 Home

 Law Firm
 Law Library
 Laws
 Jurisprudence
 Contact Us

February 2019 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > February 2019 Decisions > G.R.
No. 237324, February 06, 2019 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
AURORA SILVESTRE AND ROGELIO SILVESTRE, AND NATIVIDAD GOZO (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS "QQQQ"), Respondents.:

G.R. No. 237324, February 06, 2019 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
AURORA SILVESTRE AND ROGELIO SILVESTRE, AND NATIVIDAD GOZO (FORMERLY
KNOWN AS "QQQQ"), Respondents.

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 237324, February 06, 2019

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES AURORA SILVESTRE
AND ROGELIO SILVESTRE, AND NATIVIDAD GOZO (FORMERLY KNOWN AS
"QQQQ"), Respondents.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:*

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court assailing the Decision1 dated August 12, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CV No. 105144 which affirmed, with modification, the Decision 2 dated March 6,
2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City.

The antecedent facts are as follows:

The instant case stemmed from an action for expropriation filed by the petitioner
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Department of Public Works and
Highways (Republic-DPWH), in the exercise of its power of eminent domain under
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8974. In its original complaint dated October 11, 2007, the
Republic-DPWH sought to expropriate a 3,856-square meter lot located in Barangay
Ugong, Valenzuela City, the real owner of which was originally unknown (designated as
"QQQQ"). The lot was to be used for the construction of the C-5 Northern Link Project,
Segment 8.1, from Mindanao Avenue in Quezon City to the North Luzon Expressway,
Valenzuela City. Pursuant to said project, the motoring public would supposedly have a
faster and more comfortable travel going to and coming from the North thru Metro
Manila.3

Since the owner of the property was unknown, the RTC of Valenzuela City resorted to
summons by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Subsequently, on May 5,
2008, the RTC issued the writ of possession prayed for by the Republic-DPWH following
its ability and readiness to pay P4,627,200.00, the amount equivalent to 100% of the
property's zonal value. Next, on September 9, 2008, the trial court ordered the
Republic-DPWH to issue a check payable to the order of its Clerk of Court. 4 Discovering,
thereafter, that an 811-square meter pm1ion of the 3,856-square meter property
sought to be expropriated was owned by Spouses Quintin, Victoriano Galguierra,
Victoria Galguierra, Elisa Galguierra, E��a Galguierra, and Ma. Belen Manalaysay
(Quintin, et al.), the Republic-DPWH filed an Omnibus Motion (for Leave to File and
Admit Attached Amended Complaint and for Replacement of Check) seeking to implead
Quintin, et al. as defendants of the case. Accordingly, the RTC admitted Republic-
DPWH's amended complaint and ordered it to issue a manager's check payable to
Quintin, et al. in the amount of P973,200.00, the equivalent of the zonal value of the
811-square meter portion.5

On July 2, 2012, herein respondents, spouses Aurora and Rogelio Silvestre, and
Natividad Gozo (Silvestre, et al.), filed a Manifestation (In Lieu of Answer to Amended
Complaint) alleging that they are the registered owners of Lot No. 1-D-9-A-3, covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. V-99470, located along Gen. T. De Leon, Valenzuela
City, consisting of 6,629 square meters. Upon verification, they discovered that 4,367
square meters of the 6,629-square meter property was affected by the expropriation.
Thus, they prayed that the Republic-DPWH be directed to pay them P9,389,050.00
(computed as follows: 4,367 square meters x P2,150.00 zonal value). 6 On November
21, 2012, the Republic-DPWH filed a second amended complaint impleading Silvestre,
et al., as additional defendants, and alleging that contrary to their claims, the area
affected by the sought expropriation covered only 3,045 square meters of their
property with a zonal value of P1,200.00 per square meter or a total zonal value of
P3,654,000.00, which the Republic-DPWH already deposited with the court.

