THIRDDIVISIO

[A.C.No.5955.September8,2009.]

JOHN CHRISTEN S. HEGNA, complainant, vs. ATTY. GOERING G.C.

PADERANGA,respondent.

DECISION

PERALTA,J :

BeforethisCourt isaletter-complaint1 datedJune3,2002,3ledbycomplainant

JohnChristenS.Hegnawiththe O7ce of the Bar Con3dant (OBC) against respondent
Atty.GoeringG.C.Paderangafordeliberatelyfalsifyingdocuments,whichcauseddelay
intheexecutionofthedecisionrenderedbytheMunicipalTrialCourtsinCities(MTCC),
Branch8,CebuCity,inCivilCaseNo.R-45146,entitled JohnHegnav.Mr.& Mrs.Eliseo Panaguinip.
Herein complainant was the lessee of a portion of Lot No. 5529, situated at Barangay Quiot
Pardo, Cebu City, which was owned by the heirs of Sabina Baclayon. The heirs of Baclayon,
through their representative Gema Sabandija, entered into a contract of lease with complainant for
a period of ten (10) years, commencing from
June26,1994,witharentalofP3,000.00peryear,orP250.00permonth.
OnSeptember 26,2001,complainant 3led acomplaint for forcibleentryagainst therein
defendants docketed as Civil Case No. R-45146, entitled John Hegna v. Mr. & Mrs. Eliseo
Panaguinip, with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 8 of CebuCity.Insaid
complaint,he alleged that inabout the second week of March1996, therein defendants entered the
vacant portion of the leased premises by means of force,intimidation,threat,strategy or stealth;
destroyed the barbed wire enclosing the leased premises of complainant, then built a shop on the
said premises without complainant's consent.He averred that despite his demands upon therein
defendants to vacate the premises and demolish the structure built thereon, the latter failed and
refusedtocomply.2
When therein defendants failed to 3le their Answer, complainant 3led a motion
thatjudgmentberenderedindefault.
On December 21, 2001, the MTCC rendered a Decision in favor of complainant, ordering
therein defendants to vacate the leased premises and to pay complainant compensatory damages
for illegaloccupationand use of the subject property,as well as attorney's fees and costs of suit. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE,thisCourtdirectsjudgmentagainstDefendantsMR.& MRS.
ELISEO PANAGUINIP and directsthem tovacateLotNo.5529 overtheportion in an area
of 1,596 square meters thereof, as leased to herein Plaintiff, situated at Barangay Quiot
Pardo, Cebu City, and to pay Plaintiff the sum of PESOS: ONE THOUSAND (P1,000)
per month from the second week of March 1996 until the
presentdatebywayofcompensatorydamagesfortheillegaloccupationanduse
ofthecontestedproperty,subjectto12%annuallegalinterestuntilfullypaid,and

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 thereafterpay thesameamountpermonth until they vacatethesubjectproperty hereof, and
to further pay Plaintiff the sum of P5,000.00 by way of Attorney's
Fees,andthecostsofthissuit.
SOORDERED.3

