their entirety, DBP
had no right yet to exact on Guaria Corporation the latter's compliance with its
own obligation under the loan. Indeed, if a party in a reciprocal contract like a
loan does not perform its obligation, the other party cannot be obliged to perform
what is expected of it while the other's obligation remains unfulfilled.30 In other
words, the latter party does not incur delay.31

Still, DBP called upon Guaria Corporation to make good on the construction
works pursuant to the acceleration clause written in the mortgage contract (i.e.,
Stipulation No. 26),32 or else it would foreclose the mortgages.

DBP's actuations were legally unfounded. It is true that loans are often secured
by a mortgage constituted on real or personal property to protect the creditor's
interest in case of the default of the debtor. By its nature, however, a mortgage
remains an accessory contract dependent on the principal obligation,33 such that
enforcement of the mortgage contract will depend on whether or not there has
been a violation of the principal obligation. While a creditor and a debtor could
regulate the order in which they should comply with their reciprocal obligations,
it is presupposed that in a loan the lender should perform its obligation - the
release of the full loan amount - before it could demand that the borrower repay
the loaned amount. In other words, Guaria Corporation would not incur in delay
before DBP fully performed its reciprocal obligation.34

Considering that it had yet to release the entire proceeds of the loan, DBP could
not yet make an effective demand for payment upon Guaria Corporation to
perform its obligation under the loan. According to Development Bank of the
Philippines v. Licuanan,35 it would only be when a demand to pay had been
made and was subsequently refused that a borrower could be considered in
default, and the lender could obtain the right to collect the debt or to foreclose the
mortgage.1wphi1 Hence, Guaria Corporation would not be in default without
the demand.

Assuming that DBP could already exact from the latter its compliance with the
loan agreement, the letter dated February 27, 1978 that DBP sent would still not
be regarded as a demand to render Guaria Corporation in default under the
principal contract because DBP was only thereby requesting the latter "to put up
the deficiency in the value of improvements."36

Under the circumstances, DBP's foreclosure of the mortgage and the sale of the
mortgaged properties at its instance were premature, and, therefore, void and
ineffectual.37
Being a banking institution, DBP owed it to Guaria Corporation to exercise the
highest degree of diligence, as well as to observe the high standards of integrity
and performance in all its transactions because its business was imbued with
public interest.38 The high standards were also necessary to ensure public
confidence in the banking system, for, according to Philippine National Bank v.
Pike:39 "The stability of banks largely depends on the confidence of the people
in the honesty and efficiency of banks." Thus, DBP had to act with great care in
applying the stipulations of its agreement with Guaria Corporation, lest it erodes
such public confidence. Yet, DBP failed in its duty to exercise the highest degree
of diligence by prematurely foreclosing the mortgages and unwarrantedly
causing the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged properties despite Guaria
Corporation not being yet in default. DBP wrongly relied on Stipulation No. 26
as its basis to accelerate the obligation of Guaria Corporation, for the stipulation
was relevant to an Omnibus Agricultural Loan, to Guaria Corporation's loan
which was intended for a project other than agricultural in nature.

Even so, Guaria Corporation did not elevate the actionability of DBP's
negligence to the CA, and did not also appeal the CA's deletion of the award of
attorney's fees allowed by the RTC.1wphi1 With the decision of the CA
consequently becoming final and immutable as to Guaria Corporation, we will
not delve any further on DBP's actionable actuations.

2.
The doctrine of law of the case
did not apply herein

DBP insists that the decision of the CA in C.A.-G.R. No. 12670-SP already
constituted the law of the case. Hence, the CA could not decide the appeal in
C.A.-G.R. CV No. 59491 differently.

Guaria Corporation counters that the ruling in C.A.-G.R. No. 12670-SP did not
constitute the law of the case because C.A.-G.R. No. 12670-SP concerned the
issue of possession by DBP as the winning bidder in the foreclosure sale, and had
no bearing whatsoever to the legal issues presented in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 59491.

Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal,
and means, more specifically, that whatever is once 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.40
The concept of law of the case is well explained in Mangold v. Bacon,41 an
American case, thusly:

The general rule, nakedly and boldly put, is that legal conclusions announced on
a first appeal, whether on the general law or the law as applied to the concrete
facts, not only prescribe the duty and limit the power of the trial court to strict
obedience and conformity thereto, but they become and remain the law of the
case in all other steps below or above on subsequent appeal. The rule is grounded
on convenience, experience, and reason. Without the rule there would be no end
to criticism, reagitation, reexamination, and reformulation. In short, there would
be endless litigation. It would be intolerable if parties litigants were allowed to
speculate on changes in the personnel of a court, or on the chance of our
rewriting propositions once gravely ruled on solemn argument and handed down
as the law of a given case. An itch to reopen questions foreclosed on a first
appeal would result in the foolishness of the inquisitive youth who pulled up his
corn to see how it grew. Courts are allowed, if they so choose, to act like ordinary
sensible persons. The administration of justice is a practical affair. The rule is a
practical and a good one of frequent and beneficial use.

The doctrine of law of the case simply means, therefore, that when an appellate
court has once declared the law in a case, its declaration continues to be the law
of that case even on a subsequent appeal, notwithstanding that the rule thus laid
down may have been reversed in other cases.42 For practical considerations,
indeed, once the appellate court has issued a pronouncement on a point that was
presented to it with full opportunity to be heard having been accorded to the
parties, the pronouncement should be regarded as the law of the case and should
not be reopened on remand of the case to determine other issues of the case, like
damages.43 But the law of the case, as the name implies, concerns only legal
questions or issues thereby adjudicated in the former appeal.

The foregoing understanding of the concept of the law of the case exposes DBP's
insistence to be unwarranted.

To start with, the ex parte proceeding on DBP's application for the issuance of the
writ of possession was entirely independent from the judicial demand for specific
performance herein. In fact, C.A.-G.R. No. 12670-SP, being the interlocutory
appeal concerning the issuance of the writ of possession while the main case was
pending, was not at all intertwined with any legal issue properly raised and
litigated in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 59491, which was the appeal to determine whether
or not DBP's foreclosure was valid and effectual. And, secondly, the ruling in
C.A.-G.R. No. 12670-SP did not settle any question of law involved herein
because this case for specific performance was not a continuation of C.A.-G.R.
No. 12670-SP (which was limited to the propriety of the issuance of the writ of
possession in favor of DBP), and vice versa.

3.
Guarifia Corporation is legally entitled to the
restoration of the possession of the resort complex
and payment of reasonable rentals by DBP

Having found and pronounced that the extrajudicial foreclosure by DBP was
premature, and that the ensuing foreclosure sale was void and ineffectual, the
Court affirms the order for the restoration of possession to Guarifia Corporation
and the payment of reasonable rentals for the use of the resort. The CA properly
held that the premature and invalid foreclosure had unjustly dispossessed
Guarifia Corporation of its properties. Consequently, the restoration of
possession and the payment of reasonable rentals were in accordance with Article
561 of the Civil Code, which expressly states that one who recovers, according to
law, possession unjustly lost shall be deemed for all purposes which may redound
to his benefit to have enjoyed it without interruption.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on March 26,

2003; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
G.R. No. 162365 January 15, 2014

ROBERTO R. DAVID, Petitioner,

vs.
EDUARDO C. DAVID, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

In a sale with right to repurchase, title and ownership of the property sold are
immediately vested in the vendee, subject to the resolutory condition of
repurchase by the vendor within the stipulated period.

The Case

Under review at the defendant's instance is the decision promulgated on October

10, 2003,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment rendered
on December 5, 2001 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, in Baguio
City ordering him to return to the plaintiff the motor vehicle and trailer subject of
the complaint, or to pay their value of P500,000.00 should the return not be
effected, and to pay the plaintiff P20,000.00 as litigation expenses, P50,000.00 as
attorney's fees, and the costs of suit.2

Antecedents

Respondent Eduardo C. David (Eduardo) initiated this replevin suit against

Roberto R. David (Roberto), his first cousin and former business partner, to
recover the possession of one unit of International CO 9670 Truck Tractor and
Mi-Bed Trailer.

It appears that on July 7, 1995, Eduardo and his brother Edwin C. David
(Edwin), acting on their own and in behalf of their co-heirs, sold their inherited
properties to Roberto, specifically: (a) a parcel of land with an area of 1,231
square meters, together with all the improvements existing thereon, located in
Baguio City and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-22983 of the
Registry of Deeds of Baguio City (Baguio City lot); and (b) two units
International CO 9670 Truck Tractor with two Mi-Bed Trailers.3 A deed of sale
with assumption of mortgage (deed of sale)4 embodied the terms of their
agreement, stipulating that the consideration for the sale was P6,000,000.00, of
which P2,000,000 was to be paid to Eduardo and Edwin, and the remaining
P4,000,000.00 to be paid to Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in
Baguio City to settle the outstanding obligation secured by a mortgage on such
properties. The parties further agreed to give Eduardo and Edwin the right to
repurchase the properties within a period of three years from the execution of the
deed of sale based on the purchase price agreed upon, plus 12% interest per
annum.