On January 14, 2014, the RTC issued a partial decision insofar as Quintin, et al. are
concerned as they no longer pursued the second stage of the expropriation
proceedings, receiving from the Republic-DPWH the amounts of P973,200.00,
representing the zonal value of the lot, and P208,060.82, for the cost of the fence
thereof. Accordingly, the RTC condemned the 811-square meter portion of the property
in favor of the Repub1ic-DPWH. As for the portion of Silvestre, et al., however, the RTC
proceeded with the second stage of the expropriation and directed the appointed Board
of Commissioners (BOC) to submit a report on just compensation. 7

On September 30, 2014, the BOC recommended the amount of P5,000.00 per square
meter as the reasonable, just, and fair market value of the 4,367-square meter portion
owned by Silvestre, et al. It relied on a Certification dated August 15, 2012 issued by
Project Director Patrick Gatan finding that the project would affect 4,367 square meters
of Silvestre, et al.'s property. Moreover, in arriving at the recommended amount, the
BOC took into consideration the following:

[T]the size, location, accessibility, the BIR Zonal Valuation, the previously decided
expropriation case of DPWH v. Mapalad Serrano, where the fair market value was fixed
at Php5,000.00 per square meter x x x; the Opinion Value conducted by the Assessor's
Office personnel on February 21, 2007, in the properties within the vicinity of the
property of defendants where 10 disinterested persons [were] interviewed as to the fair
market value of the property within the vicinity which yielded a weighted average fair
market value at Php5,150 per square meter x x x; the Deed of Absolute [S]ale
executed by and between PBCOM FINANCE CORPORATION and FRANCISCO ERWIN &
IMELDA F. BERNARDO over the property situated at Ge. T. De Leon, Valenzuela City
where the fair market value of the property was pegged at Php8,484.85 per square
meter; the pictures of the existing subdivision within the vicinity of the property x x x;
the pictures of Foton Motor Philippines, an industrial corporation involved in the
manufacture of motor vehicles[.]8

On October 17, 2014, however, the Repub1ic-DPWH filed a Comment, assailing the
recommendation of the BOC, arguing that said board erroneously considered the
August 15, 2012 Certification issued by Project Director Gatan when there exists a
more recent Certification dated October 4, 2012 issued by Geodetic Engineer Efipanio
Lopez which was, thereafter, affirmed by Project Director Gatan in his Certification
dated October 11, 2012. These recent certifications indicate that only 3,045 square
meters of Silvestre, et al.'s property was to be affected by the project and not 4,367
square meters as they allege. As regards the basis for just compensation, the Republic-
DPWH faulted the BOC in valuing the property at P5,000.00, making reference to the
Mapalad Serrano property and disregarding the actual characteristics thereof. The
Republic-DPWH added that since the zonal value of the property is P1,200.00 per
square meter, it cannot command a price higher than said value. 9

On March 6, 2015, the RTC partially adopted the recommendation of the BOC and
pegged the just compensation at P5,000.00 per square meter, but found the total
affected property to be only 3,045 square meters. The fallo of the Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered fixing the just compensation of the total
area of 3,045 square meters lot (TCT No. T- 799470) at Php15,225,000.00 (3,045
square meters x Php5,000.00) and authorizing the payment thereof by the plaintiff to
the defendants for the property condemned deducting the provisional deposits of
Php3,654,000.00 previously made and subject to the payment of all unpaid real
property taxes and other relevant taxes by the defendants up to the taking of the
property by plaintiff, if there be any.

The plaintiff is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum in the unpaid
balance of just compensation of Php11,571,000.00 (Php15,225,000.00 -
Php3,654,000.00) computed from the time of the filing of the complaint until the
plaintiff pays the balance.

The plaintiff is also directed to pay the defendants the amount of Php50,000 as
attorney's fees; and the members of the Board as commissioner's fee the amount of
Php3,000.00 each.

xxxx

SO ORDERED.10

In a Decision dated August 12, 2016, the CA affirmed, with modification, the RTC
ruling, and disposed of the case as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED insofar as the

legal interest imposed on the amount of just compensation. The assailed 30 April 2014
Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 153-V-10 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION as regards interest which shall accrue as follows:

(a) The difference between the principal amount of just compensation (Php15,225,000.00)
and the provisional deposit of Php3,654,000.00, shall earn legal interest of 12% per annum
from the date of taking of the property until June 30, 2013; and
(b) The difference between the principal amount of just compensation (Php15,225,000.00)
and the provisional deposit of Php3,654,000.00, shall earn legal interest of 6% per annum
from July 1, 2013, until the finality of this Court's decision;

The sum of the above-mentioned amounts and the unpaid balance of just compensation
of Php11,571,000.00 (Php15,225,000.00 less Php3,654,000.00) shall earn legal
interest of 6% per annum from the finality of the Court's ruling until full payment.

Further, the order directing appellant to pay commissioner's fee and the award of
attorney's fees are DELETED for lack of factual and legal basis.

SO ORDERED.11 (Citations omitted.)