On February 8, 2002, the MTCC granted the Motion for Execution of Judgment
filedbycomplainant,andissuedaWritofExecutiononFebruary18,2002.
OnFebruary21,2002,SheriffEdilbertoSuarinoftheMTCC,Branch8ofCebuCity
leviedoncertainpersonalpropertiesofthereindefendants.4
OnMarch1,2002,thereindefendantsrequestedthecomplainanttomoveforthe dismissal of the
complaint against them so as to prevent the issuance of the writ of execution thereon. While therein
defendants wanted to amicably settle the case,
however,theyfailedtomentiontheproposedsettlementamountstatedinthedecision
datedDecember21,2001.
Subsequently, respondent Atty. Goering G.C. Paderanga 3led an A7davit of Third-
PartyClaim5 dated March5,2002 beforeSheriffSuarin,thesheriffexecuting the
judgmentinthesaidcivilcase.Inthesaida7davit,respondentclaimedthathewasthe owner of Lot No.
3653-D-1 and a FUSO (Canter series) vehicle, which he bought from therein defendants on
November 27, 2001,6 and December 12, 2001,7 respectively,
bothofwhichcouldbeerroneouslyleviedbyawritofexecutionissuedinthecivilcase.
OnApril3,2002,SheriffSuarintriedtolevythereindefendants'parceloflandand
motorvehicle,butfailedtodosobecauseofthethird-partyclaim3ledbyrespondent.8
Subsequently, on April 24, 2002, respondent 3led a Complaint 9 for Annulment of
Judgmentwithprayerfortheissuanceofaninjunctionandtemporaryrestrainingorder
(TRO)withdamagesagainstcomplainantbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch
13ofCebuCity,docketedasCaseNo.CEB-27614,entitled Mr.EliseoPanaguinip,Mrs.
Ma.TeresaPanaguinip and Goering G.C.Paderangav.JohnHegna,MilaHegna,Judge
EdgemeloC.RosalesandEdilbertoR.Suarin.
InanOrder10 datedMay13,2002,theRTCissuedawritofpreliminaryinjunction
enjoiningtheMTCCtodesistfromfurtherproceedingwiththecivilcase,andtheSheriff to desist from
conducting a public auction of the levied properties of therein
defendants.TheRTCsubsequentlydismissedrespondent'scomplaintforannulmentof
judgmentinitsDecision11 datedJune29,2006.
In a letter dated June 3, 2002, 3led with the OBC, complainant alleged that he was 3ling a
complaint against respondent for "deliberately falsifying documents, causing delay and a possible
denial of justice to be served inCivil Case No.R-45146".
Heallegedthatafterthedecisioninthesaidcivilcasewasrendered,thereindefendants called him on the
telephone, requesting the stay of the execution of judgment, as the
latterwouldbesettlingtheiraccountswithintendays,buttheyfailedtocomply.
OnMarch14,2003,complainant 3led acriminal complaint12 for falsi3cationof public
documents against respondent; false testimony and perjury against therein defendants; and
falsi3cationunder paragraph6,Article171 oftheRevised PenalCode against Atty. Elena Marie
Madarang, notary public, before the O7ce of the City ProsecutorofCebuCity.Anent thecomplaint
against respondent,complainant averred that thethird-partyclaim was fullof irregularities,to wit:(a)
theDeed of AbsoluteSale involving Lot No. 3653-D-1, covered by TCT No. T-11127, dated
November 27, 2001, had no record of transfer inthe Register of Deeds of CebuCity; (b) the
registrationof themotorvehicleallegedlyownedbyrespondentbyvirtueoftheDeedofAbsoluteSale

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 dated December 21,2001 did not reKect any change of ownership from May 4,2001; (c)thetwo
DeedsofAbsoluteSaledated November27,2001 and December 21,2001
showedthatbothwerenotarizedunderSeriesof2000ofthenotarypublic;(d)Notarial Register No. 177
on page 37, Book II showed erasures and tampering done by
substitutingtheintendedentryofJointA7davitofTwoDisinterestedPersontoaDeed of Absolute Sale
under the names of the spouses Eliseo and Ma. Teresa Panaguinip, therein defendants, representing
the sale of Lot No. 3653-D-1 under TCT No. 11127; and Notarial Register No. 188 on Page 39,
Book II of Atty. Madarang also had tampering and erasures,as the entry of A7davit of Loss was
substituted witha Deed ofAbsoluteSaleunderthenameofMa.TeresaPanaguinip representing
thesaleofthe FUSO (Canter series); and (e)theCommunityTaxCerti3catenumber appearing inboth
DeedsofAbsoluteSalewasactuallyissuedtoanotherperson,nottothereindefendant
Ma.TeresaPanaguinip.
On April 28, 2003, the O7ce of the City Prosecutor of Cebu City dismissed the
criminalcomplaint for falsi3cationofpublicdocuments against respondent for lack of prima facie
evidence of guilt, as the allegations therein were similar to the instant administrativecomplaint.13
In his Comment14 dated April 29, 2003 on the administrative complaint 3led against him,
respondent argued that he did not falsify any document and maintained that he had already
satisfactorily explained the irregularities before the O7ce of the
CityProsecutor.Headdedthatthegenuinenessanddueexecutionofthedeedsofsale had not been
affected by the fact that he failed to register the same. Also, he alleged that the MTCC Decision
dated December 21, 2001 was unjust and void due to lack of
jurisdiction,andforbeingbasedonspuriousclaims.
In a Resolution15 dated July 9, 2003, the Court referred the administrative complaint to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation/decisionwithinninety(90)daysfromreceiptoftherecord.
On November 21, 2003, the parties appeared in a mandatory preliminary conference and,
upon termination thereof, were ordered to submit their respective veri3ed position papers within
ten (10) days, after which the case would be deemed submitted for resolution. 16 Complainant and
respondent submitted their position papersonDecember11,2003,17 andDecember2,2003,18
respectively.
OnJune1,2005,theInvestigatingCommissioneroftheIBPsubmittedhisReport
andRecommendation,whichcontainedthefollowingobservations:
III. FINDINGS:

Based on the resolution of the City Prosecutor's o7ce in Cebu City, the complaint
against thePanaguinip spouses and Attys. Paderanga and Madarang (thenotary public)
wasdismissedforlackofprimafacieof guilt.Such resolution is accorded great weight but
certainly not conclusive considering the administrativenatureof thisinstantcomplaint.In
criminal prosecutions,a prima facie evidence is necessary but in this instant case,
substantial evidence is all that[is]necessarytosupportaguiltyverdict.
According to the Respondent, it was perfectly normal for him to obtain properties
without registering the same under his own name. In his Position
Paper,heevencitedseveralothertransactionswherehemerely possessedDeeds of Sale but
not Certi3cation of Registration or Transfer Certi3cates of Title. He alleged that for
ESTATE PLANNING purposes, he intentionally left these

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 properties in the name of the previous owner. The alleged discrepancies in the
notarization were fully explained as well. The notary public explained that the
erasuresinherNotarialRegisterweremadetocorrectmistakessothatentrieswill speak the
truth. These corrections include the entries under entry number 177 to indicate the
correct entry which was the Deed of Sale executed [by] the spouses Panaguinip. The
original entry, A7davit of Two Disinterested Persons, was
actuallynotarizedbutwaslatercancelledattherequestofthesamea7ants.The full
explanation of these a7ants, very doubtful and highly suspect, was
neverthelesstakenintoconsiderationbytheProsecutorforreasonsknownonlyto him. The
Respondents also managed to convince the Cebu Prosecutor that the
discrepancyintheResidenceCertificateswasduetohumanerror!
Not necessarily disagreeing with the 3ndings of the City Prosecutor of Cebu City,
the Resolution dismissing the case for falsi3cation is not entirely
convincing.Therewerecertainlyevidentiarymatterswhichcouldhavebeenbetter addressed
by a judge, namely, the a7davit of the secretary of the notary public, theexplanation in
theincorrectentriesin notarialregister,thea7davitof thetwo (2) witnesses who sought the
cancellation of their original a7davit, and the
explanationofPaderangahimselfregardingthedifferenceinthedates.
Complainant is a layman who 3led his own Position Paper unaided by counsel
while Respondent is a lawyer. Nevertheless, Complainant managed to present one (1)
piece of evidence not squarely addressed by Respondent Paderanga: the letter
handwritten by Respondent's clients, written in Cebuano,
askingtheComplainantformercy andforgivenessinrelationtotheforcibleentry
case.SuchletterwasnolongernecessaryifindeedtherewasaGENUINEtransfer of
ownership of properties owned by the Panaguinip spouses to their lawyer, Respondent
Paderanga. This letter, attached to theComplaint, was neverrefuted in any way by
Respondent Paderanga who may have skirted the issue by inadvertence or by design.
The letter dated March 1, 2002 indicates that the Panaguinip spouses still believe and
assert ownership over these properties despite the existence of a Deed of Sale allegedly
dated March 5, 2002. Complainant also went further by attaching an A7davit by a Third
Person who stated thatthePanaguinip spousesstill assertownership overtheparcel of land
andvehicle.
Moreover, Complainant alleged that Respondent invited him consecutive
timesaftertheissuanceofthewritofexecutioninthelowercourt;the3rstwasat
theMajesticRestaurant,thesecond wasatClub Cebu atWaterfrontHotel.There was an
offerto settlethejudgment award of P100,000. During the3rst meeting, the offer was
P3,000, on the second meeting, this time with the Panaguinip spouses, the offer was
P10,000. When Complainant refused to settle with Respondent, he received a copy of
the A7davit of Third-Party Claim a few days later.
The parties did not stipulate this particular issue; however, this Commissioner
feels that for the 3nal disposition of this case, it is worthy to
mentionArticle1491oftheCivilCode.Itspecificallystatesthat:
Art. 1491. The following persons cannot acquire by purchase,
evenatpublicorjudicialauction,eitherinpersonorthroughthemediation ofanother:
xxxxxxxxx
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 and inferior courts, and other o7cers and employees connected with the
administration of justice, the property and rights in litigations or levied upon
execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise
their respective functions; this prohibition includes the act of acquiring by
assignment and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property
andrightswhichmay betheobjectof any litigationinwhich they
maytakepartbyvirtueoftheirprofession.
xxxxxxxxx

