You are on page 1of 8

Chavez v.

Public Estates Authority


G.R. No. 133250, ]uly 9, 2002
Carpio, ].
FACTS: In 1973, the Government through the Commssoner of Pubc
Hghways and the Constructon and Deveopment Corporaton of the
Phppnes (CDCP) sgned a contract to recam certan foreshore and
offshore areas of Mana Bay. PD 1084 was ssued, creatng Pubc Estates
Authorty (PEA), and PD 1085, transferrng the recamed ands under the
MCCRRP to PEA.
In 1995, PEA entered nto a |ont Venture Agreement (|VA) wth AMARI, a
prvate corporaton to deveop the Freedom Isands, and the |VA was
approved by Presdent Ramos. However, PEA and AMARI entered nto the |VA
through negotaton wthout pubc bddng. A Lega Task Force was created
to ook nto the ssue. The sad task force uphed the egaty of the |VA.
In 1998, Frank I. Chavez, as a taxpayer, fed a petton to compe PEA to
dscose a facts on ts negotatons wth AMARI, nvokng the consttutona
rght of the peope to nformaton on matters of pubc concern. He assas
the sae to AMARI of ands of the pubc doman as a batant voaton of the
consttutona prohbtng n the sae of aenabe ands of the pubc doman
to prvate corporatons.
Despte the ongong court pettons, PEA and AMARI sgned an Amended |ont
Venture Agreement (Amended |VA) n 1999, and such was approved by
Presdent Estrada. The Amended |VA seeks to convey to AMARI the
ownershp of 77.34 hectares of the Freedom Isands.
lSSUE: Whether AMARI has the capacty to acqure the ands hed by PEA.
HELD: No. Under the 1987 Consttuton, prvate corporatons such as AMARI
cannot acqure aenabe and of the pubc doman. Recamed ands
comprsng the Freedom Isands, whch are covered by certfcates of tte n
the name of PEA, are aenabe ands of the pubc doman. PEA may ease
these ands to prvate corporatons but may not se or transfer ownershp of
these ands to prvate corporatons. PEA may ony se these ands to
Phppne ctzens, sub|ect to the ownershp mtatons n the 1987
Consttuton and exstng aws. Thus, the Amended |ont Venture Agreement
between AMARI and PEA was nu and vod.
#10
Chavez v. National Housing Authority
G.R. No. 164527, August 15, 2007
Velasco, ]r., ].
FACTS: Presdent Corazon Aquno ssued Memorandum Order No. 161
approvng and drectng the mpementaton of the Comprehensve and
Integrated Metropotan Mana Waste Management Pan. Respondent
Natona Housng Authorty was ordered to "conduct feasbty studes and
deveop ow-cost housng pro|ects at the dumpste and absorb scavengers n
NHA resettement/ow-cost housng pro|ects", partcuary n the Smokey
Mountan. It produced the "Smokey Mountan Deveopment Pan and
Recamaton of the Area Across R-10" or the Smoke Mountan Deveopment
and Recamaton Pro|ect. The Pro|ect amed to covert Smokey mountan
!"
dumpste nto a habtabe housng pro|ect, ncusve of the recamaton of the
area. Presdent Aquno approved the sad Pro|ect through MO 415. After
Presdent Aqunos term, Presdent Fde Ramos, through Procamaton No.
39, authorzed the NHA to enter nto a |ont Venture Agreement wth R-II
Buders, Inc. (RBI) for the mpementaton of the pro|ect. Afterwards,
Presdent Ramos ssued Procamaton No. 465 ncreasng the proposed area
for recamaton across R-10 from 40 hectares to 79 hectares. The pettoner
Francsco Chavez contended that the respondent NHA or respondent RBI has
no authorty to recam foreshore and submerged and.
lSSUE: Whether or not respondent NHA has the authorty to recam
foreshore and submerged and.
