Cornes appealed to this Commission.

the First
Division reversed and set aside the decision of the
G.R. No. 172278. March 29, 2007.*
trial court and ruled in favor of protestee having
LYDIA R. PAGADUAN, petitioner, vs.
obtained a total number six thousand four
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ARTURO Y.
hundred seventy three (6,473) votes as against
CUSTODIO and TEODORICO B. CORNES, JR., the six thousand one hundred thirty two (6,132)
respondents. votes of protestant. Vice-Mayor Cornes, Jr., was
( Landmark Case ) therefore installed as mayor pursuant to Section
44 of the Local Government Code.”
FACTS :
Protestant [petitioner] and protestee Petitioner then moved for reconsideration
[respondent Custodio] were candidates for and the case was referred to the COMELEC En
Municipal Mayor of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija. The Banc. The latter body then promulgated a
Municipal Board of Canvassers of Zaragoza Resolution denying petitionerÊs motion for
proclaimed Arturo Custodio as winner having reconsideration. Aggrieved by the foregoing
obtained a total number of six thousand five Resolutions of the COMELEC First Division and
hundred ninety five (6,595) votes as against the the COMELEC En Banc, petitioner comes before
six thousand one hundred forty (6,140) votes of this Court via a Petition for Certiorari.
Lydia Pagaduan or with a margin of four hundred ISSUE :
fifty five (455) votes.
whether or not it was proper for the
COMELEC First Division and the COMELEC En
On 21 May 2004, Pagaduan filed an
Banc to declare Vice-Mayor elect Teodorico B.
election protest case before the Regional Trial
Cornes, Jr. as Mayor of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija,
Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 24. In her
pursuant to Section 44 of the Local Government
petition, Pagaduan contests the results of
Code.
elections in the following twenty-three (23)
precincts: x x x alleging fraud, irregularities and RULING : YES. PetitionerÊs asseverations are
misappreciation in the counting of votes by the unmeritorious. The settled principle is that
Board of Election Inspectors (BEI's). “unless the COMELEC is shown to have
committed grave abuse of discretion, its decision
Protestee, in his Answer, denied the above
will not be interfered with by this Court.”
allegations of the protestant and move for the
dismissal of the protest case. Pending decision by In this case, petitioner miserably failed to present
the court a quo, protestee died. Protestee's satisfactory proof that the COMELEC First
counsel moved for the dismissal of the protest Division or the COMELEC En Banc acted in a
case claiming that the death of the protestee capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic
renders this case moot and academic. This motion manner which would warrant the issuance of a
was denied by the court ruling that Teodorico B. writ of certiorari.
Cornes (Cornes for brevity), the vice-mayor elect,
First of all, it is inaccurate to say that the
may intervene. Cornes filed his Answer in
COMELEC did not take into consideration the
Intervention. The court ordered the Revision of
finding of the trial court that some of the ballot
the ballots.
boxes had missing padlocks and/or broken or
On 4 April 2005, the court a quo, rendered destroyed seals. It is presumed that official duty
a decision declaring and proclaiming protestant has been regularly performed,8 and that all the
Lydia R. Pagaduan as the duly elected Municipal matters within an issue raised in a case were laid
Mayor of Zaragoza, Nueva Ecija Unsatisfied, before the court and passed upon by it. In this
case, there is no sufficient evidence to overturn Sale. Armed with a Special Power of Attorney
said presumptions. from Anita, Peregrina went to the house of their
brother, Dr. Antonio Lozada (Dr. Lozada), Dr.