Thisisa classiccasewherea lawyeracquiredtheinterestsof hisclientin

certainpropertiessubjectforexecution.Regardlessofthecourt'sapparentlackof jurisdiction,
Respondent Paderanga acquired the two (2) matters subject for execution in the forcible
entry case in violation of [the] Canon of Legal Ethics. A
thingissaidtobeinlitigationnotonly if thereissomecontestorlitigationoverit in court, but
also the moment that becomes subject to the judicial action of the judge....
In all likelihood, although Complainant failed to get a favorableresolution from
the City Prosecutor's o7ce in Cebu City, the A7davit of Third Party Claim
wassimulatedtodefeattherightsofComplainantherein.Itisimmaterialthatthe
decisionofthelowercourtgrantingajudgmentawardwassubsequentlyreversed
ornullified.ItisimmaterialthattheCityProsecutordidnotfinda primafaciecase of
falsi3cation. The fact remains that there was a MULTITUDE of irregularities
surroundingtheexecution of theA7davitand,coupledwith thelettersentby the Panaguinip
spouses left unrebutted by Respondent Paderanga, there is
substantialevidencethattheA7davitofThirdPartyClaimwaspurposely3ledto
thwarttheenforcementofthedecisionintheforcibleentrycase.
It is worthy to notethat theproceedings beforetheprosecutor's o7cedid not take
into consideration the handwritten letter from the Panaguinip spouses.
Forwhateverreason,Complainantdidnotpresentsuch letter,which if hedid,the
prosecutormaycomeupwithadifferentresolution.
IV. RECOMMENDATION

While Complainant cannot fully prove the existence offalsity in the execution of
the A7davit of Third Party Claim, this Commissioner is convinced thattherewasindeedan
anomaly which constitutesa violation of theCanonsof ProfessionalResponsibility.
A lawyer ought to have known that he cannot acquire the property of his
clientwhichisinlitigation....Respondentnecessitatesaheavypenaltysincethe
circumstances surrounding the transfer of ownership of properties tend to indicate an
anomalous transfer aimed to subvert the proper administration of justice. The numerous
discrepancies in the transfer document, some dismissed asclerical errorsand
otherexplained by incredulousstoriesby way of a7davits, compounded by the letter left
uncontested by Respondent Paderanga, inevitably lead a rational person to conclude that
Paderanga may not have acquired the properties prior to the judicial action of execution.
Even if the City Prosecutor found no prima faciecase of falsi3cation, this Commissioner
3nds substantial evidence to support a conclusion that Respondent Paderanga committed
an ethical violation and should bemeted thepenalty of suspension of 3ve(5) years
fromthepracticeoflaw.19
In a Resolution dated December 17, 2005, the IBP Board of Governors adopted

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 and approved,withmodi3cation,the Report and Recommendationof the Investigating
Commissioner,viz.:
...3nding therecommendation fully supported by theevidenceon record and the
applicable laws and rules, and considering that a lawyer ought to know
thathecannotacquirethepropertyofhisclientwhichisinlitigation,Atty.Goering Paderanga
is herebySUSPENDED from the practice of law for one (1) year.20