HELD: Yes. The Natona Housng Authorty (NHA) s a government agency
not tasked to dspose of pubc ands under ts charter - t s an "end-user
agency" authorzed by aw to admnster and dspose of recamed ands. The
moment ttes over recamed ands based on the speca patents are
transferred to the Natona Housng Authorty (NHA) by the Regster of
Deeds, they are automatcay converted to patrmona propertes of the
State whch can be sod to Fpno ctzens and prvate corporatons, 60% of
whch are owned by Fpnos. The combned and coectve effect of
Procamatons Nos. 39 and 465 wth Speca Patents Nos. 3592 and 3598 s
tantamount to and can be consdered to be an offca decaraton that the
recamed ots are aenabe or dsposabe ands of the pubc doman. Even f
t s conceded that there was no expct decaraton that the ands are no
onger needed for pubc use or pubc servce, there was however an mpct
executve decaraton that the recamed areas are not necessary anymore
for pubc use or pubc servce when Presdent Aquno through MO 415
conveyed the same to the Natona Housng Authorty (NHA) party for
housng pro|ect and reated commerca/ndustra deveopment ntended for
dsposton to and en|oyment of certan benefcares and not the pubc n
genera and party as enabng component to fnance the pro|ect.
#9
Manila lnternational Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 155650, ]uly 20, 2006
Carpio, ].
FACTS: MIAA receved Fna Notces of Rea Estate Tax Denquency from the
Cty of Paraaque for the taxabe years 1992 to 2001. MIAAs rea estate tax
denquency was estmated at P624 mon. Thus, the Cty of Paraaque,
through ts Cty Treasurer, ssued notces of evy and warrants of evy on the
Arport Lands and Budngs. The Mayor of the Cty of Paraaque threatened
to se at pubc aucton the Arport Lands and Budngs shoud MIAA fa to
pay the rea estate tax denquency. Cty of Paraaque contends that Secton
193 of the Loca Government Code expressy wthdrew the tax exempton
prveges of "government-owned and-controed corporatons" upon the
effectvty of the Loca Government Code. However, MIAA avers that arport
ands and budngs are owned by the State, and thus, exempt from tax.
lSSUE: Whether or not arport ands and budngs of MIAA are exempt from
rea estate tax.
HELD: Yes. MIAA s a government nstrumentaty vested wth corporate
powers to perform effcenty ts governmenta functons. MIAA s ke any
!"
other government nstrumentaty, the ony dfference s that MIAA s vested
wth corporate powers. Uness the government nstrumentaty s organzed
as a stock or non-stock corporaton, t remans a government nstrumentaty
exercsng not ony governmenta but aso corporate powers. Thus, MIAA
exercses the governmenta powers of emnent doman, poce authorty and
the evyng of fees and charges. The arport ands and budngs of MIAA are
property of pubc domnon and therefore owned by the State or the
Repubc of the Phppnes. Hence, the sub|ect propertes are not sub|ect to
tax.
]avier v. Veridiano ll
G.R. No. L-48050, October 10, 1994, 237 SCRA 565
Bellosillo, ].
FACTS: |aver fed a Msceaneous Saes Appcaton for ot 1641. She ater
nsttuted a compant for forcbe entry aganst Babo, aegng that she was
forcby dspossessed of a porton of sad and. The case for forcby entry was
however dsmssed as t was found by the court that the occuped porton
was outsde Lot 1641. The same was dsmssed on appea. |aver was
eventuay granted a Msceaneous Saes Patent and ssued an OCT for ot
1641. Babo, however had sod the property he was occupyng, ncudng a
porton of 200 square meters to Rosete. |aver demanded the surrender of
the same area from Rosete who repeatedy refused to compy. After 4 years,
|aver nsttuted a compant for quetng of tte and recovery of possesson
wth damages aganst Babo and Rosete. Rosete moved to dsmss the
compant on the ground of !"# %&'()*+*. The CFI sustaned the argument of
Rosete and granted hs moton to dsmss. |aver contends that !"# %&'()*+*
cannot appy n the nstant case snce there s no dentty of partes and
causes of acton between her compant for forcbe entry, whch had ong
become fna and executory, and her subsequent petton for quetng of tte.
|aver mantans that there s no dentty of causes of acton snce the frst
case was for forcbe entry, whch s merey concerned wth the possesson of
the property, whereas the subsequent case was for quetng of tte, whch
ooks nto the ownershp of the dsputed and.
lSSUE: Whether or not there are reay dfferent causes of acton between
the forcbe entry case and the ater quetng of tte case.