In April 1997, Roberto and Edwin executed a memorandum of agreement

(MOA)5 with the Spouses Marquez and Soledad Go (Spouses Go), by which
they agreed to sell the Baguio City lot to the latter for a consideration of
P10,000,000.00. The MOA stipulated that "in order to save payment of high and
multiple taxes considering that the x x x subject matter of this sale is mortgaged
with DBP, Baguio City, and sold [to Roberto], Edwin will execute the necessary
Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of [the Spouses Go], in lieu of [Roberto]."6 The
Spouses Go then deposited the amount of P10,000,000.00 to Robertos account.7

After the execution of the MOA, Roberto gave Eduardo P2,800,000.00 and
returned to him one of the truck tractors and trailers subject of the deed of sale.
Eduardo demanded for the return of the other truck tractor and trailer, but
Roberto refused to heed the demand.

Thus, Eduardo initiated this replevin suit against Roberto, alleging that he was
exercising the right to repurchase under the deed of sale; and that he was entitled
to the possession of the other motor vehicle and trailer.

In his answer, Roberto denied that Eduardo could repurchase the properties in
question; and insisted that the MOA had extinguished their deed of sale by
novation.

Judgment of the RTC

On December 5, 2001,8 the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Eduardo, holding

that the stipulation giving Eduardo the right to repurchase had made the deed of
sale a conditional sale; that Eduardo had fulfilled the conditions for the exercise
of the right to repurchase; that the ownership of the properties in question had
reverted to Eduardo; that Robertos defense of novation had no merit; and that
due to Robertos bad faith in refusing to satisfy Eduardos claim, Eduardo should
be awarded litigation expenses and attorneys fees. The dispositive portion of the
judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered for the plaintiff and against the defendant
ORDERING the latter to return to the former the motor
 vehicle and trailer subject matter of the case or to pay
its value in the amount of P500,000 in case manual
delivery can not be effected; to pay plaintiff the
amount of P20,000 as litigation expenses; the amount of
P50,000 as attorney's fees and the costs of this suit.
SO ORDERED.9
Roberto appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the CA

On October 10, 2003,10 the CA promulgated its decision affirming the RTC. It
opined that although there was no express exercise of the right to repurchase, the
sum of all the relevant circumstances indicated that there was an exercise of the
right to repurchase pursuant to the deed of sale, that the findings of the RTC to
the effect that the conditions for the exercise of the right to repurchase had been
adequately satisfied by Eduardo, and that no novation as claimed by Roberto had
intervened.

On February 16, 2004,11 the CA denied Robertos motion for reconsideration.12

Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issues

Roberto seeks a reversal, claiming that the CA erred:

x x x IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS EXERCISED THEIR

RIGHT TO REPURCHASE;

x x x IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO NOVATION OF THE DEED OF

SALE WITH ASSUMPTION OF MORTGAGE WHEN THE PARTIES
EXECUTED A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF THE
SUBJECT HOUSE AND LOT AND, THEREAFTER SOLD THE SAID
PROPERTY TO THIRD PERSONS;

x x x IN RESOLVING THE INSTANT CASE IN FAVOR OF

RESPO[N]DENT.13

Ruling of the Court

The petition for review has no merit.

A sale with right to repurchase is governed by Article 1601 of the Civil Code,
which provides that: "Conventional redemption shall take place when the vendor
reserves the right to repurchase the thing sold, with the obligation to comply with
the provisions of Article 1616 and other stipulations which may have been agreed
upon." Conformably with Article 1616,14 the seller given the right to repurchase
may exercise his right of redemption by paying the buyer: (a) the price of the
sale, (b) the expenses of the contract, (c) legitimate payments made by reason of
the sale, and (d) the necessary and useful expenses made on the thing sold.

The deed of sale entered into by Eduardo and Roberto contained the following
stipulation on the right to repurchase, to wit:

x x x the Vendors are given the right to repurchase the aforesaid described real
property, together with the improvements thereon, and the two (2) motor
vehicles, together with their respective trailers from the Vendee within a period
of three (3) years from the execution of this document on the purchase price
agreed upon by the parties after considering the amount previously paid to the
Vendors in the amount of TWO MILLION PESOS (P2,000,000.00), Philippine
Currency, with an interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum and the amount
paid with the Development Bank of the Philippines with an interest of twelve
percent (12%) per annum.15

The CA and the RTC both found and held that Eduardo had complied with the
conditions stipulated in the deed of sale and prescribed by Article 1616 of the
Civil Code. Pertinently, the CA stated:

It should be noted that the alleged repurchase was exercised within the stipulated
period of three (3) years from the time the Deed of Sale with Assumption of
Mortgage was executed. The only question now, therefore, which remains to be
resolved is whether or not the conditions set forth in the Deed of Sale with
Assumption of Mortgage, i.e. the tender of the purchase price previously agreed
upon, which is Php2.0 Million, plus 12% interest per annum, and the amount
paid by the defendant to DBP, had been satisfied.

From the testimony of the defendant himself, these preconditions for the exercise
of plaintiff's right to repurchase were adequately satisfied by the latter. Thus, as
stated, from the Php10 Million purchase price which was directly paid to the
defendant, the latter deducted his expenses plus interests and the loan, and the
remaining amount he turned over to the plaintiff. This testimony is an
unequivocal acknowledgement from defendant that plaintiff and his co-heirs
exercised their right to repurchase the property within the agreed period by
satisfying all the conditions stipulated in the Deed of Sale with Assumption of
Mortgage. Moreover, defendant returned to plaintiff the amount of Php2.8
Million from the total purchase price of Php10.0 Million. This only means that
this is the excess amount pertaining to plaintiff and co-heirs after the defendant
deducted the repurchase price of Php2.0 Million plus interests and his expenses.
Add to that is the fact that defendant returned one of the trucks and trailers
subject of the Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage to the plaintiff. This is,
at best, a tacit acknowledgement of the defendant that plaintiff and his co-heirs
had in fact exercised their right to repurchase.16 x x x

Considering that the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA,
are binding on the Court,17 the Court affirms the judgment of the CA upholding
Eduardos exercise of the right of repurchase. Roberto could no longer assail the
factual findings because his petition for review on certiorari was limited to the
review and determination of questions of law only. A question of law exists when
the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of undisputed facts, while a
question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged
facts.18 Whether the conditions for the right to repurchase were complied with,
or whether there was a tender of payment, is a question of fact. With both the
RTC and the CA finding and holding that Eduardo had fulfilled the conditions for
the exercise of the right to repurchase, therefore, we conclude that Eduardo had
effectively repurchased the properties subject of the deed of sale.

In Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tan,19 the Court ruled that a
redemption within the period allowed by law is not a matter of intent but of
payment or valid tender of the full redemption price within the period. Verily, the
tender of payment is the sellers manifestation of his desire to repurchase the
property with the offer of immediate performance.20 As we stated in Legaspi v.
Court of Appeals,21 a sincere tender of payment is sufficient to show the exercise
of the right to repurchase. Here, Eduardo paid the repurchase price to Roberto by
depositing the proceeds of the sale of the Baguio City lot in the latters account.
Such payment was an effective exercise of the right to repurchase.

On the other hand, the Court dismisses as devoid of merit Robertos insistence
that the MOA had extinguished the obligations established under the deed of sale
by novation.

The issue of novation involves a question of fact, as it necessarily requires the

factual determination of the existence of the various requisites of novation,
namely: (a) there must be a previous valid obligation; (b) the parties concerned
must agree to a new contract; (c) the old contract must be extinguished; and (d)
there must be a valid new contract.22 With both the RTC and the CA concluding
that the MOA was consistent with the deed of sale, novation whereby the deed of
sale was extinguished did not occur. In that regard, it is worth repeating that the
factual findings of the lower courts are binding on the Court.

In sales with the right to repurchase, the title and ownership of the property sold
are immediately vested in the vendee, subject to the resolutory condition of
repurchase by the vendor within the stipulated period.23 Accordingly, the
ownership of the affected properties reverted to Eduardo once he complied with
the condition for the repurchase, thereby entitling him to the possession of the
other motor vehicle with trailer.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on October 10,

2003; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
G.R. No. 164985 January 15, 2014

FIRST UNITED CONSTRUCTORS CORPORATION and BLUE STAR

CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioners,
vs.
BAYANIHAN AUTOMOTIVE CORPORATION, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

This case concerns the applicability of the legal principles of recoupment and
compensation.