The COMELEC First Division and the
Lozada agreed to advance the purchase price of
COMELEC En Banc likewise cannot be said to
US$367,000 or P10,000,000 for Antonio, his
have committed grave abuse of discretion in
nephew. The Deed of Sale was later notarized and
ruling that the Vice-Mayor elect, Teodorico B.
authenticated at the Philippine Consul’s Office
Cornes, Jr., succeeded to the office of the
and new TCTs were issued in the name of Antonio
Municipal Mayor upon the death of the duly
Lozada.
elected mayor. The COMELEC was merely
applying the provisions of Section 44 of the Local
Government Code, to wit:
Pending registration of the deed, petitioner
“SECTION 44. Permanent Vacancies in the Offices Marissa R. Unchuan caused the annotation of an
of the Governor, Vice Governor, Mayor, and Vice- adverse claim on the lots. Marissa claimed that
Mayor.· Anita donated an undivided share in the lots to
her under an unregistered Deed of
a) If a permanent vacancy occurs in the office of
DonationAntonio and Anita brought a case against
the governor or mayor, the vice-governor or vice-
Marissa for quieting of title with application for
mayor concerned shall become the governor or
preliminary injunction and restraining order.
mayor. If a permanent vacancy occurs in the
Marissa filed an action to declare the Deed of
offices of the governor, vice-governor, mayor, or
Sale void and to cancel the new TCTs.
vice-mayor, the highest ranking sang-gunian
member or, in case of his permanent inability, the
At the trial, respondents presented a
second highest ranking sanggunian member, shall
notarized and duly authenticated sworn
become the governor, vice-governor, mayor or
statement, and a videotape where Anita denied
vice-mayor, as the case may be. Subsequent
having donated land in favor of Marissa. In a
vacancies in the said office shall be filled
Decision dated June 9, 1997, RTC Judge
automatically by the other sanggunian members
Leonardo B. Cañares disposed of the consolidated
according to their ranking as defined herein.” IN
cases, ruling among others that:
VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
1. Plaintiff Antonio J.P. Lozada is declared the
Contributor : Dem – Roger C San Pedro
absolute owner of the properties in question;
MARISSA R. UNCHUAN, petitioner, vs. 2. Defendant Marissa R. Unchuan is ordered to
ANTONIO J.P. LOZADA, ANITA LOZADA and pay Antonio J.P. Lozada and Anita Lozada
THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF CEBU CITY, damages.
respondents.
On motion for reconsideration by
G.R. No. 172671. April 16, 2009.
petitioner, the RTC issued an Order dated April 5,
( Case in favor of defendant ) 1999. Said order declared the Deed of Sale void,
FACTS : ordered the cancellation of the new TCTs in
Antonio’s name, and directed Antonio to pay
Sisters Anita Lozada Slaughter and
Marissa damages, P100,000 attorney’s fees and
Peregrina Lozada Saribay were the registered co-
P50,000 for expenses of litigation. Respondents
owners of 2 lots in Cebu City. The sisters, who
moved for reconsideration. On July 6, 2000,
were based in the United States, sold the lots to
Presiding Judge, the RTC reinstated the Decision
their nephew Antonio J.P. Lozada under a Deed of
dated June 9, 1997, but with the modification that
the award of damages, and attorney’s were
disallowed. Petitioner appealed to the Court of
Appeals. On February 23, 2006 the appellate
court affirmed with modification the July 6, 2000
Order of the RTC. Thus, the instant petition.
ISSUE :
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred
in upholding the Decision of the RTC which
declared Antonio J.P. Lozada the absolute owner
of the questioned properties.
RULING :
NO. The contention of the petitioner is
unmeritorious. Faithful adherence to Section
14,19 Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution is
indisputably a paramount component of due
process and fair play. The parties to a litigation
should be informed of how it was decided, with an
explanation of the factual and legal reasons that
led to the conclusions of the court.20
In the assailed Decision, the Court of
Appeals reiterates the rule that a notarized and
authenticated deed of sale enjoys
presumption of regularity, and is admissible
without further proof of due execution. On the
basis thereof, it declared Antonio a buyer in good
faith and for value, despite petitioner's contention
that the sale violates public policy.
While it is a part of the right of appellant
to urge that the decision should directly meet the
issues presented for resolution, mere failure by
the appellate court to specify in its decision all
contentious issues raised by the appellant and the
reasons for refusing to believe appellant's
contentions is not sufficient to hold the appellate
court's decision contrary to the requirements of
the law and the Constitution. So long as the
decision of the Court of Appeals contains the
necessary findings of facts to warrant
conclusions, we cannot declare said court in error
if it withheld „any specific findings of fact with
respect to the evidence for the defense.” The
Court will abide by the legal presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed, and
all matters within an issue in a case were laid
down before the court and were passed upon by
it.26
In this case, we find nothing to show that
the sale between the sisters Lozada and their
nephew Antonio violated the public policy
prohibiting aliens from owning lands in the
Philippines. Even as Dr. Lozada advanced the
money for the payment of Antonio's share, at no
point were the lots registered in Dr. Lozada's
name. Nor was it contemplated that the lots be
under his control for they are actually to be
included as capital of Damasa Corporation.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.