HELD: Yes. For !"# %&'()*+* to bar the nsttuton of a subsequent acton the
foowng requstes must concur: (1) There must be a fna |udgment or
order; (2) The court renderng the |udgment must have |ursdcton over the
sub|ect matter; (3) The former |udgment s a |udgment on the merts; and,
(4) There s between the frst and second actons dentty of (4a) partes, (4b)
of sub|ect matter and (4c) of causes of acton.
!"
|aver's argument that there s no dentty of partes between the two actons
s wthout mert. We have repeatedy rued that for !"# %&'()*+* to appy,
what s requred s not absoute but ony substanta dentty of partes. But,
there s mert n |aver's argument that there s no dentty of causes of
acton.
"The ony ssue n an acton for forcbe entry s the physca or matera
possesson of rea property, that s, possesson '" ,*)+- and not possesson
'" %&!". The phosophy underyng ths remedy s that rrespectve of the
actua condton of the tte to the property, the party n peaceabe quet
possesson sha not be turned out by strong hand, voence or terror." A
|udgment rendered n a case for recovery of possesson s concusve ony on
the queston of possesson and not on the ownershp. It does not n any way
bnd the tte or affects the ownershp of the and or budng.
On the other hand, Cv Case No. 2203-0 s n reaty an acton to recover a
parce of and or an *))(-. !"(/(.'()*+-!(* under Art. 434 of the Cv Code,
and shoud be dstngushed from Cv Case No. 926, whch s an *))(-.
(.+"!'()+*0. 1))(-. (.+"!'()+*0, whch s the summary acton for forcbe entry
('"+".+*)(-.) where the defendant's possesson of the property s ega *2
(.(+(-, or the summary acton for unawfu detaner ('"#*3&()-) where the
defendant's possesson was orgnay awfu but ceased to be so by the
expraton of hs rght to possess, both of whch must be brought wthn one
year from the date of actua entry on the and, n case of forcbe entry, and
from the date of ast demand, n case of unawfu detaner, n the proper
muncpa tra court or metropotan tra court; *))(-. 4&20()(*.* whch s a
penary acton for recovery of the rght to possess and whch shoud be
brought n the proper regona tra court when the dspossesson has asted
for more than one year; and, *))(-. !"(/(.'()*+-!(* or *))(-. '"
!"(/(.'()*)(-. whch seeks the recovery of ownershp and ncudes the %&#
&+".'( and the %&# ,!&".'( brought n the proper regona tra court.
1))(-. !"(/(.'()*+-!(* or *))(-. '" !"(/(.'()*)(-. s thus an acton whereby
pantff aeges ownershp over a parce of and and seeks recovery of ts fu
possesson. It s dfferent from *))(-. (.+"!'()+*0 or *))(-. 4&20()(*.* where
pantff merey aeges proof of a better rght to possess wthout cam of
tte.
In Cv Case No. 926 |aver merey camed a better rght or pror possesson
over the dsputed area wthout assertng tte thereto. It shoud be
dstngushed from Cv Case No. 2203-0 where she expressy aeged
ownershp.
Bustos v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 120784-85, ]anuary 24, 2001, 350 SCRA 155
Pardo, ].
FACTS: Pauno Fa|ardo ded ntestate on Apr 2, 1957. He had four (4)
chdren, namey: Manuea, Trndad, Beatrz and Marca, a surnamed
Fa|ardo. On September 30, 1964, the hers executed an extra-|udca
partton of the estate of Pauno Fa|ardo. On the same date, Manuea sod
her share to Moses G. Mendoza, husband of Beatrz by deed of absoute sae.
At the tme of the sae, there was no cadastra survey n Masanto,
Pampanga. Later, the cadastre was conducted and the property nvoved n
!"
the partton case was specfed as Lots 280, 283, 284, 1000-A and 1000-B.
The share of Manuea, whch was sod to Moses, ncudes Lot 284 of the
Masanto Cadastre and Lot 284 was subdvded nto Lots 284-A and 284-B.
Trndad was n physca possesson of the and. She refused to surrender the
and to her brother-n-aw Moses G. Mendoza, despte severa demands.
On September 3, 1971, Moses fed wth the Court of Frst Instance,
Pampanga a compant for partton camng the one fourth (1/4) share of
Manuea whch was sod to hm. Durng the pendency of the case for
partton, Trndad Fa|ardo ded. On December 15, 1984, the hers executed
an extra-|udca partton of the estate of Trndad Fa|ardo. On February 16,
1987, Luco Fa|ardo Ignaco, son of Trndad sod Lot 284-B to spouses
Venanco Vray and Ceca Nunga-Vray.