Aggrieved, the Republic-DPWH filed the instant petition on April 13, 2018, invoking the
following argument:

I.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FIXING THE AMOUNT OF JUST

COMPENSATION FOR THE SUBJECT LOT AT FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) PER
SQUARE METER. INSTEAD, THE JUST COMPENSATION FOR THE SUBJECT LOT SHOULD
BE FIXED BETWEEN SIX HUNDRED PESOS (P600.00) AND ONE THOUSAND TWO
HUNDRED PESOS (P1,200.00) PER SQUARE METER. 12

In its petition, the Republic-DPWH submits that because of several factors that diminish
the value of the subject lot, the just compensation for the same must be pegged only
between P600.00 and P1,200.00 per square meter and not at P5,000.00 as held by the
courts a quo. First, the subject lot is occupied by 3,347 informal settler families as
revealed by the census and tagging operations conducted by the National Housing
Authority from November 2006 to January 2007. Second, according to a certain Fe
Pesebre, the over-all supervisor, the subject area is located within a depressed, low-
income, and substandard residential community, its surroundings being filthy, muddy,
and polluted. Third, Tax Declaration No. C-018-28698 states that the subject lot is
classified as a residential lot and carries a unit value of only P600.00 per square meter
or a total market value of P3,977,400.00. Thus, such amount should be controlling for
in the ordinary scheme of things, tax declarations carry a high evidentiary value, being,
as to the tax declaring respondents, in the nature of admissions against self-interest.
Fourth, the Republic-DPWH asserts that the current and relevant zonal valuation of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for the subject lot is only P1,200.00 per square
meter. The just compensation, therefore, should not exceed this amount since it has
been held that the BIR Zonal Value is reflective of the fair market value of the real
property within a given area. Just because it is the government that is purchasing the
property, which is an entity whose financial resources are supposed to be inexhaustible,
does not mean that the fair market value thereof must be higher. 13

At the outset, the Court notes that only questions of law should be raised in a petition
for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Factual findings of the lower courts will generally
not be disturbed. Thus, the issues pertaining to the value of the property expropriated
are questions of fact which are generally beyond the scope of the judicial review of this
Court under Rule 45.14 Here, in claiming that the courts a quo should have pegged the
just compensation between P600.00 and P1,200.00 per square meter and not at
P5,000.00, the Republic-DPWH is asking the Court to recalibrate and weigh anew the
evidence already passed upon by the courts below. But unfortunately for the Republic-
DPWH, it has not alleged, much less proven, the presence of any of the exceptional
circumstances that would warrant a deviation from the rule that the Court is not a trier
of facts. On this ground alone, the denial of the petition is warranted. Nevertheless,
even if the propriety of the instant petition is assumed, we still resolve to deny the
same.

Just compensation, in expropriation cases, is defined as the full and fair equivalent of
the loss of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. Its true measure is
not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss. The word "just" is used to modify the
meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be given
for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full and ample. 15 It has been
consistently held, moreover, that though the determination of just compensation in
expropriation proceedings is essentially a judicial prerogative, the appointment of
commissioners to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to be taken is a
mandatory requirement nonetheless. Thus, while it is true that the findings of
commissioners may be disregarded and the trial court may substitute its own estimate
of the value, it may only do so for valid reasons; that is, where the commissioners have
applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them, where they have
disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence, or where the amount allowed is either
grossly inadequate or excessive. As such, "trial with the aid of the commissioners is a
substantial right that may not be done away with capriciously or for no reason at
all."16 Evidently, the recommendations of the BOC carry with it great weight and value
insofar as the determination of just compensation is concerned.

Here, it was precisely the findings of the BOC that the courts below adopted. In its
assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling when it held that the BOC properly
took into consideration the relevant factors in arriving at its recommendation of just
compensation. In fact, these relevant factors were based not on mere conjectures and
plain guesswork of the BOC, but on the statutory guidelines set forth in Section 5 of
R.A. No. 8974, to wit:

Section 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of
Expropriation Proceedings or Negotiated Sale. � In order to facilitate the
determination of just compensation, the court may consider, among other well-
established factors, the following relevant standards:

(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited;
(b) The developmental costs for improving the land;
(c) The value declared by the owners;
(d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity;
(e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain
improvement on the land and for the value of improvements thereon;
(f) [The] size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land;
(g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary
evidence presented; and
(h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to have sufficient funds to
acquire similarly-situated lands of approximate areas as those required from them by the
government, and thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible.
In view of the foregoing, the Court finds no error on the part of the courts below in
finding that there was nothing arbitrary about the pegged amount of P5,000.00 per
square meter, recommended by the BOC, as it was reached in consideration of the
property's size, location, accessibility, as well as the BIR zonal valuation, among other
things. We quote, with approval, the words of the appellate court:

Firstly, the BOC significantly noted that the subject property has a residential
classification and is similarly situated [within] the Mapalad Serrano property (similarly
affected by the Northern Link Road Project), which was earlier expropriated by the
government in Civil Case No. 52-V-08. The Decision dated 22 August 2012, the RTC-
Branch 172 fixed the amount of just compensation at P5,000.00 per square meter. Per
Entry of Judgment, such Decision became final and executory on 08 March 2013. In the
said Decision, the Mapalad Serrano property was described as having mixed residential
and industrial use. In conformity with the standards set forth in Section 5, the two
properties can be said to be similarly-situated as would reasonably lead to the
conclusion that they have the same market value.

Secondly, the BOC took note of the existing business establishments (Foton Philippines,
Inc., Shell gasoline station, Seven Eleven Convenient Store, Banco de Oro, Allied Bank
and Eastwest Bank), educational institutions (St. Mary's School, Gen. T. de Leon
National High School, Our Lady of Lourdes School), Parish of the Holy Cross Church,
subdivisions (Bernardino Homes and Miguelito Subdivision) near the vicinity of
appellee's property.

Thirdly, as reasonable basis for comparison, the BOC took into consideration the Deed
of Absolute Sale executed by and between PBCOM Finance Corporation and Francisco
Erwin D. & Imelda F[.] Bernardo covering a property similarly situated with the subject
property where the fair market value was pegged at P8,484.85 per square meter. This
comparison made by the BOC finds support in Section 5 (d) which provides that "[t]he
current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity" may [be] considered as a factor in
determining just compensation.17 (Citations omitted.)

Thus, the Court cannot subscribe to the Republic-DPWH's plain and simplistic assertions
that the subject property must be valued at a significantly lower price due to the
presence of informal settlers, as well as the opinion of a certain Fe Pesebre. It is clear,
from the records, that the BOC endeavored painstaking efforts in determining just
compensation. From court promulgations on similarly situated lands to the numerous
commercial establishments within the property's vicinity and even sales contracts
covering nearby lots, the BOC obviously took the statutory guidelines to heart and
considered several factors in arriving at its recommendation.

As for the contention of the Republic-DPWH that it is the value indicated in the
property's tax declaration, as well as its zonal valuation that must govern, the Court
adopts the findings of the BOC, the RTC, and the CA in ruling that the same are not
truly reflective of the value of the subject property, but is just one of the several factors
to be considered under Section 5 of R.A. No. 8974. Time and again, the Court has held
that zonal valuation, although one of the indices of the fair market value of real estate,
cannot, by itself, be the sole basis of just compensation in expropriation cases. 18

In fine, the Court finds no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the CA, insofar as
the amount of just compensation is concerned. In the absence, moreover, of any legal
basis to the contrary, or any objection from the parties, the Court further affirms the
appellate court's imposition of legal interest, as well as its deletion of the payment of
commissioner's fee and the award of attorney's fees for being in accord with applicable
law and recent jurisprudence.

Indeed, the delay in the payment of just compensation is a forbearance of money and,
as such, is necessarily entitled to earn interest. Thus, the difference in the amount
between the final amount as adjudged by the Court, which in this case is
P15,225,000.00, and the initial payment made by the government, in the amount of
P3,654,000.00 � which is part and parcel of the just compensation due to the
property owner � should earn legal interest as a forbearance of money. Moreover,
with respect to the amount of interest on this difference between the initial payment
and the final amount of just compensation, as adjudged by the Court, we have upheld,
in recent pronouncements, the imposition of 12% interest rate from the time of taking,
when the property owner was deprived of the property, until July 1, 2013, when the
legal interest on loans and forbearance of money was reduced from 12% to 6% per
annum by Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799. Accordingly, from July 1, 2013
onwards, the legal interest on the difference between the final amount and initial
payment is 6% per annum.19
Here, the Republic-DPWH filed the expropriation complaint on October 11, 2007. But it
was able to take possession of the property on May 5, 2008, when the RTC issued the
writ of possession prayed for by the Republic-DPWH following its ability and readiness
to pay 100% of the property's zonal value. Thus, a legal interest of 12% per annum
shall accrue from May 5, 2008 until June 30, 2013 on the difference between the final
amount adjudged by the Court and the initial payment made. From July 1, 2013 until
the finality of the Decision of the Court, the difference between the initial payment and
the final amount adjudged by the Court shall earn interest at the rate of 6% per
annum. Thereafter, the total amount of just compensation shall earn legal interest of
6% per annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment thereof.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed

Decision dated August 12, 2016 of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED such that the
just compensation for the 3,045-square meter of the expropriated property is
P5,000.00 per square meter, or a total of P15,225,000.00. Hence, the following
amounts are due to the respondents, Spouses Aurora Silvestre and Rogelio Silvestre,
and Natividad Gozo:

1. The unpaid portion of the just compensation which shall be the difference
between the principal amount of just compensation, or P15,225,000.00, and the
amount of initial deposit made by petitioner Republic of the Philippines,
represented by the Department of Public Works and Highways, or
P3,654,000.00; and

2. Interest, which shall accrue as follows:

i. The difference between the principal amount of just compensation, or

P15,225,000.00, and the amount of initial deposit, or P3,654,000.00, shall
earn legal interest of 12% per annum from the date of the taking, or May
5, 2008, until June 30, 2013.

ii. The difference between the principal amount of just compensation, or

P15,225,000.00, and the amount of initial deposit, or P3,654,000.00, shall
earn legal interest of 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until the finality of
the Decision.
iii. The total amount of just compensation, or the sum of legal interest in
items i and ii above, plus the unpaid portion of P11,571,000.00
(P15,225,000.00 less P3,654,000.00) shall earn legal interest of 6% per
annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment thereof.

SO ORDERED.

Leonen, Hernando, and Carandang,**JJ., concur.

A. Reyes, Jr., J., on leave.

February 18, 2019

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs / Mesdames:

Please take notice that on February 6, 2019 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was
rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was
received by this Office on February 18, 2019 at 2:55 p.m.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

*
Chairperson
**
Designated as additional member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28,
2018.

1
Rollo, pp. 24-39. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Danton Q. Bueser.

2
Id. at 40-44. Penned by Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones.

3
Id. at 25

4
Id.

5
Id. at 25-26.

6
Id. at 26

7
Id. at 26-27.

8
Id. at 27.

9
Id. at 28.

10
Id. at 28-29.

11
Id. at 38-39.

12
Id. at 16.

13
Id. at 17-21.

14
Evergreen Manufacturing Corporation v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 218628 and 218631,
September 6, 2017, 839 SC RA 200, 215.