Contributor : Dem – Roger C San Pedro
G.R. No. 193804. February 27, 2013.*
SPOUSES NILO RAMOS and ELIADORA
RAMOS, petitioners, vs. RAUL OBISPO and
FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY,
respondents.
the
( Case in favor of defendant )
FACTS :
Petitioner Nilo Ramos and respondent Raul
Obispo met each other and became best friends
while they were working in Saudi Arabia as
contract workers. After both had returned to the
Philippines, Ramos continued to visit Obispo who
had a hardware store.
Sometime in August 1996, petitioner spouses
executed a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) in favor
of respondent Far East Bank and Trust Company
(Bank)-Fairview Branch, over their property
covered by TCT No. RT-64422 (369370) of the
Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. The notarized
REM secured credit accommodations extended to
Obispo in the amount of P1,159,096.00.
its
On September 17, 1999, Bank received a
letter from petitioners informing that Obispo, to
whom they entrusted their property to be used as
collateral for a P250,000.00 loan in their behalf, Whether or not the REM should be
had instead secured a loan for P1,159,096.00, and declared void on the ground of the alleged fraud
had failed to return their title despite full of Raul Obispo.
payment by petitioners of P250,000.00.
Petitioners likewise demanded that Bank furnish RULING :
them with documents pertinent to the mortgage NO. The petition has no merit. The
failing which they will be constrained to refer the Supreme court sustain the decision of the CA. In
matter to their lawyer for the filing of appropriate civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making
legal action against Obispo and Bank. The Bank allegations has the burden of proving them by a
did not respond so petitioners filed on October preponderance of evidence. Moreover, parties
12, 1999 a complaint for annulment of real estate must rely on the strength of their own evidence,
mortgage with damages against Bank and Obispo. not upon the weakness of the defense offered by
their opponent. This principle equally holds true,
Petitioner alleged that they signed the even if the defendant had not been given the
blank REM form given by Obispo who facilitated opportunity to present evidence because of a
the loan with the Bank, and that they default order. Preponderance of evidence is the
subsequently received the loan proceeds of weight, credit, and value of the aggregate
P250,000.00 which they paid in full through evidence on either side and is usually considered
Obispo. With their loan fully settled, they to be synonymous with the term “greater weight
demanded the release of their title but Obispo of the evidence” or “greater weight of the
refused to talk or see them, as he is now hiding credible evidence.” It is evidence which is more
from them. They were then surprised to learn that convincing to the court as worthier of belief than
their property was in fact mortgaged for that which is offered in opposition thereto.
P1,159,096.00. (basically, they say their consent
to the REM was vitiated so it should be void) The validity of an accommodation
Bank’s response said that petitioners agreed to mortgage is allowed under Article 2085 of the
mortgage property to secure loans worth P2.5m Civil Code which provides that "[t]hird persons
and that it cannot be compelled to release it. It who are not parties to the principal obligation
also asserted that petitioners are guilty of laches may secure the latter by pledging or mortgaging
and barred by estoppel. their own property." An accommodation
mortgagor, ordinarily, is not himself a recipient of
The RTC rendered its Decision in favor of the the loan, otherwise that would be contrary to his
petitioners and against the respondents, designation as such. The validity of an
declared the REM null and void and ordered accommodation mortgage is allowed under Article
Bank to cancel encumbrance on the TCT. The 2085 of the Civil Code which provides that
bank appealed to the CA which reversed the trial "[t]hird persons who are not parties to the
court’s decision and dismissed the complaint, principal obligation may secure the latter by
holding that petitioners were third-party pledging or mortgaging their own property." An
mortgagors under Article 2085 of the Civil Code accommodation mortgagor, ordinarily, is not
and that they failed to present any evidence to himself a recipient of the loan, otherwise that
prove their allegations. Petitioners filed a motion would be contrary to his designation as such. In
for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA. this case, petitioners denied having executed an
Hence, this petition. accommodation mortgage and claimed to have
executed the REM to secure only their
ISSUE : P250,000.00 loan and not the P1,159,096.00
personal indebtedness of Obispo. They claimed it
was Obispo who filled up the REM form contrary
to their instructions and faulted FEBTC for being
negligent in not ascertaining the authority of
Obispo and failing to furnish petitioners with
copies of mortgage documents. Further, it can be
reasonably inferred from the facts on record that
it was more probable that petitioners allowed
Obispo to use their property as
collateral so as to avail of his existing credit line
with FEBTC instead of petitioners
applying for a separate loan. Hence, no fraud or
irregularity in execution of REM.