The Case

Under review is the decision promulgated on July 26, 2004,1 whereby the Court
of Appeals CA) affirmed the judgment rendered on May 14 1996 by the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 107, in Quezon City adjudging the petitioners defendants)
liable to pay to the respondent plaintiff) various sums of money and damages.2

Antecedents

Petitioner First United Constructors Corporation (FUCC) and petitioner Blue Star
Construction Corporation (Blue Star) were associate construction firms sharing
financial resources, equipment and technical personnel on a case-to-case basis.
From May 27, 1992 to July 8, 1992, they ordered six units of dump trucks from
the respondent, a domestic corporation engaged in the business of importing and
reconditioning used Japan-made trucks, and of selling the trucks to interested
buyers who were mostly engaged in the construction business, to wit:

TO WHOM DATE OF
UNIT
DELIVERY DELIVERY
Isuzu Dump Truck FUCC 27 May 1992
Isuzu Dump Truck FUCC 27 May 1992
Isuzu Dump Truck FUCC 10 June 1992
Isuzu Dump Truck FUCC 18 June 1992
Isuzu Dump Truck Blue Star 4 July 1992
Isuzu Dump Truck FUCC 8 July 1992
The parties established a good business relationship, with the respondent
extending service and repair work to the units purchased by the petitioners. The
respondent also practiced liberality towards the petitioners in the latters manner
of payment by later on agreeing to payment on terms for subsequent purchases.

On September 19, 1992, FUCC ordered from the respondent one unit of Hino
Prime Mover that the respondent delivered on the same date. On September 29,
1992, FUCC again ordered from the respondent one unit of Isuzu Transit Mixer
that was also delivered to the petitioners. For the two purchases, FUCC partially
paid in cash, and the balance through post-dated checks, as follows:

BANK/CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT

Pilipinas Bank 18027379 23 November 1992 P360,000.00
Pilipinas Bank 18027384 1 December 1992 P375,000.00
Upon presentment of the checks for payment, the respondent learned that FUCC
had ordered the payment stopped. The respondent immediately demanded the full
settlement of their obligation from the petitioners, but to no avail. Instead, the
petitioners informed the respondent that they were withholding payment of the
checks due to the breakdown of one of the dump trucks they had earlier
purchased from respondent, specifically the second dump truck delivered on May
27, 1992.

Due to the refusal to pay, the respondent commenced this action for collection on
April 29, 1993, seeking payment of the unpaid balance in the amount of
P735,000.00 represented by the two checks.

In their answer, the petitioners averred that they had stopped the payment on the
two checks worth P735,000.00 because of the respondents refusal to repair the
second dump truck; and that they had informed the respondent of the defects in
that unit but the respondent had refused to comply with its warranty, compelling
them to incur expenses for the repair and spare parts. They prayed that the
respondent return the price of the defective dump truck worth P830,000.00 minus
the amounts of their two checks worth P735,000.00, with 12% per annum interest
on the difference of P90,000.00 from May 1993 until the same is fully paid; that
the respondent should also reimburse them the sum of P247,950.00 as their
expenses for the repair of the dump truck, with 12% per annum interest from
December 16, 1992, the date of demand, until fully paid; and that the respondent
pay exemplary damages as determined to be just and reasonable but not less than
P500,000, and attorneys fees of P50,000 plus P1,000.00 per court appearance
and other litigation expenses.
It was the position of the respondent that the petitioners were not legally justified
in withholding payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the Hino
Prime Mover and the Isuzu Transit Mixer due the alleged defects in second dump
truck because the purchase of the two units was an entirely different transaction
from the sale of the dump trucks, the warranties for which having long expired.

Judgment of the RTC

On May 14, 1996, the RTC rendered its judgment,3 finding the petitioners liable
to pay for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the Hino Prime Mover and
the Isuzu Transit Mixer totaling P735,000.00 with legal interest and attorneys
fees; and declaring the respondent liable to pay to the petitioners the sum of
P71,350.00 as costs of the repairs incurred by the petitioners. The RTC held that
the petitioners could not avail themselves of legal compensation because the
claims they had set up in the counterclaim were not liquidated and demandable.
The fallo of the judgment states:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Ordering defendants, jointly and severally to pay plaintiff the sum of

P360,000.00 and P375,000.00 with interest at the legal rate of 12% per annum
computed from February 11, 1993, which is the date of the first extrajudicial
demand, until fully paid;

2. Ordering the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay plaintiff the sum
equivalent to 10% of the principal amount due, for attorneys fees;

3. On the counterclaim, ordering plaintiff to pay defendants the sum of

P71,350.00 with interest at the legal rate of 12% per annum computed from the
date of this decision until fully paid;

4. Ordering plaintiff to pay the defendants attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of

the amount due;

5. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.4

Decision of the CA

The petitioners appealed, stating that they could justifiably stop the payment of
the checks in the exercise of their right of recoupment because of the
respondents refusal to settle their claim for breach of warranty as to the purchase
of the second dump truck.

In its decision promulgated on July 26, 2004,5 however, the CA affirmed the
judgment of the RTC. It held that the remedy of recoupment could not be
properly invoked by the petitioners because the transactions were different; that
the expenses incurred for the repair and spare parts of the second dump truck
were not a proper subject of recoupment because they did not arise out of the
purchase of the Hino Prime Mover and the Isuzu Transit Mixer; and that the
petitioners claim could not also be the subject of legal compensation or set-off,
because the debts in a set-off should be liquidated and demandable.

Issues

The petitioners are now before the Court asserting in their petition for review on
certiorari that the CA erred in:

x x x NOT UPHOLDING THE RIGHT OF PETITIONER[S] TO

RECOUPMENT UNDER PAR. (1) OF ART. 1599 OF THE CIVIL CODE,
WHICH PROVIDES [FOR] THE RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO
A BUYER AGAINST A SELLERS BREACH OF WARRANTY.

II

x x x RULING THAT PETITIONERS CANNOT AVAIL OF COMPENSATION

ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST RESPONDENT ARE
NOT LIQUIDATED AND DEMANDABLE.

III

x x x NOT HOLDING RESPONDENT LIABLE TO PETITIONERS FOR

LEGAL INTEREST COMPUTED FROM THE FIRST EXTRAJUDICIAL
DEMAND, AND FOR ACTUAL EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.6

The petitioners submit that they were justified in stopping the payment of the two
checks due to the respondents breach of warranty by refusing to repair or replace
the defective second dump truck earlier purchased; that the withholding of
payments was an effective exercise of their right of recoupment as allowed by
Article 1599(1) of the Civil Code; due to the sellers breach of warranty that the
CAs interpretation (that recoupment in diminution or extinction of price in case
of breach of warranty by the seller should refer to the reduction or extinction of
the price of the same item or unit sold and not to a different transaction or
contract of sale) was not supported by jurisprudence; that recoupment should not
be restrictively interpreted but should include the concept of compensation or set-
off between two parties who had claims arising from different transactions; and
that the series of purchases and the obligations arising therefrom, being inter-
related, could be considered as a single and ongoing transaction for all intents
and purposes.

The respondent counters that the petitioners could not refuse to pay the balance
of the purchase price of the Hino Prime Mover and the Isuzu Transit Mixer on
the basis of the right of recoupment under Article 1599 of the Civil Code; that the
buyers remedy of recoupment related only to the same transaction; and that
compensation was not proper because the claims of the petitioners as alleged in
their counterclaim were not liquidated and demandable.

There is no longer any question that the petitioners were liable to the respondent
for the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the Hino Prime Mover and the
Isuzu Transit Mixer. What remain to be resolved are strictly legal, namely: one,
whether or not the petitioners validly exercised the right of recoupment through
the withholding of payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the
Hino Prime Mover and the Isuzu Transit Mixer; and, two, whether or not the
costs of the repairs and spare parts for the second dump truck delivered to FUCC
on May 27, 1992 could be offset for the petitioners obligations to the respondent.

Ruling

We affirm the decision of the CA with modification.

1.
Petitioners could not validly resort to recoupment against respondent

Recoupment (reconvencion) is the act of rebating or recouping a part of a claim

upon which one is sued by means of a legal or equitable right resulting from a
counterclaim arising out of the same transaction.7 It is the setting up of a demand
arising from the same transaction as the plaintiffs claim, to abate or reduce that
claim.

The legal basis for recoupment by the buyer is the first paragraph of Article 1599
of the Civil Code, viz:

Article 1599. Where there is a breach of warranty by the seller, the buyer may, at
his election:
(1) Accept or keep the goods and set up against the seller, the breach of warranty
by way of recoupment in diminution or extinction of the price;

(2) Accept or keep the goods and maintain an action against the seller for
damages for the breach of warranty;

(3) Refuse to accept the goods, and maintain an action against the seller for
damages for the breach of warranty;

(4) Rescind the contract of sale and refuse to receive the goods or if the goods
have already been received, return them or offer to return them to the seller and
recover the price or any part thereof which has been paid.