15
Id. at 216, citing Rep. of the Phils., et al. v. Judge Mupas, et al., 785 Phil. 40 (2016).

16
Id. at 217, citing Spouses Ortega v. City of Cebu, 617 Phil. 817 (2009).

17
Rollo, pp. 32-33.
18
Evergreen Manufacturing Corporation v. Republic, supra note 14, 221.

19
Id. at 230.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

February-2019 Jurisprudence

 G.R. Nos. 223869-960, February 13, 2019 - NEPTALI P. SALCEDO, Petitioner, v. THE
HONORABLE THIRD DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 220913, February 04, 2019 - ALLEN C. PADUA AND EMELITA F. PIMENTEL,
Petitioners, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, FAMILY CHOICE GRAINS PROCESSING
CENTER, INC., AND GOLDEN SEASON GRAINS CENTER, INC., Respondents.
 G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019 - MARK ANTHONY V. ZABAL, THITING ESTOSO
JACOSALEM, AND ODON S. BANDIOLA, Petitioners, v. RODRIGO R. DUTERTE,
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; AND EDUARDO M. A�O, [SECRETARY] OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 229823, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ROGER ACABO, Accused-Appellant.
 G.R. No. 232645, February 18, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlLIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ANTONIO BALDERRAMA Y DE LEON, Accused-Appellant.
 G.R. No. 237324, February 06, 2019 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Petitioner, v.
SPOUSES AURORA SILVESTRE AND ROGELIO SILVESTRE, AND NATIVIDAD GOZO
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS "QQQQ"), Respondents.
 G.R. No. 229099, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JOY ANGELES Y AGBOLOS, Accused-Appellant.
 G.R. No. 233063, February 11, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v.
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION), REYNALDO O. PAROJINOG, SR., AND NOVA
PRINCESS E. PAROJINOG ECHAVEZ, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 229938, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. JOSEPH A. AMPO (APPELLANT)AND JOHNNY A. CALO (AT�LARGE),
ACCUSED. JOSEPH A. AMPO, Accused-Appellant.
 G.R. No. 238104, February 27, 2019 - ODELON ALVAREZ MIRANDA, Petitioner, v.
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION AND SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, REPRESENTED BY
CARINA L. CATAHAN, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 226088, February 27, 2019 - FOOD FEST LAND, INC. AND JOYFOODS
CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. ROMUALDO C. SIAPNO, TEODORO C. SIAPNO, JR. AND
FELIPE C. SIAPNO, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 196874, February 06, 2019 - THE HEIRS OF THE LATE SPOUSES
ALEJANDRO RAMIRO AND FELICISIMA LLAMADA, NAMELY; HENRY L. RAMIRO; MERLYN
R. TAGUBA; MARLON L. RAMIRO; MARIDEL R. SANTELLA, WILMA L. RAMIRO; VILMA R.
CIELO AND CAROLYN R. CORDERO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES ELEODORO AND VERNA
BACARON, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 208543, February 11, 2019 - GOODLAND COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v.
BANCO DE ORO-UNIBANK, INC., AND GOODGOLD REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondents.
 G.R. No. 234240, February 06, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. NOEL NAVASERO, SR. Y HUGO, Accused-Appellant.
 G.R. No. 238839, February 27, 2019 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ANTHONY MABALO Y BACANI, Accused-Appellant.
 G.R. No. 217123 - OSCAR M. PARINGIT, PETITIONER, v. GLOBAL GATEWAY
CREWING SERVICES, INC.,* MID-SOUTH SHIP AND CREW MANAGEMENT, INC.,
AND/OR CAPTAIN SIMEON FLORES, RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 211105 - RUBY C. DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONER, v. CW MARKETING &
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/KENNETH TUNG, RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 200774 - GERMAN MARINE AGENCIES, INC., ET AL. PETITIONERS, v.
TEODOLAH R. CARO, IN BEHALF OF HER HUSBAND EDUARDO V. CARO, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 213346 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. MILLER
OMANDAM UNABIA, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 210731 - SIMEON LAPI Y MAHIPUS, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 221428 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RENATO
GALUGA Y WAD-AS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
 G.R. No. 221434 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, v. RESTBEI B. TAMPUS,
APPELLANT.
 G.R. No. 221967 - RAMIRO LIM & SONS AGRICULTURAL CO., INC., SIMA REAL
ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, INC., AND RAMIRO LIM, PETITIONERS, v. ARMANDO
GUILARAN, ROMEO FRIAS, SANTIAGO CARAMBIAS, SR., JOEL SUAREZ, VICENTE
OBORDO, JESSIE DAYON, JOEL PALMA, DOMICIANO PITULAN, NINFA ESPINOSA,
ROMULO DELA PE�A, FERNANDO ROWEL, VICENTE ESPINOSA, PONCIANO
DACUMOS, OFELIA FRIAS, GILBERT CARAMBIAS, RODRIGO FRIAS, NIXON CARAMBIAS,
RESTITUTO JUANICA, MARIANITA GUILARAN, ALY ROMERO, ROSEMINDA JUANICA,
LOLITA ROMERO, LILIA ROWEL, ANTONIO DUMDUMAN, SANTIAGO CARAMBIAS, JR.,
DIOSCORO DACUMOS, ROSENDO DACUMOS, JONIEL DACUMOS, LEONARDA
DACUMOS, JUDITA DACUMOS, MIGUELA DACUMOS, AND NINFA CARAMBIAS,
RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 198008 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE
REGIONAL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGION X, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND
HIGHWAYS, PETITIONER, v. BENJOHN FETALVERO, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 238117 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDWIN
ALCONDE Y MADLA AND JULIUS QUERQUELA* Y REBACA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
 G.R. No. 237349 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MANUEL
BASA, JR., A.K.A. "JUN," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
 G.R. No. 239957 - JESUS TRINIDAD Y BERSAMIN, PETITIONER, v. THE PEOPLE OF
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 233833 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROMULO
ARAGO, JR. Y COMO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
 G.R. No. 222423 - METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
PETITIONER, v. D.M. CONSUNJI, INC. AND R-II BUILDERS, INC., RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 228807 - CARLITO B. LINSANGAN, PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 236023 - MACACUNA BADIO Y DICAMPUNG, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 209608 - DIGITAL PARADISE, INC., AS REPRESENTED BY FEDERICO
EUGENIO, PETITIONER, v. HON. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE
OVERALL DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN; HON. DENNIS L. GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
DIRECTOR; HON. ROLANDO W. CERVANTES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS GRAFT
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER; P/CINSP. JOEL MANUEL A. ANA, PSI
RONNIE FAILOGA, PO3 DEMETRIO PRIETO,[*] AND PO1 SAMUEL ESCARIO DONES,
RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 212611 - HEIRS OF BATORI,[*] REPRESENTED BY GLADYS B. ABAD,
PETITIONER, v. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BENGUET AND PACITA GALVEZ,
RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 212979 - MA. ANTONETTE LOZANO, PETITIONER, v. JOCELYN K.
FERNANDEZ RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 232687 - SLORD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, v.
BENERANDO M. NOYA, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 241081 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BERNIDO
ACABO Y AYENTO,[*] ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
 G.R. No. 233999 - TELEPHILIPPINES, INC.,[*] PETITIONER, v. FERRANDO H.
JACOLBE, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 220008 - SOCORRO T. CLEMENTE, AS SUBSTITUTED BY SALVADOR T.
CLEMENTE, PETITIONER, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, REGION IV-A), RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 221117 - JEBSENS MARITIME, INC., ABOITIZ JEBSENS BULK TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, AND/OR ENRIQUE M. ABOITIZ, PETITIONERS, v. JESSIE D. ALCIBAR,
SUBSTITUTED BY MILDRED U. ALCIBAR, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 211176 - BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
BANK, PETITIONERS, v. SPOUSES JUANITO AND VICTORIA LEDESMA, RESPONDENTS.
[G.R. No. 211583, February 6, 2019] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, PETITIONER, v.
SPOUSES JUANITO AND VICTORIA LEDESMA, RESPONDENTS.
 A.C. No. 12125 - CELIANA B. BUNTAG, FLORA ARBILERA, VETALIANO BONGO,
SEBASTIAN BONGO, PETRONILO BONGO, LEO BONGO, AND RAUL IMAN,
COMPLAINANTS, v. ATTY. WILFREDO S. TOLEDO, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 217949 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS),
PETITIONER, v. REYNALDO P. PALMIERY, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 224297 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDGARDO
ROYOL Y ASICO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
 G.R. No. 238516 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROGER
RODRIGUEZ Y MARTINEZ, ALIAS "ROGER," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
 G.R. Nos. 219824-25 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, v. HONORABLE
SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), MARIO L. RELAMPAGOS, MARILOU D. BARE,
ROSARIO S. NU�EZ AND LALAINE N. PAULE, RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 216725 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROGELIO
YAGAO Y LLABAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
 G.R. No. 223405 - CARLOS L. REYNES, PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), LUCRESIA M. AMORES, AND MARIBEL HONTIVEROS,
RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 217668 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BENJIE
CARANTO Y AUSTRIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
 G.R. No. 213502 - JERLINDA M. MIRANDA, PETITIONER, v. THE CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 229106 - TIONG BI, INC. [OWNER OF BACOLOD OUR LADY OF MERCY
SPECIALTY HOSPITAL], PETITIONER, v. PHILIPPINE HEALTH INSURANCE
CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 228881 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DONDON
GUERRERO Y ELING, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
 G.R. No. 218731 - NICOMEDES AUGUSTO, GOMERCINDO JIMENEZ, MARCELINO
PAQUIBOT, AND ROBERTA SILAWAN, PETITIONERS, v. ANTONIO CARLOTA DY AND
MARIO DY, RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 205333 - MA. MELISSA VILLANUEVA MAGSINO, PETITIONER, v. ROLANDO
N. MAGSINO, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 222648 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. EDITHA
TAMPAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
 G.R. No. 238566 - PHILIP JOHN B. MORENO, ACOUNTANT III/DIVISION CHIEF II,