As to fraud, the rule is that he who alleges
fraud or mistake affecting a transaction must
substantiate his allegation, since it is presumed
that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns
and that private transactions have been fair and
regular. The Court has stressed time and again
that allegations must be proven by sufficient
evidence because mere allegation is definitely not
evidence. Moreover, fraud is not presumed – it
must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
In this case, petitioners’
evidence failed to convince that Obispo deceived
them as to the debt secured by the REM.
Petitioners’ factual allegations are not firmly
supported by the evidence on record and even
inconsistent with ordinary experience
common sense. The Real Estate Mortgage
admittedly signed by plaintiffs-appellees, on its
face, explicitly states that it is for the security of
"credit accommodations obtained by Raul De
Jesus Obispo," the principal of which is fixed at
P1,159,096.00.
While plaintiffs-appellees claim that they
sought the help of defendant Obispo in securing
the loan from defendant-appellant FEBTC, and
not to secure the loans obtained by defendant
Obispo himself, they failed to present
evidence, except for their bare
Unbelievable for them to simply accept the
P250,000.00 loan proceeds without seeing any
document or voucher evidencing release of such
amount by the bank containing the details of the
transaction such as monthly amortization, interest
rate and added charges. It is difficult to believe
petitioners’ simplistic explanation that they
requested documents from Obispo but the latter
would not give them any. Such failure of Obispo to
additional produce any receipt or document at all coming
from the bank should have, at the first instance,
directly alerted the petitioners that something was amiss
in the loan transaction for which they voluntarily
executed the REM with their own property as
collateral. Not only that, despite being aware of
the absence of any document to ascertain if
Obispo indeed filled up the REM contract form in
accordance with their instructions, petitioners
accepted the supposed loan proceeds in the form
of personal checks issued by Obispo who claimed
to have an account with FEBTC, instead of checks
issued by the bank itself. These alleged checks
were not submitted in evidence by the petitioners
who could have easily obtained copies or record
proving their issuance and encashment.
testimonial It may be argued that having received the
amount of P250,000.00, plaintiffs-appellees
became parties to the principal obligation and as
such, the provision of the last paragraph of Article
2085 no longer applies. While it is undisputed
and that plaintiffs-appellees received the amount of
P250,000.00, the record, however, reveals that
they received the said amount not from defendant
FEBTC but from defendant Obispo. It could be
inferred that the P250,000.00 given by defendant
Obispo to plaintiffs-appellees was some form of
remuneration in lending their title to him as
security for his credit line with defendant-
appellant FEBTC.
Assuming arguendo that the REM was
invalid on the ground of vitiated consent and
any misrepresentation by Obispo, petitioners’
assertion, unjustified failure to act within a reasonable time
after Obispo repeatedly failed to turn over the
mortgage documents, constitutes estoppel and Manila, Branch 7, on the premise that Ramon
waiver to question its defect or invalidity. Olbes is liable on the promissory notes (PNs)
Corollarily, mortgagors desiring to attack a based on the suretyship agreement as is Ricardo
mortgage as invalid should act with reasonable Olbes who is furthermore personally liable as co-
promptness, and unreasonable delay may amount maker, rendered judgment for respondent bank,
to ratification. as plaintiff and against OO&M and the Olbeses,
as defendants Therefrom, herein petitioners and
It bears stressing that an accommodation OO&M went on appeal to the CA.