When the buyer has claimed and been granted a remedy in anyone of these ways,
no other remedy can thereafter be granted, without prejudice to the provisions of
the second paragraph of article 1191. (Emphasis supplied)

xxxx

In its decision, the CA applied the first paragraph of Article 1599 of the Civil
Code to this case, explaining thusly:

Paragraph (1) of Article 1599 of the Civil Code which provides for the remedy of
recoupment in diminution or extinction of price in case of breach of warranty by
the seller should therefore be interpreted as referring to the reduction or
extinction of the price of the same item or unit sold and not to a different
transaction or contract of sale. This is more logical interpretation of the said
article considering that it talks of breach of warranty with respect to a particular
item sold by the seller. Necessarily, therefore, the buyers remedy should relate to
the same transaction and not to another.

Defendants-appellants act of ordering the payment on the prime mover and

transit mixer stopped was improper considering that the said sale was a different
contract from that of the dump trucks earlier purchased by defendants-appellants.

The claim of defendants-appellants for breach of warranty, i.e. the expenses paid
for the repair and spare parts of dump truck no. 2 is therefore not a proper subject
of recoupment since it does not arise out of the contract or transaction sued on or
the claim of plaintiff-appellee for unpaid balances on the last two (2) purchases,
i. e. the prime mover and the transit mixer.8

The CA was correct. It was improper for petitioners to set up their claim for
repair expenses and other spare parts of the dump truck against their remaining
balance on the price of the prime mover and the transit mixer they owed to
respondent.1avvphi1 Recoupment must arise out of the contract or transaction
upon which the plaintiffs claim is founded.9 To be entitled to recoupment,
therefore, the claim must arise from the same transaction, i.e., the purchase of the
prime mover and the transit mixer and not to a previous contract involving the
purchase of the dump truck. That there was a series of purchases made by
petitioners could not be considered as a single transaction, for the records show
that the earlier purchase of the six dump trucks was a separate and distinct
transaction from the subsequent purchase of the Hino Prime Mover and the Isuzu
Transit Mixer. Consequently, the breakdown of one of the dump trucks did not
grant to petitioners the right to stop and withhold payment of their remaining
balance on the last two purchases.

2.
Legal compensation was permissible

Legal compensation takes place when the requirements set forth in Article 1278
and Article 1279 of the Civil Code are present, to wit:

Article 1278. Compensation shall take place when two persons, in their own
right, are creditors and debtors of each other."

Article 1279. In order that compensation may be proper, it is necessary:

(1) That each of the obligors be bound principally, and that he be at the same time
a principal creditor of the other;

(2) That both debts consists in a sum of money, or if the things due are
consumable, they be of the same kind, and also of the same quality if the latter
has been stated;

(3) That the two debts be due;

(4) That they be liquidated and demandable;

(5) That over neither of them there be any retention or controversy, commenced
by third persons and communicated in due time to the debtor.

As to whether petitioners could avail themselves of compensation, both the RTC

and CA ruled that they could not because the claims of petitioners against
respondent were not liquidated and demandable.

The Court cannot uphold the CA and the RTC.

The RTC already found that petitioners were entitled to the amount of
P71,350.00 stated in their counterclaim, and the CA concurred in the finding,
stating thusly:

It is noteworthy that in the letter of December 16, 1992 (Exh. "1") defendants
were charging plaintiff only for the following items of repair:

1. Cost of repair and spare parts - P46,800.00

2. Cost of repair and spare parts - 24,550.00

P71,350.00
Said amounts may be considered to have been spent for repairs covered by the
warranty period of three (3) months. While the invoices (Exhs. "2-B" and "3-A")
dated September 26, 1992 and September 18, 1992, this delay in repairs is
attributable to the fact that when defects were brought to the attention of the
plaintiff in the letter of August 14, 1992 (Exh. "8") which was within the
warranty period, the plaintiff did not respond with the required repairs and actual
repairs were undertaken by defendants. Thereafter, the spare parts covered by
Exhibits "2-B" and "3-A" pertain to the engine, which was covered by the
warranty.

x x x. Defendants in their letter of August 14, 1992 (Exhb. "8") demanded

correction of defects. In their letter of August 22, 1992 (Exh. "9") they demanded
replacement. In their letter of August 27, 1992 (Exh. "10"), they demanded
replacement/repair. In September, 1992, they undertook repairs themselves
(Exhs. "2-B" and "3-A") and demanded payment for the expenses in their letter
of December 16, 1992 (Exh. "1"). All other items of expenses connected with
subsequent breakdowns are no longer chargeable to plaintiff which granted only
a 3-month warranty. x x x10

Considering that preponderant evidence showing that petitioners had spent the
amount of P71,350.00 for the repairs and spare parts of the second dump truck
within the warranty period of three months supported the finding of the two
lower courts, the Court accepts their finding. Verily, factual findings of the trial
court, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on the Court when supported by
the evidence on record.11

A debt is liquidated when its existence and amount are determined.12

Accordingly, an unliquidated claim set up as a counterclaim by a defendant can
be set off against the plaintiffs claim from the moment it is liquidated by
judgment.13 Article 1290 of the Civil Code provides that when all the requisites
mentioned in Article 1279 of the Civil Code are present, compensation takes
effect by operation of law, and extinguishes both debts to the concurrent amount.
With petitioners expenses for the repair of the dump truck being already
established and determined with certainty by the lower courts, it follows that
legal compensation could take place because all the requirements were present.
Hence, the amount of P71,350.00 should be set off against petitioners unpaid
obligation of P735,000.00, leaving a balance of P663,650.00, the amount
petitioners still owed to respondent.

We deem it necessary to modify the interest rate imposed by the trial and
appellate courts.1wphi1 The legal interest rate to be imposed from February 11,
1993, the time of the extrajudicial demand by respondent, should be 6% per
annum in the absence of any stipulation in writing in accordance with Article
2209 of the Civil Code, which provides:

Article 2209. If the obligation consists in the payment of a sum of money, and the
debtor incurs in delay, the indemnity for damages, there being no stipulation to
the contrary, shall be the payment of the interest agreed upon, and in the absence
of stipulation, the legal interest, which is six per cent per annum.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on July 26, 2004
in all respects subject to the MODIFICATION that petitioners are ordered, jointly
and severally, to pay to respondent the sum of 1 663,650.00, plus interest of 6%
per annum computed from February

11, 1993, the date of the first extrajudicial demand, until fully paid; and
ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
G.R. No. 160600 January 15, 2014

DOMINGO GONZALO, Petitioner,

vs.
JOHN TARNATE, JR., Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

The doctrine of in pari delicto which stipulates that the guilty parties to an illegal
contract are not entitled to any relief, cannot prevent a recovery if doing so
violates the public policy against unjust enrichment.

Antecedents

After the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) had awarded on
July 22, 1997 the contract for the improvement of the Sadsadan-Maba-ay Section
of the Mountain Province-Benguet Road in the total amount of 7 014 963 33 to
his company, Gonzalo Construction,1 petitioner Domingo Gonzalo (Gonzalo)
subcontracted to respondent John Tarnate, Jr. (Tarnate) on October 15, 1997, the
supply of materials and labor for the project under the latter s business known as
JNT Aggregates. Their agreement stipulated, among others, that Tarnate would
pay to Gonzalo eight percent and four percent of the contract price, respectively,
upon Tarnate s first and second billing in the project.2

In furtherance of their agreement, Gonzalo executed on April 6, 1999 a deed of

assignment whereby he, as the contractor, was assigning to Tarnate an amount
equivalent to 10% of the total collection from the DPWH for the project. This
10% retention fee (equivalent to P233,526.13) was the rent for Tarnates
equipment that had been utilized in the project. In the deed of assignment,
Gonzalo further authorized Tarnate to use the official receipt of Gonzalo
Construction in the processing of the documents relative to the collection of the
10% retention fee and in encashing the check to be issued by the DPWH for that
purpose.3 The deed of assignment was submitted to the DPWH on April 15,
1999. During the processing of the documents for the retention fee, however,
Tarnate learned that Gonzalo had unilaterally rescinded the deed of assignment
by means of an affidavit of cancellation of deed of assignment dated April 19,
1999 filed in the DPWH on April 22, 1999;4 and that the disbursement voucher
for the 10% retention fee had then been issued in the name of Gonzalo, and the
retention fee released to him.5
Tarnate demanded the payment of the retention fee from Gonzalo, but to no avail.
Thus, he brought this suit against Gonzalo on September 13, 1999 in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Mountain Province to recover the retention fee of
P233,526.13, moral and exemplary damages for breach of contract, and
attorneys fees.6