On February 8, 1989, the Regona Tra Court, Pampanga, Macabebe, Branch
55 rendered a decson n favor of Moses G. Mendoza.In the meantme, on
November 6, 1989, spouses Venanco Vray and Ceca Nunga-Vray, buyers
of Luco Ignaco's share of the property, fed wth the Muncpa Crcut Tra
Court, Macabebe-Masanto, Pampanga an acton for unawfu detaner
aganst spouses Bustos, the buyers of Moses G. Mendoza, who were n actua
possesson as essees of the husband of Trndad, Francsco Ignaco, of the
sub|ect and. The muncpa crcut tra court decded the case n favor of
spouses Vray. Subsequenty, the tra court ssued wrts of executon and
demoton, but stayed when spouses Bustos fed wth the regona Tra
Court, Pampanga, Macabebe, Branch 55,

a petton for certorar, prohbton
and n|uncton. On December 18, 1992, the regona tra court rendered a
decson dsmssng the case. On September 9, 1994, pettoners fed a
moton for reconsderaton; however, on |une 21, 1995, the Court of Appeas
dened the moton.
lSSUE: Whether or not pettoners coud be e|ected from what s now ther
own and.
HELD: In ths case, the ssue of possesson s ntertwned wth the ssue of
ownershp. In the unawfu detaner case, the Court of Appeas affrmed the
decson of the tra court as to possesson on the ground that the decson
has become fna and executory. Ths means that the pettoners may be
evcted. In the !""#$% '(#%)#%*#"!+$'#!, the Court of Appeas affrmed the
ownershp of pettoners over the sub|ect and. Hence, the court decared
pettoners as the awfu owners of the and. In the present case, the stay of
executon s warranted by the fact that pettoners are now ega owners of
the and n queston and are occupants thereof. To execute the |udgment by
e|ectng pettoners from the and that they owned woud certany resut n
grave n|ustce. Besdes, the ssue of possesson was rendered moot when
the court ad|udcated ownershp to the spouses Bustos by vrtue of a vad
deed of sae. Pacng pettoners n possesson of the and n queston s the
necessary and ogca consequence of the decson decarng them as the
rghtfu owners s possesson. It foows that as owners of the sub|ect
property, pettoners are entted to possesson of the same. "An owner who
cannot exercse the seven (7) "-./(/0 or attrbutes of ownershp-the rght to
possess, to use and en|oy, to abuse or consume, to accessores, to dspose or
aenate, to recover or vndcate and to the fruts s a crpped owner.
Heirs of Roman Soriano v. Court of Appeals
!"
G.R. No. 128177, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 87
Ynares - Santiago, ].
FACTS: The and n dspute n ths case s orgnay owned by Adrano
Sorano who ded sometme n 1947. Adrano Sorano has 7 hers whom
eased the sub|ect parce of and to Davd de Vera and Consueo Vassta for
a term of 15 years startng |uy 1, 1967. The ease contract states that
Roman Sorano w serve as the caretaker of the sad property durng the
perod of ease. Durng the effectvty of the ease contract, the hers of
Adrano Sorano entered nto extra|udca settement of hs estate. As a
resut of the settement, the property was dvded nto two property, Lot No.
60052 whch was assgned to Lourdes and Canddo, hers of Adrano and the
hers of Donsa another her of Adrano. The other property, Lot No. 8459
was assgned to Francsco, Lbrada, Ecocado and Roman a hers of Adrano.
The owners of Lot No. 60052 sod the ot to spouses Brauo and Aquana
Abaos, and the owners of Lot No. 8459, except Roman aso sod ther shares
to spouses Brones.
On March 14, 1968, the de Vera spouses ousted Roman as caretaker and
apponted Isdro Versoza and Vda Versoza as hs substtute. Roman fed a
case for renstatement and requdaton aganst the de Vera spouses n CAR
Case No. 1724-P-68. On September 30, 1969, the Agraran Court rendered a
decson authorzng the e|ectment of Roman. On appea, the decson was
reversed by the Court of Appeas. The decon became fna and executor.