mortgagor, ordinarily, is not himself a recipient of
On January 31, 2002, the CA rendered the
the loan, otherwise that would be contrary to his
herein assailed Decision affirming that of the trial
designation as such. We have held that it is not
court, particularly its disposition on the solidary
always necessary that the accommodation
liability of herein petitioners Ramon R. Olbes and
mortgagor be apprised beforehand of the entire
Ricardo R. Olbes, with the modification of
amount of the loan nor should it first be
disallowing the application by the respondent
determined before the execution of the Special
bank of the escalating interest rate on the loan
Power of Attorney in favor of the debtor.18 This is
transactions. The judgment reads as follows:
especially true when the words used by the
Defendant-appellant corporation, as maker of
parties indicate that the mortgage serves as a
promissory notes Nos. T-227, T-228. T-229 and T-
continuing security for credit obtained as well as
230, defendant-appellant Ricardo Olbes, as
future loan availments. the failure of defendant
comaker thereof, and appellants Ricardo Olbes
Obispo to pay his loan resulted to the prejudice of
and Ramon Olbes as sureties, are hereby ordered
plaintiffs-appellees which may have led them to
to pay plaintiff-appellee jointly and severally.
disown the Real Estate Mortgage they executed in
Inasmuch as the assailed decision
favor of defendant-appellant FEBTC to
sustained their solidary liability with, for the loan
accommodate the loan of defendant Obispo.
obligation of, OO&M, petitioners have interposed
the instant recourse, ascribing to the CA the
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on
commission of the following errors, viz.:
certiorari is DENIED for lack of merit. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby “1. In holding petitioners liable
AFFIRMED and UPHELD. retroactively for the loan obligations of OO&M
under the surety agreement.
Contributor :
2. In holding petitioner Ricardo Olbes
Dem – Roger C San Pedro liable on 4 of the subject promissory notes as co-
maker based on a mere title of “co-maker” rubber
G.R. No. 152082. March 10, 2006.*
stamped under his name on the said promissory
RAMON R. OLBES and RICARDO R. OLBES,
notes despite the absence of any provision
petitioners,
showing him to have understood that he was
vs. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, affixing his signature as such.”
respondent.
ISSUE:
(Case in favor of the defendant )
Whether or Not the contention of the
FACTS: petitioner Ricardo Olbes that he should not be
liable as co-maker under the suretyship
On September 12, 1998, in Civil
agreement is proper.
Case No. 92-63676, the Regional Trial Court of
RULING : the promissory notes were stamped before they
were given to appellants for their signature”
NO. The petition is without merit. As
Having affixed his consenting signature in
correctly observed by the CA, the „Suretyship
a contract with full knowledge of its terms and
Agreement,‰ as couched, expressly covered both
conditions, petitioner Ricardo Olbes is precluded
current (may now be indebted) and future (may
from asserting, as he presently does, that he
hereafter become indebted) loans of the principal.
acted under a misapprehension or in ignorance of
In net effect, the agreement thus executed by
the legal effect of the contract, or the undertaking
petitioners was intended to secure the payments
he assumed thereunder. He, just like his co-
of the amounts borrowed by and for which OO&M
petitioner, Ramon Olbes, does not appear to be
signed the PNs in question.
unlettered. The trial court in fact described both
Not to be overlooked is the fact that the
petitioners as “intelligent men” and top officers of
“Suretyship Agreement” expressly contemplated
a “corporation which has 200 affiliates
a solidary obligation, providing as it did that the
worldwide,” Being an experienced businessman,
surety(ies) hereby jointly and severally undertake,
doubtless routinely dealing with commercial
bind themselves and warrant to the said Creditor.
papers and documents passing his table,
It is a cardinal rule that if the terms of a contract
petitioner Ricardo Olbes knew, or at least
are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of
presumed to know, the import of the documents
the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
he executed as co-maker. He cannot be heard on
stipulation shall control.8 In the present case,
his allegation of not knowing the legal effect of
there can be no mistaking about petitioner's
what he was entering into on the pretext that
intent, as sureties, to be jointly and severally
respondent bank failed to inform him about such
obligated with the principal maker of the notes in
detail. It cannot be over- emphasized that it
dispute. As such sureties, Ramon Olbes and
behooves every contracting party to learn and
Ricardo Olbes are personally liable under the
know the contents of a document before he signs
suretyship agreement.
and delivers it.