In his answer, Gonzalo admitted the deed of assignment and the authority given
therein to Tarnate, but averred that the project had not been fully implemented
because of its cancellation by the DPWH, and that he had then revoked the deed
of assignment. He insisted that the assignment could not stand independently due
to its being a mere product of the subcontract that had been based on his contract
with the DPWH; and that Tarnate, having been fully aware of the illegality and
ineffectuality of the deed of assignment from the time of its execution, could not
go to court with unclean hands to invoke any right based on the invalid deed of
assignment or on the product of such deed of assignment.7

Ruling of the RTC

On January 26, 2001, the RTC, opining that the deed of assignment was a valid
and binding contract, and that Gonzalo must comply with his obligations under
the deed of assignment, rendered judgment in favor of Tarnate as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered and as prayed for by the plaintiff, John

Tarnate, Jr. in his Complaint for Sum of Money, Breach of Contract With
Damages is hereby RENDERED in his favor and against the above-named
defendant Domingo Gonzalo, the Court now hereby orders as follows:

1. Defendant Domingo Gonzalo to pay the Plaintiff, John Tarnate, Jr., the amount
of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
TWENTY SIX and 13/100 PESOS (P233,526.13) representing the rental of
equipment;

2. Defendant to pay Plaintiff the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND (P30,000.00)

PESOS by way of reasonable Attorneys Fees for having forced/compelled the
plaintiff to litigate and engage the services of a lawyer in order to protect his
interest and to enforce his right. The claim of the plaintiff for attorneys fees in
the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) plus THREE
THOUSAND PESOS (P3,000.00) clearly appears to be unconscionable and
therefore reduced to Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) as aforestated making
the same to be reasonable;
3. Defendant to pay Plaintiff the sum of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P15,000.00) by way of litigation expenses;

4. Defendant to pay Plaintiff the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS

(P20,000.00) for moral damages and for the breach of contract; and

5. To pay the cost of this suit.

Award of exemplary damages in the instant case is not warranted for there is no
showing that the defendant acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or
malevolent manner analogous to the case of Xentrex Automotive, Inc. vs. Court
of Appeals, 291 SCRA 66.8

Gonzalo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).

Decision of the CA

On February 18, 2003, the CA affirmed the RTC.9

Although holding that the subcontract was an illegal agreement due to its object
being specifically prohibited by Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1594; that
Gonzalo and Tarnate were guilty of entering into the illegal contract in violation
of Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1594; and that the deed of assignment,
being a product of and dependent on the subcontract, was also illegal and
unenforceable, the CA did not apply the doctrine of in pari delicto, explaining
that the doctrine applied only if the fault of one party was more or less equivalent
to the fault of the other party. It found Gonzalo to be more guilty than Tarnate,
whose guilt had been limited to the execution of the two illegal contracts while
Gonzalo had gone to the extent of violating the deed of assignment. It declared
that the crediting of the 10% retention fee equivalent to P233,256.13 to his
account had unjustly enriched Gonzalo; and ruled, accordingly, that Gonzalo
should reimburse Tarnate in that amount because the latters equipment had been
utilized in the project.

Upon denial of his motion for reconsideration,10 Gonzalo has now come to the
Court to seek the review and reversal of the decision of the CA.

Issues

Gonzalo contends that the CA erred in affirming the RTC because: (1) both
parties were in pari delicto; (2) the deed of assignment was void; and (3) there
was no compliance with the arbitration clause in the subcontract.
Gonzalo submits in support of his contentions that the subcontract and the deed
of assignment, being specifically prohibited by law, had no force and effect; that
upon finding both him and Tarnate guilty of violating the law for executing the
subcontract, the RTC and the CA should have applied the rule of in pari delicto,
to the effect that the law should not aid either party to enforce the illegal contract
but should leave them where it found them; and that it was erroneous to accord to
the parties relief from their predicament.11

Ruling

We deny the petition for review, but we delete the grant of moral damages,
attorneys fees and litigation expenses.

There is no question that every contractor is prohibited from subcontracting with

or assigning to another person any contract or project that he has with the DPWH
unless the DPWH Secretary has approved the subcontracting or assignment. This
is pursuant to Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1594, which provides:

Section 6. Assignment and Subcontract. The contractor shall not assign,

transfer, pledge, subcontract or make any other disposition of the contract or any
part or interest therein except with the approval of the Minister of Public Works,
Transportation and Communications, the Minister of Public Highways, or the
Minister of Energy, as the case may be. Approval of the subcontract shall not
relieve the main contractor from any liability or obligation under his contract
with the Government nor shall it create any contractual relation between the
subcontractor and the Government.

Gonzalo, who was the sole contractor of the project in question, subcontracted
the implementation of the project to Tarnate in violation of the statutory
prohibition. Their subcontract was illegal, therefore, because it did not bear the
approval of the DPWH Secretary. Necessarily, the deed of assignment was also
illegal, because it sprung from the subcontract. As aptly observed by the CA:

x x x. The intention of the parties in executing the Deed of Assignment was

merely to cover up the illegality of the sub-contract agreement. They knew for a
fact that the DPWH will not allow plaintiff-appellee to claim in his own name
under the Sub-Contract Agreement.

Obviously, without the Sub-Contract Agreement there will be no Deed of

Assignment to speak of. The illegality of the Sub-Contract Agreement
necessarily affects the Deed of Assignment because the rule is that an illegal
agreement cannot give birth to a valid contract. To rule otherwise is to sanction
the act of entering into transaction the object of which is expressly prohibited by
law and thereafter execute an apparently valid contract to subterfuge the
illegality. The legal proscription in such an instance will be easily rendered
nugatory and meaningless to the prejudice of the general public.12

Under Article 1409 (1) of the Civil Code, a contract whose cause, object or
purpose is contrary to law is a void or inexistent contract. As such, a void
contract cannot produce a valid one.13 To the same effect is Article 1422 of the
Civil Code, which declares that "a contract, which is the direct result of a
previous illegal contract, is also void and inexistent."

We do not concur with the CAs finding that the guilt of Tarnate for violation of
Section 6 of Presidential Decree No. 1594 was lesser than that of Gonzalo, for, as
the CA itself observed, Tarnate had voluntarily entered into the agreements with
Gonzalo.14 Tarnate also admitted that he did not participate in the bidding for the
project because he knew that he was not authorized to contract with the
DPWH.15 Given that Tarnate was a businessman who had represented himself in
the subcontract as "being financially and organizationally sound and established,
with the necessary personnel and equipment for the performance of the
project,"16 he justifiably presumed to be aware of the illegality of his agreements
with Gonzalo. For these reasons, Tarnate was not less guilty than Gonzalo.

According to Article 1412 (1) of the Civil Code, the guilty parties to an illegal
contract cannot recover from one another and are not entitled to an affirmative
relief because they are in pari delicto or in equal fault. The doctrine of in pari
delicto is a universal doctrine that holds that no action arises, in equity or at law,
from an illegal contract; no suit can be maintained for its specific performance, or
to recover the property agreed to be sold or delivered, or the money agreed to be
paid, or damages for its violation; and where the parties are in pari delicto, no
affirmative relief of any kind will be given to one against the other.17

Nonetheless, the application of the doctrine of in pari delicto is not always

rigid.1wphi1 An accepted exception arises when its application contravenes
well-established public policy.18 In this jurisdiction, public policy has been
defined as "that principle of the law which holds that no subject or citizen can
lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the
public good."19

Unjust enrichment exists, according to Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc.,20 "when a

person unjustly retains a benefit at the loss of another, or when a person retains
money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice,
equity and good conscience." The prevention of unjust enrichment is a
recognized public policy of the State, for Article 22 of the Civil Code explicitly
provides that "[e]very person who through an act of performance by another, or
any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense
of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him." It is well
to note that Article 22 "is part of the chapter of the Civil Code on Human
Relations, the provisions of which were formulated as basic principles to be
observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability
of the social order; designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the
fountain of good conscience; guides for human conduct that should run as golden
threads through society to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal which
is the sway and dominance of justice."21

There is no question that Tarnate provided the equipment, labor and materials for
the project in compliance with his obligations under the subcontract and the deed
of assignment; and that it was Gonzalo as the contractor who received the
payment for his contract with the DPWH as well as the 10% retention fee that
should have been paid to Tarnate pursuant to the deed of assignment.22
Considering that Gonzalo refused despite demands to deliver to Tarnate the
stipulated 10% retention fee that would have compensated the latter for the use of
his equipment in the project, Gonzalo would be unjustly enriched at the expense
of Tarnate if the latter was to be barred from recovering because of the rigid
application of the doctrine of in pari delicto. The prevention of unjust enrichment
called for the exception to apply in Tarnates favor. Consequently, the RTC and
the CA properly adjudged Gonzalo liable to pay Tarnate the equivalent amount of
the 10% retention fee (i.e., P233,526.13).