However, before t was executed, the partes entered nto a post-decsona
agreement wheren the de Vera spouses aowed Roman Sorano to sub-ease
the property unt the termnaton of the orgna ease on |une 30, 1982. Ths
agreement was approved by the CAR court n an order dated December 22,
1972.
On August 16, 1976, the Abaos spouses apped for the regstraton of the
dsputed parce of and. Roman Sorano and the Drector of Lands acted as
oppostors. On |une 27, 1983, the Land Regstraton Court granted the
appcaton for regstraton. On Apr 13, 1983, after the expraton of the
orgna ease and sub-ease n favor of Roman Sorano, the Abaos spouses
fed a case for unawfu detaner aganst Roman Sorano, ater, ths case was
dsmssed on moton of the Abaos spouses. On |uy 14, 1983, Ecocado,
Lbrada, Roman, Francsco, Lourdes, Canddo and the hers of Donsa fed a
compant to annu the deeds of sae they executed n favor of the Abaos
spouses or shoud the deeds be not annued, to aow Roman, Ecocado and
Lbrada to redeem ther shares n the dsputed and and to uphod Roman
Soranos possesson of the fshpond porton of the property as a tenant-
caretaker.
After the dsmssa of the case for unawfu detaner, the Abaos spouses fed
on August 22, 1984, a moton for executon of the post-decsona order
embodyng the agreement of Roman Sorano and the de Vera spouses
aowng the former to subease the property. On October 25, 1984, Roman
fed a moton to suspend hearng on the renta demanded by the Abaos
spouses unt after the other ssues rased n hs opposton to the moton for
executon are resoved. The moton to suspend hearng on the ssue of the
rentas was dened and the tra court authorzed the substtuton of the de
Vera spouses by the Abaos spouses. Roman Sorano's moton for
reconsderaton was dened on March 16, 1985. Roman fed petton for
certorar and prohbton n the Court of Appeas but the atter dened the
petton, pendng the dena of ths petton, Roman Sorano ded. Not
!"
satsfed wth the decson of the Court of Appeas, the hers of Roman
Sorano brought ths case n the Supreme Court.
lSSUE: Whether or not a wnnng party (ABALOS) n a and regstraton case
can effectvey e|ect the possessor (SORIANO) thereof, whose securty of
tenure rghts s st pendng determnaton before the DARAB.
HELD: No. The Court hed that a |udgment n a and regstraton case cannot
effectvey used to oust the possessor of the and, whose securty of tenure
rghts are st pendng determnaton before the DARAB. There s no dspute
that Abaos spouses' tte over the and under tgaton has been confrmed
wth fnaty. However, the decaraton pertans ony to ownershp and does
not automatcay ncude possesson, especay son the nstant case where
there s a thrd party occupyng the sad parce of and, aegedy n the
concept of an agrcutura tenant. Agrcutura essees are entted to securty
of tenure and they have the rght to work on ther respectve andhodngs
once the easehod reatonshp s estabshed. Securty of tenure s a ega
concesson to agrcutura essees whch they vaue as fe tsef ad
deprvaton of ther andhodngs s tantamount to deprvaton of ther ony
means of vehood. The exercse of the rght of ownershp, then, yeds to
the exercse of the rghts of an agrcutura tenant. The Supreme Court
decded to refran from rung whether pettoners may be dspossessed of
the sub|ect property whe pettoner's status as tenant has not yet been
decared by the DARAB.
Garcia v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 133140, August 10, 1999, 312 SCRA 180
Puno, ].
FACTS: Pettoner Atty. Pedro Garca, wth the consent of hs wfe Remedos
Garca, sod a parce of and stuated at Be Ar II Vage, Makat to hs
daughter Mara Lusa Magpayo and her husband Lusto Magpayo. The
Magpayos mortgaged the and to the Phppne Bank of Communcatons
(PBCom) to secure a oan. The Magpayos faed to pay ther oan upon ts
maturty, hence, the mortgage was extra|udcay forecosed and at the
pubc aucton sae n whch PBCom bought the and. The redempton perod
of the forecosed mortgage expred wthout the Magpayos redeemng the
same, hence, tte over the and was consodated n favor of PBCom.
PBCom subsequenty fed a petton for the ssuance of a wrt of possesson
over the and wth the Regona Tra Court (RTC) of Makat. The RTC granted
the petton. Upon servce of the wrt of possesson, Mara Lusa Magpayos
brother, |ose Ma. T. Garca, who was n possesson of the and, refused to
honor t. |ose Garca thereupon fed aganst PBCom, the Magpayos, and the
RTC Sherff the nstant sut for recovery of reaty and damages wheren he
contended, !"#$% '(!', that at the tme of the aeged sae to the Magpayo
spouses, he was n possesson of the property; that, when hs mother
Remedos Taban Garca ded, sometme n October, 1980, he became, by
operaton of aw, a co-owner of the property; and that, Atty. Pedro V. Garca,
at the tme of the executon of the nstrument n favor of the Magpayo
spouses was not n possesson of the sub|ect property.
lSSUE: Whether or not |ose Magpayo was a co-owner of the parce of the
and n dspute.
!"
HELD: No. Possesson and ownershp are dstnct ega concepts. Ownershp
exsts when a thng pertanng to one person s competey sub|ected to hs
w n a manner not prohbted by aw and consstent wth the rghts of
others. Ownershp confers certan rghts to the owner, one of whch s the
rght to dspose of the thng by way of sae. Atty. Pedro Garca and hs wfe
Remedos exercsed ther rght to dspose of what they owned when they
sod the sub|ect property to the Magpayo spouses. On the other hand,
possesson s defned as the hodng of a thng or the en|oyment of a rght.
Lteray, to possess means to actuay and physcay occupy a thng wth or
wthout rght. Possesson may be had n one of two ways: possesson n the
concept of an owner and possesson of a hoder. "A possessor n the concept
of an owner may be the owner hmsef or one who cams to be so." On the
other hand, "one who possesses as a mere hoder acknowedges n another a
superor rght whch he beeves to be ownershp, whether hs beef be rght
or wrong." The records show that pettoner |ose Garca occuped the
property not n the concept of an owner for hs stay was merey toerated by
hs parents. An owners act of aowng another to occupy hs house, rent-free
does not create a permanent and ndefeasbe rght of possesson n the
atters favor. Consequenty, t s of no moment that pettoner was n
possesson of the property at the tme of the sae to the Magpayo spouses. It
was not a hndrance to a vad transfer of ownershp. A sad, the Magpayo
spouses were aready the owners when they mortgaged the property to
PBCom.
Rodil Enterprises, lnc. v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 129609, November 29, 2001, 371 SCRA 79
Bellosillo, ].
FACTS: Rod Enterprses Inc. (RODIL) s the essee of the Ides O'Racca
Budng (O'RACCA) snce 1959 whch s a property owned by the Repubc of
the Phppnes. In 1980, Rod entered nto a subease contract wth
respondents Carmen Bondoc, Teresta Bondoc-Esto, Dvsora Footwear and
Chua Huay Soon, members of the Ides ORacca Budng Tenants Assocaton,
Inc. On 12 September 1982 BP 233 was enacted. It authorzed the sae of
"former aen propertes" cassfed as commerca and ndustra, and the
O'RACCA budng was cassfed as commerca property. RODIL and Ides
ORacca Budng Tenants Assocaton, Inc., offered to purchase the sub|ect
property. Pendng acton on the offer of RODIL to purchase the property,
Drector Factora of the Budng Servces and Rea Property Management
Offce granted RODIL's request for another renewa of the ease contract on
23 September 1987 for another fve (5) years from 1 September 1987. The
renewa contract was forwarded to then Secretary |ose de |esus of
!"#$%&'"(& *+ ,"("%$- ."%/01"2 $(3 4"$- 52&$&" 6%*#"%&7 8$($9"'"(&
(DGSREPM) for approva. Upon recommendaton of DGSREPM Rufno Banas,
De |esus dsapproved the renewa contract n favour of Rod and recaed a
papers sgned by hm regardng the sub|ect. Secretary De |esus kewse
drected RODIL to pay ts reaty tax denquency and ordered the ssuance of
a temporary occupancy permt to the ASSOCIATION.
On 6 October 1987 RODIL fed an acton for specfc performance, damages
and n|uncton wth prayer for temporary restranng order before the
Regona Tra Court of Mana aganst the REPUBLIC, De |esus, Banas,
Factora and the ASSOCIATION. De |esus, Banas and Factora were ater
!"

You might also like