“And so is the finding of the court a quo
that appellant Ricardo Olbes is personally liable WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED,
as co-maker of 4 of the 5 promissory notes. Said and the assailed CA decision dated January 31,
appellant's denial of personal liability upon the 2002 is AFFIRMED.
ground that the word “co-maker” was merely
Contributor : Dem – Roger C San Pedro
stamped and not printed as are the rest of the
VIRGILIO MACASPAC, petitioner, vs.
wordings of the promissory notes and that it was
RUPERTO PUYAT, JR., respondent.
stamped arbitrarily does not persuade. It is
presumed that private transactions have been G.R. No. 150736. April 29, 2005.
fair and regular (Section 3 (p), Rule 131, Revised
(Case in favor of the petitioner)
Rules of Court). It is also basic in evidence that he
FACTS:
who alleges has the burden of proving his
Puyat filed a Complaint against Macaspac
allegation. Appellant (i.e. Ricardo Olbes),
in the PARAB for the annulment of waiver of
therefore, had the burden of proving that the
rights and reconveyance of Lots in Divisoria
word “co-maker” was rubber stamped unfairly,
Estate. Puyat, Jr. alleged in his complaint that his
irregularly and arbitrarily. But the record does
father was a tenant on the said lots, which were
not support his claim. On the contrary, plaintiff-
agricultural in nature. Upon the latter's death, he
appelleeÊs witness Jacqueline Azarcon testified,
took over the tenancy on the said property, and as
and appellant Ricardo Olbes failed to refute, that
such, their tenancy of the same had lasted more Rights was notarized. The petitioner appeared
than 50 years. Because of his father's illness, he before the notary public and witnessed the
had to borrow P2,000.00 from Dizon, who execution of the said deed by the respondentÊs
required, as a condition for the loan, that one of parents. The deed was then filed with the MARO
her workers (Macaspac) work on the property from which the respondent secured a copy
until the said amount had been paid. thereof. The respondent even failed to adduce
substantial evidence that Dizon granted a loan of
He further alleged that Dizon, through P2,000.00 in 1963; that the landholding was
deceit, fraud and insidious machination, was able mortgaged to her as security for the said loan;
to secure a waiver of rights over the property that the petitioner was a tenant of Dizon and
signed by his late father. He maintained, however, chosen by her to till the land until the said loan
that the said waiver was void since he was the was paid. Aside from his testimony, the
true and lawful tiller of the property. respondent failed to adduce a morsel of
corroborating evidence, which in this case was
In the meantime, he was ready to repay his necessary, since his testimony was chameleonic
loan of P2,000.00 to Dizon, but could not do so and barren of probative weight.
because she had left for the United States of
Contributor :
America where she now resides. Macaspac
Dem – Roger C San Pedro
alleged in his answer to the complaint that the
right of possession over the property was sold to
him by Puyat, Sr. in 1963; the said transaction
was confirmed when Puyat, Sr.executed a Waiver
of Rights over the tenancy in his favor in 1976.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Ruperto Puyat, Sr.
abandoned his tenancy of the landholding and
surrendered the same to the petitioner in 1963.

RULING:
YES. The Supreme Court have ruled that
the intention of a tenant to surrender the
landholding cannot be presumed, much less
determined by implication. A person is presumed
to take ordinary care of his concerns, private
transactions are presumed fair and regular and
that ordinary course of business has been
followed. Moreover, in Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of
Appeals, the Court held that forgery cannot be
presumed. A public document is evidence of the
facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein
expressed. It has in its favor the presumption of
regularity. Thus, he who alleges forgery must
prove the same by clear, positive and convincing
evidence. It bears stressing that the Waiver of