OnMarch23,2006,respondent3ledwiththeCourtaMotionforReconsideration of the
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors and, on August 18, 2006, a
SupplementalMotionforReconsideration.
In a Resolution dated August 23, 2006, the Court referred the motion for
reconsiderationtotheIBP.
On December 11, 2008, the IBP issued a Resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration,andaffirmeditsResolutiondatedDecember17,2005.
Under Section27 of Rule13821 oftheRules ofCourt,amember oftheBar may bedisbarred
orsuspended onanyofthefollowing grounds:(1)deceit; (2)malpractice or other gross misconduct in
o7ce; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5)
violation of the lawyer's oath; (6) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and
(7) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party without authority. In the present case, the Court
3nds respondent administrativelyliableforengagingindishonestanddeceitfulconduct.
Althoughrespondent denied having acted as counselfor thereindefendants,the Spouses
Panaguinip,inthe forcible entry case 3led by complainant,his involvement in the said case was still
highly suspect. After the writ of execution had been issued on February 18, 2002, he went with
defendants-spouses to amicably settle with complainant on two separate occasions, ostensibly to
protect his own interests. Complainant claimed that during those two meetings,respondent did not
disclose his ownership over the properties in question, leading the former to believe that respondent
was, in fact, the counsel for defendants-spouses. He averred that
respondentanddefendantspousesinitiallyofferedasettlementofP3,000.00,whichhe refused as he had
already spent P10,000.00 on court expenses. On their second
meeting,theofferhadbeenraisedtoP25,000.00,whichagaincomplainantdeclined,as the latter had,at
that time,spent P25,000.00.Complainant maintained that it was only after said meetings had
transpired that he received the a7davit of a third-party claim executed by respondent, stating that
the latter was the owner of the property and motor vehicle.On the other hand, respondent claimed
that the meetings took place in April2002,afterhehadfiledathird-partyclaim.
Had respondent been the rightful owner of a parcel of land and motor vehicle that were still
registered in the name of defendants-spouses, he should have immediatelydisclosed suchfact
immediatelyand 3led athird-partyclaim,as timewas of the essence.Moreover,intheir letter dated
March1,2002,defendants-spouses did not mention any transfer of ownership of the said properties
to respondent, as the former still believed that they owned the same. The continued possession and
ownership bydefendants-spouseswasalsoattested tobyacertainBrigidaLines,who
executedanAffidavit22 infavorofcomplainant.
Based on the foregoing, the Court is more inclined to believe that when complainant and
defendants-spouses failed to reach an agreement, respondent came forward as a third-party
claimant to prevent the levy and execution of said properties.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 He, therefore, violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,23 which provides that
a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Under this rule,
conduct has been construed not to pertain exclusively to the performance of a lawyer's professional
duties.24 In previous cases,25 the Court has held that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for
misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in
moral character, honesty,probityandgooddemeanor;orunworthytocontinueasano7cerofthecourt.

Notably,inthefalsi3cationcaseearlier3led,complainantwasabletociteseveral irregularities in
the documents evidencing the deeds of sale in question: the non- registration by respondent of the
sale transactions; a Community Tax Certi3cate number appearing on said deeds which was
different from that issued to defendant Ma. Teresa Panaguinip; and the erasures of the entries
pertaining to said deeds from theNotarialRegister.
Of these irregularities, only one can directly be attributable to respondent — his non-
registration of the sale transaction. He argues that the sales were valid despite non-registration, and
maintained that it was perfectly normal and regular for a lawyer like him to choose not to register
and cause the transfer of title of the land and the FUSO jeepney after the execution of the Deeds of
Sale, so the transactions would not appear in the records of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, the
City Assessor or the Register of Deeds, on the Land Registration O7ce.He added that he had also
bought four lots, which had not yet been transferred to his name, for estate planning or speculation
purposes. He claimed that he found it legally wise not to immediately registerafterbuying
sothathewouldnotpayfortheexpensesofthesaleandtransfer twice, once he decided to sell; or place
them in his children's name, and avoid paying estateandinheritancetaxesuponhisdeath.26
While the act of registration of a document is not necessary in order to give it legal effect
as between the parties, requirements for the recording of the instruments are designed to prevent
frauds and to permit and require the public to act with the presumption that a recorded instrument
exists and is genuine.27 However, while the RTC was correct in holding that said omission on
respondent's part may not be considered falsi3cation,he had shownanintent to defraud the
government,whichhad the right to collect revenue from him,as well as from other persons who may
have an interestinsaidproperties.
Respondent violated the Lawyer's Oath,whichmandates that he should support the
Constitution, obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein,
and do no falsehood or not consent to the doing of any in court. Further, he has also failed to live
up to the standard set by law that he should refrain from counseling or abetting activities aimed at
de3ance of the law or at lessening con3denceinthelegalsystem.28 Respondent'sact ofnon-
registrationofthedeedsof saleto avoid paying taxmaynot beillegalper se; but,as aservant of
thelaw,alawyer shouldmakehimselfanexemplarforotherstoemulate.Theresponsibilitiesofalawyer
are greater than those of a private citizen. He is looked up to in the community.29
Respondent must have forgotten that a lawyer must refrain from committing acts
whichgiveevenasemblanceofimproprietytotheprofession.
In cases wherein lawyers have similarly engaged in deceitful and dishonest conduct, the
Court has imposed the penalty of suspension from the practice of law
rangingfromsix(6)monthstoone(1)year.
In Spouses Donato v. Asuncion, Sr., 30 where therein respondent lawyer 3led a