Gonzalo sought to justify his refusal to turn over the P233,526.13 to Tarnate by
insisting that he (Gonzalo) had a debt of P200,000.00 to Congressman Victor
Dominguez; that his payment of the 10% retention fee to Tarnate was
conditioned on Tarnate paying that debt to Congressman Dominguez; and that he
refused to give the 10% retention fee to Tarnate because Tarnate did not pay to
Congressman Dominguez.23 His justification was unpersuasive, however,
because, firstly, Gonzalo presented no proof of the debt to Congressman
Dominguez; secondly, he did not competently establish the agreement on the
condition that supposedly bound Tarnate to pay to Congressman Dominguez;24
and, thirdly, burdening Tarnate with Gonzalos personal debt to Congressman
Dominguez to be paid first by Tarnate would constitute another case of unjust
enrichment.
The Court regards the grant of moral damages, attorneys fees and litigation
expenses to Tarnate to be inappropriate. We have ruled that no damages may be
recovered under a void contract, which, being nonexistent, produces no juridical
tie between the parties involved.25 It is notable, too, that the RTC and the CA did
not spell out the sufficient factual and legal justifications for such damages to be
granted.

Lastly, the letter and spirit of Article 22 of the Civil Code command Gonzalo to
make a full reparation or compensation to Tarnate. The illegality of their contract
should not be allowed to deprive Tarnate from being fully compensated through
the imposition of legal interest. Towards that end, interest of 6% per annum
reckoned from September 13, 1999, the time of the judicial demand by Tarnate,
is imposed on the amount of P233,526.13. Not to afford this relief will make a
travesty of the justice to which Tarnate was entitled for having suffered too long
from Gonzalos unjust enrichment.

WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision promulgated on February 18, 2003, but

DELETE the awards of moral damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses;
IMPOSE legal interest of 6% per annum on the principal oLP233,526.13
reckoned from September 13, 1999; and DIRECT the petitioner to pay the costs
of suit.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
G.R. No. 164246 January 15, 2014

HERMINIA ACBANG, Petitioner,

vs.
HON. JIMMY H.F. LUCZON, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 01, SECOND JUDICIAL REGION,
TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN, and SPOUSES MAXIMO LOPEZ and
HEIDI L. LOPEZ, Respondents.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

To stay the immediate execution of the judgment in an ejectment case, the

defendant must perfect an appeal, file a supersedeas bond, and periodically
deposit the rentals becoming due during the pendency of the appeal. Otherwise,
the writ of execution will issue upon motion of the plaintiff.

The Case

By petition for prohibition, the petitioner, a defendant-appellant in Civil Case No.

6302 of the Regional Trial Court RTC), Branch 1, in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan,
assails the order issued on March 31, 2004 by respondent Judge Jimmy H.F.
Luczon, Jr. Judge Luczon) granting the motion for execution against her and her
co-defendants on the ground that she had not posted any supersedeas bond to stay
the execution.1

Antecedents

Respondent Spouses Maximo and Heidi Lopez (Spouses Lopez) commenced an

ejectment suit against the petitioner, her son Benjamin Acbang, Jr. and his wife
Jean (Acbangs) in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Alcala, Cagayan (Civil
Case No. 64). The defendants did not file their answer. Thus, the MTC rendered
its decision on January 12, 2004 in favor of the Spouses Lopez, disposing thusly:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the

plaintiffs and as against defendants as follows:

a) The plaintiffs are the true and lawful owners of the land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. T-139163.
b) The defendants are directed to vacate immediately the land in suit which is
covered and described in TCT No. T-139163, copy of the title is marked as
Annex "A" of the complaint.

c) The defendants are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs
the amount of P5,000.00 as attorneys fees.

d) The defendants are ordered to pay the costs.2

The petitioner appealed to the RTC.

In the meantime, the Spouses Lopez moved for the execution of the decision
pending appeal in the RTC,3 alleging that the defendants had not filed a
supersedeas bond to stay the execution. The Acbangs opposed the motion for
execution pending appeal,4 insisting that the failure of the Spouses Lopez to
move for the execution in the MTC constituted a waiver of their right to the
immediate execution; and that, therefore, there was nothing to stay, rendering the
filing of the supersedeas bond unnecessary.

In his assailed order dated March 31, 2004, Judge Luczon granted the motion for
immediate execution, viz:

The Motion for Execution is hereby granted, there being no Motion to Fix
Supersedeas bond filed by [the Acbangs] as of the date of the filing of the
Motion.

The opposition of [the spouses Lopez] on the appeal taken by [the Acbangs] is
hereby denied because under the rules the loosing [sic] party may appeal the case
even if they did not post their supercedeas [sic] bond. [The spouses Lopez] then
are given 15 days from today within which to file their memorandum and [the
Acbangs] are also given similar period to file their reply on the memorandum of
[the spouses Lopez]. Afterwhich (sic) the case shall be submitted for decision
with or without the memorandum from the parties.

SO ORDERED.5

The petitioner moved for reconsideration,6 stressing that the filing of the
supersedeas bond was for the purpose of staying the execution; and that she as a
defendant would not be placed in a position to stay the execution by filing a
supersedeas bond unless she was first notified of the filing of the motion for
immediate execution.
The RTC denied the petitioners motion for reconsideration on April 26, 2004,7
viz:

The Motion for Reconsideration filed by defendant Herminia Acbang is denied,

for the reason that the Court finds no cause or reason to recall the order granting
appellees motion for execution. There was no supersedeas bond filed by [the
Acbangs], so the execution of the decision is proper.

As the office of the supersedeas bond is to stay the execution of the decision, the
same should be filed before the Motion For Writ of Execution is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.8

The petitioner then brought the petition for prohibition directly in this Court on
July 2, 2004, submitting that Judge Luczon thereby committed grave error in
granting the motion for immediate execution of the Spouses Lopez without first
fixing the supersedeas bond as prayed for by the Acbangs.

It appears that the RTC rendered its decision in Civil Case No. 6302 on July 30,
2004,9 finding that the petitioner had not received the summons, and that the
sheriffs return did not show the steps taken by the server to insure the
petitioners receipt of the summons, like the tender of the summons to her; that
the non-service of the summons on her resulted in the MTC not acquiring
jurisdiction over her; and that the MTCs decision in Civil Case No. 64 dated
January 14, 2004 was void as far as she was concerned. Thus, the RTC disposed
as follows:

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court declares that the decision
rendered by the Municipal Trial Court of Alcala, Cagayan dated January 14, 2004
is null and void, as far as defendant Herminia Acbang is concerned.

The MTC of Alcala is Ordered to reopen the case and served [sic] the summons
to Herminia Acbang and conduct the proceedings without any delay.

It is so adjudged.10

In the petition, the petitioner insists that the Spouses Lopezs motion for
execution pending appeal should be filed before she posted a supersedeas bond.
She argues that even if the MTCs decision was immediately executory, it did not
mean that a motion for execution was dispensable; and that the Spouses Lopez
waived their right to the immediate execution when they did not file a motion for
execution in the MTC.
On the other hand, the Spouses Lopez claim that the issuance of a writ of
execution was ministerial because of the defendants failure to file a supersedeas
bond prior to or at the time of the filing of their notice of appeal in the MTC.

Ruling

Section 19, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reads:

Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. If judgment

is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion
unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a
sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court and executed
in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the
time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the
appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to
time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of the Municipal
Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial
Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the
preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower
court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The
supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the
papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed.

All amounts so paid to the appellate court shall be deposited with said court or
authorized government depositary bank, and shall be held there until the final
disposition of the appeal, unless the court, by agreement of the interested parties,
or in the absence of reasonable grounds of opposition to a motion to withdraw, or
for justifiable reasons, shall decree otherwise. Should the defendant fail to make
the payments above prescribed from time to time during the pendency of the
appeal, the appellate court, upon motion of the plaintiff, and upon proof of such
failure, shall order the execution of the judgment appealed from with respect to
the restoration of possession, but such execution shall not be a bar to the appeal
taking its course until the final disposition thereof on the merits.

After the case is decided by the Regional Trial Court, any money paid to the
court by the defendant for purposes of the stay of execution shall be disposed of
in accordance with the provisions of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court. In
any case wherein it appears that the defendant has been deprived of the lawful
possession of land or building pending the appeal by virtue of the execution of
the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court, damages for such deprivation of
possession and restoration of possession and restoration of possession may be
allowed the defendant in the judgment of the Regional Trial Court disposing of
the appeal.