PHILIPPINE RETIREMENT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, v. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL
FORMER TENTH DIVISION) AND OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 202792 - LA SALLIAN EDUCATIONAL INNOVATORS FOUNDATION (DE LA
SALLE UNIVERSITY-COLLEGE OF ST. BENILDE) INC., PETITIONER, v. COMMISIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 206709 - VDM TRADING, INC. AND SPOUSES LUIS AND NENA DOMINGO,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ATTY. F. WILLIAM L. VILLAREAL,
PETITIONERS, v. LEONITA CARUNGCONG AND WACK WACK TWIN TOWERS
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 243522 - REPRESENTATIVES EDCEL C. LAGMAN, TOMASITO S. VILLARIN,
TEDDY BRAWNER BAGUILAT, JR., EDGAR R. ERICE, GARY C. ALEJANO, JOSE
CHRISTOPHER Y. BELMONTE AND ARLENE "KAKA" J. BAG-AO, PETITIONERS, v. HON.
SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. DELFIN N. LORENZANA,
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AND MARTIAL LAW
ADMINISTRATOR; GEN. BENJAMIN MADRIGAL, JR., CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED
FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARTIAL LAW IMPLEMENTOR; AND HON. BENJAMIN
E. DIOKNO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT; AND
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES AS
COMPONENT HOUSES OF THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPECTIVELY
REPRESENTED BY HON. SPEAKER GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AND HON. SENATE
PRESIDENT VICENTE C. SOTTO III, RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 243677] BAYAN MUNA
PARTYLIST REPRESENTATIVE CARLOS ISAGANI T. ZARATE, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY
REPRESENTATIVES, EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS, AND ARLENE D. BROSAS,
ANAKPAWIS REPRESENTATIVE ARIEL B. CASILAO, ACT TEACHERS REPRESENTATIVES
ANTONIO L. TINO AND FRANCE L. CASTRO, AND KABATAAN PARTYLIST
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH JANE I. ELAGO, PETITIONERS, v. PRESIDENT RODRIGO
DUTERTE, CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT
VICENTE C. SOTTO III AND HOUSE SPEAKER GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR MEDIALDEA, DEFENSE SECRETARY DELFIN
LORENZANA, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES CHIEF�OF-STAFF LIEUTENANT
GENERAL BENJAMIN MADRIGAL, JR., PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE DIRECTOR-
GENERAL OSCAR DAVID ALBAYALDE, RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 243745] CHRISTIAN S.
MONSOD, RAY PAOLO J. SANTIAGO, NOLASCO RITZ LEE B. SANTOS III, MARIE HAZEL
E. LAVITORIA, DOMINIC AMON R. LADEZA, AND XAMANTHA XOFIA A. SANTOS,
PETITIONERS, v. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES (REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT
VICENTE C. SOTTO III), HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (REPRESENTED BY GLORIA
MACAPAGAL�-ARROYO), EXECUTIVE SECRETARY SALVADOR C. MEDIALDEA,
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENSE (DND) SECRETARY DELFIN N. LORENZANA,
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG) SECRETARY EDUARDO
M. A�O, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES (AFP) CHIEF OF STAFF GENERAL
BENJAMIN R. MADRIGAL, JR., PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE (PNP) DIRECTOR
GENERAL OSCAR D. ALBAYALDE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER HERMOGENES C.
ESPERON, JR., RESPONDENTS.[G.R. No. 243797] RIUS VALLE, JHOSA MAE PALOMO,
JEANY ROSE HAYAHAY AND RORELYN MANDACAWAN, PETITIONERS, v. THE SENATE
OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE SENATE PRESIDENT VICENTE C. SOTTO
III, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY THE HOUSE SPEAKER
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF
NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT,
THE CHIEF OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, AND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL,
DIRECTION, INSTRUCTION, AND/OR SUPERVISION, RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 202974 - NORMA D. CACHO AND NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL,
INC., PETITIONERS, v. VIRGINIA D. BALAGTAS, RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 190682 - PAUL C. DAGONDON, PETITIONER, v. ISMAEL LADAGA,
RESPONDENT.
 G.R. No. 227795 (Formerly UDK-15556) - MARVIN O. DAGUINOD, PETITIONER, v.
SOUTHGATE FOODS, INC., REPRESENTED BY MAUREEN O. FERRER AND GENERATION
ONE RESOURCE SERVICE AND MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE,[*] REPRESENTED BY
RESTY CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 233339 - D.M. CONSUNJI, INC., PETITIONER, v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND THE HEIRS OF JULIAN CRUZ, REPRESENTED BY MACARIA CRUZ
ESTACIO, RESPONDENTS.
 G.R. No. 227184 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. BRYAN
LABSAN Y NALA AND CLENIO DANTE Y PEREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
 G.R. Nos. 199729-30 - MANILA BANKERS' LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION,
PETITIONER, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.[G.R. Nos.
199732-33] COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, v. MANILA
BANKERS' LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
Copyright © 1998 - 2023 Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions | ReDiaz
ChanRobles™ | Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™