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 complaint for reformation of instrument to obtain 3nancial gain, and prepared a contract whichdid
not express the true intentionof the parties,he was found guilty of
grossmisconductandsuspendedfromthepracticeoflawforsix(6)months.
In Yap-Paras v. Paras, 31 where therein respondent lawyer applied for free patents over
lands owned by another person and not in the former's physical possession,hewas found
guiltyofcommitting afalsehood inviolationoftheLawyer's Oathand the Code of Professional
Responsibility and suspended from the practice of
lawforone(1)year,withawarningthatthecommissionofthesameorsimilaroffense
inthefuturewouldresultintheimpositionofamoreseverepenalty.
In the present case, the Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of
Governors recommended apenaltyofsuspensionto beimposed uponrespondent for
3ve(5)yearsand one(1)year,respectively.TheCourt,however,believesthat apenalty of one (1) year is
more commensurate to respondent's deceitful and dishonest conduct.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Goering G.C. Paderanga is found guilty of engaging
indishonest and deceitfulconduct,and isSUSPENDED from thepracticeof
lawforone(1)year,withasternwarningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaroffense
inthefuturewouldresultintheimpositionofamoreseverepenalty.
Let acopy of this Decisionbe entered into respondent's record as amember of theBar,and
noticeofthesamebeserved ontheIntegrated Bar ofthePhilippines,and
ontheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorforcirculationtoallcourtsinthecountry.
ThisDecisionshallbeimmediatelyexecutory. SO
ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago,Chico-Nazario,Velasco,Jr.andNachura,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo,Vol.I,pp.3-5.
2. CitedintheAmendedComplaintdatedApril24,2002,filedbydefendantsandherein
respondentinCaseNo.CEB-27614,entitledMr.EliseoPanaguinip,Mrs.Ma.Teresa
PanaguinipandGoeringG.C.Paderangav.JohnHegna,MilaHegna,JudgeEdgemeloC.
RosalesandEdilbertoR.Suarin,id.at107-137.
3. Id.at6-7.
4. Id.at389.
5. Id.at10-11.
6. DeedofAbsoluteSaledatedNovember27,2001, rollo,Vol.I,p.12.
7. DeedofAbsoluteSaledatedDecember12,2001,id.at14.
8. DecisionoftheRTCdatedJune29,2006inCivilCaseNo.CEB-27614,entitledSpouses
PanaguinipandPaderangav.Hegna,etal.;rollo,Vol.II,pp.78-82.
9. Rollo,Vol.I,pp.107-137.
10. Id.at334-338.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 11. Rollo,Vol.II,pp.78-82.
12. Id.at339-342.
13. Id.at343-352.
14. Id.at76-96.
15. Id.at144.
16. Id.at152.
17. Id.at214-216.
18. Id.at153-176.
19. Rollo,Vol.I,pp.247-252.(Citationsomitted.)
20. Id.at243.
21. AsamendedbySCResolutionsdatedMay20,1968andFebruary13,1992.
22. Rollo,p.217.
23. PromulgatedbytheSupremeCourtonJune21,1988.
24. Ronquillo,etal.v.Cezar,A.C.No.6288,June16,2006,491SCRA1.
25. Id.;Laov.Medel,A.C.No.5916,July1,2003,405SCRA227,232; Ongv.Unto,A.C.No.
2417,February5,2002,376SCRA152,160;Calubv.Suller,A.C.No.1474,January28,
2000,323SCRA556;Naragv.Narag,A.C.No.3405,June29,1998,291SCRA451;
Nakpilv.Valdes,A.C.No.2040,March4,1998,286SCRA758.
26. Counter-AffidavitdatedApril11,2003,rollo,pp.97-99.
27. Maglucot-Aw,etal.v.Maglucot,etal.,G.R.No.132518,March28,2000,329SCRA78.
28. CodeofProfessionalResponsibility,Canon1,Rule1.02.

29. IreneSantos-Tanv.Atty.RomeoR.Robiso,A.C.No.6383,March31,2009.
30. A.C.No.4914,March3,2004,424SCRA199.
31. A.C.No.4947,February14,2005,451SCRA194.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com