Here, there was no indication of the date when the petitioner filed her notice of
appeal. Her petition stated simply that she had filed a "timely notice of appeal
which was given due course without the respondents filing a motion for
execution in the Municipal Trial Court of Alcala, the court a quo."11 On the other
hand, the Spouses Lopez filed in the RTC their motion for execution pending
appeal on February 19, 2004.

The ruling in Chua v. Court of Appeals12 is instructive on the means of staying

the immediate execution of a judgment in an ejectment case, to wit:

As a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is

immediately executory, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from
the loss of possession of the property in question. To stay the immediate
execution of the said judgment while the appeal is pending the foregoing
provision requires that the following requisites must concur: (1) the defendant
perfects his appeal; (2) he files a supersedeas bond; and (3) he periodically
deposits the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. The
failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for
the outright execution of the judgment, the duty of the court in this respect being
"ministerial and imperative." Hence, if the defendant-appellant perfected the
appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond, the immediate execution of the
judgment would automatically follow. Conversely, the filing of a supersedeas
bond will not stay the execution of the judgment if the appeal is not perfected.
Necessarily then, the supersedeas bond should be filed within the period for the
perfection of the appeal.

In short, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately

executory, but the defendant, to stay its immediate execution, must: (1) perfect an
appeal; (2) file a supersede s bond; and (3) periodically deposit the rentals
becoming due during the pendency of the appeal. Although the petitioner
correctly states that the Spouses Lopez should file a motion for execution
pending appeal before the court may issue an order for the immediate execution
of the judgment, the spouses Lopez are equally correct in pointing out that they
were entitled to the immediate execution of the judgment in view of the Ac bangs
failure to comply with all of the three abovementioned requisites for staying the
immediate execution. The filing of the notice of appeal alone perfected the
appeal but did not suffice to stay the immediate execution without the filing of
the sufficient supersede s bond and the deposit of the accruing rentals.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the decision of the R TC favored the petitioner
because it declared the judgment of the MTC void as far as she was concerned
for lack of jurisdiction over her person. The RTC thus directed the MTC to cause
the service of the summons on her and to conduct further proceedings without
any delay. In effect, the supervening declaration of the nullity of the judgment
being sought to be executed against her has rendered moot and academic the
issue in this special civil action as far as she was concerned.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the petition for prohibition for being
moot and academic, without pronouncement on costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
 FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 161308 January 15, 2014

RICARDO MEDINA, JR. y ORIEL, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN, J.:

Credibility of witnesses is determined by the conformity of their testimonies to

human knowledge, observation and experience.

The Case

Ricardo Medina Jr. (Ricardo) appeals by petition for review on certiorari the
affirmance of his conviction for homicide with modification of the penalty and
civil liability by the Court of Appeals (CA) through the decision promulgated on
July 7, 2003.1 He had assailed his conviction handed down under the decision
rendered on January 31, 2001by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 266, in
Pasig City.2 His brother and co-accused, Randolf Medina (Randolf), was
acquitted by the RTC for insufficiency of evidence.

Antecedents

This case concerns the fatal stabbing of Lino Mulinyawe (Lino) between 9:00
and 10:00 oclock in the evening of April 3, 1997 at Jabson Street in Acacia,
Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. The stabbing was preceded by a fight during a
basketball game between Ross Mulinyawe, Linos son, and Ronald Medina, the
younger brother of Ricardo and Randolf. In that fight, Ronald had hit Ross with a
piece of stone. Hearing about the involvement of his brother in the fight, Randolf
rushed to the scene and sent Ronald home. Ross was brought to the hospital for
treatment. Once Lino learned that his son had sustained a head injury inflicted by
one of the Medinas, he forthwith went towards the house of the Medinas
accompanied by his drinking buddies, Jose Tapan and Abet Menes. He had a
bread knife tucked in the back, but his companions were unarmed. Along the
way, Lino encountered Randolf whom he confronted about the fight. The two of
them had a heated argument. Although Randolf tried to explain what had really
happened between Ross and Ronald, Lino lashed out at Randolf and gripped the
latters hand. Tapan almost simultaneously punched Randolf in the face. Lino,
already holding the knife in his right hand, swung the knife at Randolf who was
not hit. Randolf retreated towards the store and took two empty bottles of beer,
broke the bottles and attacked Lino with them. Arriving at the scene, Ricardo saw
what was happening, and confronted Lino. A commotion ensued between them.
Ricardo entered their house to get a kitchen knife and came out. Lino made a
thrust at Ricardo but failed to hit the latter, who then stabbed Lino on the left side
of his chest, near the region of the heart. Lino fell face down on the ground. After
that, Ricardo walked away, while Randolf threw the broken bottles at the fallen
Lino.

Linos injuries were described as follows:

Fairly nourished, fairly developed male cadaver, in rigor mortis, with postmortem
lividity at the dependent portions of the body. Conjunctive lips and nailbeds are
pale.

HEAD, CHEST AND LEFT KNEE:

(1) Lacerated wound, left parietal region, measuring 2 by 0.7 cm, 5 cm from the
midsagittal line.

(2) Abrasion, left parietal region, measuring 1.2 by 0.6 cm, 8 cm from the
anterior midline.

(3) Abrasion left maxillary region, measuring 2 by 0.3, 4.5 cm, from the anterior
midline.

(4) Stab wound, left mammary region, measuring 3.6 by 1.4 cm, 5.5 cm from the
anterior line, 12 cm deep, directed posteriorwards, downwards, and medialwards,
thru the 4th left intercostal space, piercing the pericardial sac and left ventricle.

Cause of death is Stab wound of the chest.3

On April 4, 1997, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City charged Randolf
with homicide.4 The information was amended with leave of court to include
Ricardo as a co-conspirator, alleging thusly:

On or about April 3, 1997 in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of
them mutually helping and aiding one another, with intent to kill, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, stab and employ
personal violence upon the person of Lino M. Mulinyawe, thereby inflicting
upon the latter stab wound, which directly caused his death.
Contrary to law.5

The Defense claimed that it was Lino who had attacked Ricardo with a knife, and
that Lino had accidentally stabbed himself by falling frontward and into his own
knife.

Judgment of the RTC

In its judgment rendered on January 31, 2001,6 the RTC acquitted Randolf but
convicted Ricardo of homicide. It found no evidence of conspiracy between
Randolf and Ricardo because their actions appeared to be independent and
separate from each other and did not show that they had mounted a joint attack
against Lino. It rejected Ricardos defense that the fatal stab wound of Lino had
been self-inflicted, ratiocinating that:

The fatal wound of the deceased is: stab wound, left mamary [sic] region,
measuring 3.6 by 1.4 cm, 5.5 cm from the anterior midline, 12 cm deep, directed
posteriorwards, downwards, and medialwards, thru the 4th left intercostal space,
piercing the pericardial sac and left ventricle. (See Exh. J).

Randolf Medina testified that Lino Mulinyawe attacked him with a knife held
with his right hand. The trajectory of the stab wound sustained by Lino
Mulinyawe at his left mammary region as shown by the Medico Legal Report
and Medico Legal Examination on the cadaver of the deceased (Exhs. J and L) is
incompatible and inconsistent with the defense of the accused that when
Mulinyawe was making a thrust, he fell frontward and accidentally stabbed
himself.

If the knife was held with the right hand of Lino Mulinyawe, the stab wound
would not have been from the anterior midline, 12 cm deep, directed
posteriorwards, downwards, and medialwards, thru the 4th left intercostal space,
piercing the pericardial sac and left ventricle. The trajectory of the stab wound
would have been leftward and upward the body of the deceased if he really fell
frontward upon it.7 (Emphasis supplied)

The RTC disposed and decreed:

WHEREFORE, postulates considered, this Court ACQUITS Randolf Medina for

insufficiency of evidence to prove his guilt of the charge of homicide against
him.
However, the evidence of the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt
the GUILT of the accused Ricardo Medina, Jr. y Oriel for homicide and he is
hereby sentenced with a penalty of imprisonment of Fourteen (14) years and
Eight (8) Months and One (1) day to Seventeen (17) years and Four (4) Months
of reclusion temporal in its medium period there being neither aggravating nor
mitigating circumstance (Art. 64, par. 1, Revised Penal Code).

The widow Marivi Mulinyawe is hereby awarded the amount of Thirty Thousand
Pesos (P30,000.00) as actual damages and the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as moral damages, payable by Ricardo Medina, Jr. y Oriel.

The bonds posted by both accused are hereby cancelled.

SO ORDERED.8

Decision of the CA

Ricardo appealed, but the CA affirmed his conviction with modification of the
penalty and the civil liability under the decision promulgated on July 7, 2003,9 to
wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal is hereby DISMISSED

and the decision appealed from in Criminal Case No. 112091 is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that accused-appellant Ricardo Medina,
Jr. y Oriel is hereby instead sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of
eight (8) years and one (1) day to prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and
that the award of actual damages is hereby reduced from Thirty Thousand Pesos
(P30,000.00) to

Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) is further granted as death indemnity in addition to the award of
Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.

With costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

After his motion for reconsideration was denied on November 21, 2003,10
Ricardo appealed to the Court.

Issues
Ricardo now submits the following errors for consideration, namely:
I
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ITS FACTUAL FINDING
THAT THE [PETITIONER] STABBED LINO MULINYAWE IN SPITE OF
THE FACT THAT:
1. THE PROSECUTION WITHHELD THE PRESENTATION OF THE
ACTUAL KNIVES DURING THE HEARING OF THE CASE WHICH
PRESENTATION AND BLOOD ANALYSIS ON THE TWO KNIVES COULD
HAVE PROVEN THAT LINO MULINYAWE FELL ON HIS OWN KNIFE.
2. THE MEDICO-LEGAL TESTIMONY CORROBORATED THE FACT THAT
LINO MULINYAWE FELL ON HIS OWN KNIFE.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN ADOPTING THE TRIAL
COURTS OPINION THAT THE FATAL WOUND COULD NOT HAVE
BEEN SELF-INFLICTED WHICH WAS THE DIRECT OPPOSITE OF
THE OPINION OF THE ONLY MEDICO-LEGAL EXPERT PRESENTED
WHO POSITIVELY TESTIFIED THAT THE FATAL WOUND CAN
POSSIBLY BE SELF-INFLICTED.
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN MAKING A FINDING THAT THE
[PETITIONER] STABBED THE DECEASED BUT DISREGARDED X X X
THE JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF DEFENSE OF A RELATIVE
(ART. 11, RPC) X X X
IV
THE COURT OF APPEALS, EVEN ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT
PETITIONER STABBED LINO MULINYAWE, DID NOT IMPOSE THE
PROPER SENTENCE BY DISREGARDING THE PRESENCE OF
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LACK OF AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE ATTENDANT TO THE CASE.11
Ruling of the Court

The appeal has no merit.

First of all, Ricardo argues that his stabbing and inflicting of the fatal wound on
Lino were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The argument of Ricardo is a mere reiteration of his submissions that the CA had
already exhaustively considered and passed upon. He has not added anything of
substance or weight to persuasively show that the CA had erred in affirming the
RTC.

Time and again, this Court has deferred to the trial courts factual findings and
evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, especially when affirmed by the CA, in
the absence of any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued
cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such
findings and evaluation.12 This is because the trial courts determination
proceeds from its first-hand opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses, their conduct and attitude under grilling examination, thereby placing
the trial court in the unique position to assess the witnesses credibility and to
appreciate their truthfulness, honesty and candor.13 But here Ricardo has not
projected any strong and compelling reasons to sway the Court into rejecting or
revising such factual findings and evaluation in his favor.

Secondly, Ricardo contends that the State did not present as evidence in court the
two knives wielded by him and Lino despite repeated demands for their
presentation; that had the knives been presented, it could have been demonstrated
to the trial court that the smaller knife used by Lino had more blood stains than
the knife held by him and would fit the size of the mortal wound; that his
assertion that Lino had stabbed himself when he stumbled and lost his balance
while swinging his knife at Randolf would have been thereby validated; and that
in his testimony, Dr. Emmanuel Aranas of the PNP Crime Laboratory Service,
Southern Police District, did not rule out the possibility that the wounds sustained
by Lino were self-inflicted.

The contention deserves no serious consideration.

To start with, the following findings of the CA indicate that the evidence
supporting the conviction for homicide was already overwhelming even without
the presentation of the knife held by the victim, to wit:

Reviewing the records, We find that appellants guilt as the perpetrator of the
unlawful killing of the victim Lino Mulinyawe had been adequately proven by
prosecution evidence, both testimonial and physical. The credible and categorical
testimonies of two (2) eyewitnesses during the entire incident on the night of
April 3, 1997, Jeffrey and Sherwin, positively point to appellant as the one (1)
who delivered the single fatal stabbing blow upon the victim while the latter was
trying to counter the assault of appellants brother, co-accused Randolf who was
then holding a broken bottle.1wphi1 The lone knife thrust was directed at the
heart of the victim, the wound penetrating said vital organ up to 12 centimeters
deep, the direction, trajectory and depth of the stab wound clearly showing the
intent to kill him. The medico-legal findings of Dr. Aranas sufficiently
corroborate the account of said eyewitnesses that the victim was attacked
frontally and the fatal stab wound caused by a single-bladed kitchen knife such as
the one (1) identified in court, previously identified by the witness but only the
photographs thereof were formally offered in evidence by the prosecution.

The totality of prosecution evidence more than satisfactorily proves the

commission of the offense and appellants authorship thereof. Contrary to
appellants contention, the non-presentation of blood samples from the victim
and the accused as well as the instrument which accused used in perpetrating his
felonious acts do not negate criminal liability it is enough for the prosecution to
establish by the required quantum of proof that a crime was committed and the
accused was the author thereof. The presentation of the weapon is not a
prerequisite for conviction. Such presentation and identification of the weapon
used are not indispensable to prove the guilt of the accused much more so where
the perpetrator has been positively identified by a credible witness. Appellants
insistence, therefore, that the presentation of the two (2) knives would prove his
innocence is futile, irrelevant and immaterial, in the face of positive identification
by two unbiased and credible eyewitnesses. Positive identification where
categorical and consistent and without any showing of ill-motive on the part of
the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter prevails over a denial. Denial being
negative evidence which is self-serving in nature, cannot prevail over the positive
identification of prosecution witnesses. More so in this case where the defense of
denial is not corroborated by disinterested and credible witnesses: the mother of
the accused whose presence in the crime scene was not sufficiently established
and Edgar Erro whose testimony is found to be doubtful and not without bias.14

The non-identification and non-presentation of the weapon actually used in the

killing did not diminish the merit of the conviction primarily because other
competent evidence and the testimonies of witnesses had directly and positively
identified and incriminated Ricardo as the assailant of Lino.15 Hence, the
establishment beyond reasonable doubt of Ricardos guilt for the homicide did
not require the production of the weapon used in the killing as evidence in court,
for in arriving at its findings on the culpability of Ricardo the RTC, like other
trial courts, clearly looked at, considered and appreciated the entirety of the
record and the evidence. For sure, the weapon actually used was not
indispensable considering that the finding of guilt was based on other evidence
proving his commission of the crime.16
In addition, the witnesses incriminating Ricardo were not only credible but were
not shown to have harbored any ill-motive towards him. They were surely
entitled to full faith and credit for those reasons, and both the RTC and the CA
did well in according such credence to them. Their positive identification of him
as the assailant prevailed over his mere denial, because such denial, being
negative and self-serving evidence, was undeserving of weight by virtue of its
lack of substantiation by clear and convincing proof.17 Hence, his denial had no
greater evidentiary value than the affirmative testimonies of the credible
witnesses presented against him.18

And, thirdly, Ricardos attribution of serious error to the CA for not appreciating
the justifying circumstance of defense of a relative in his favor was bereft of any
support from the records.

In order that defense of a relative is to be appreciated in favor of Ricardo, the

following requisites must concur, namely: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim;
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the
aggression; and (3) in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that
the person making the defense took no part in the provocation.19 Like in self-
defense, it is the accused who carries the burden to prove convincingly the
attendance and concurrence of these requisites because his invocation of this
defense amounts to an admission of having inflicted the fatal injury on the
victim.

In invoking defense of a relative, Ricardo states that his immediate impulse upon
seeing Randolf being attacked by Lino with a knife was to get his own weapon
and to aid in the defense of Randolf. But that theory was inconsistent with his
declaration at the trial that Linos fatal wound had been self-inflicted, as it
presupposes direct responsibility for inflicting the mortal wound. Thus, his
defense was unworthy of belief due to its incongruity with human experience.

Verily, the issue of credibility, when it is decisive of the guilt or innocence of the
accused, is determined by the conformity of the conflicting claims and
recollections of the witnesses to common experience and to the observation of
mankind as probable under the circumstances. It has been appropriately
emphasized that "[w]e have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its
conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is
repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous and is outside of judicial
cognizance."20
In fine, Ricardo has not convinced the Court in this appeal that the RTC and the
CA overlooked, or misappreciated, or misread some fact or circumstance of
weight and consequence that would have changed the outcome of the case in his
favor.

The Court needs to raise the civil indemnity from PS0,000.00 to P75,000.00 in
order to conform to the current judicial policy on the matter.21The other awards
of civil liability are sustained because of the absence of any challenge against
them.

WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review for its lack of merit;
AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on July 7, 2003 in all respects, subject to the
MODIFICATION that the civil indemnity is increased to P75,000.00; and
ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR: