VII. 3. Serrano Mahilum vs. Spouses Ilano. GR. No.

197923

Facts: Petitioner Ruby Ruth S. Serrano Mahilum is the registered owner of a parcel of
land covered b a certificate of title. She entrusted the Certificate of Title to Teresa Perez
for the purpose of obtaining a loan. Perez admitted that the Title was lost. Spouses
Edilberto and Lourdes Ilano (respondent) presented the Title to the Registry claiming
that the said property was sold to them. However, the respondent did not register the
alleged sale.

Issue: WON failure to alleged bad faith in the complaint is a fatal defect considering that
the subject documents were merely simulated, fictitious and forgery and hence null and
void from the beginning.

Ruling: No. Since a new Title was never issued in respondents favor, instead title
remained in the petitioner’s name, the former never came within the coverage and
protection of Torrens system, where the issue of good or bad faith becomes relevant.
Since respondent never acquired a new certificate of title in their name, the issue of
their good or bad faith which is central in an annulment of title case is of no
consequences.

4. Alba Jr. V Malapajo GR No. 198752

Facts: Petitioner, Arturo C Alba Jr., duly represented b his attorneys-in-fact filed with the
regional trial court of Roxas a complaint against Raymundo D Malapayo and the
register of deeds for recover of ownership and/or declaration of nullity or cancellation of
title and damages alleging among others that he was the previous registered owner of a
parcel of land consisting 98,146 sqm. Respondents malapajo filed their answers with
counter claim contending that they were present to them already prepared and
notarized; that before the sale, petitioner had, on separate occasions, obtained loans
from them

Issue : WON counterclaimed of respondent is compulsory

Ruling: Yes. There is a logical relationship between the claim and the counterclaim, as
the counterclaim is connected with the transaction or occurrence constituting the subject
matter of the opposing party’s claim. Notably, the same evidence to sustain
respondents counterclaim would disproved petitioner’s case. In the event that the
respondents could convincingly established that petitioner actually executed the
promissory note and the real estate mortgage over the subject matter property in their
favor then petitioner’s complaint might fail.
5. Maltos vs. Heirs of Borromeo GR.No. 172720

Facts: The Sale of a parcel of Agricultural Land covered by a free patent the five (5)
year prohibitory period under Public land Act is void. On February 13, 1979, Eusebio
Borromeo was issued free patent No. 586681 over a piece of Agricultural land located in
San Francisco Agusan del Sur, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-9053.
Borromeo sold the land to Eliseo Maltos. Borromeo died on January 16, 1991. His heirs
claimed to nullify the sale to Maltos because the sale was within the five year prohibitory
period.

Issue: WON respondents failed to establish their status as heirs by their admissions
during trial and in their pleading.

Ruling: No. In addition, when petitioner Eliseo Maltos was presented in Court, he
identified the signature of the witnesses on the Deed of sale as the signature of Eusebio
Borromeo’s children. Respondent’s allegation that they are heir of Borromeo is admitted
by Maltos.

VIII. 1. Lim vs. Gamosa GR. No. 193964

Facts: Respondent Tagbanua Indigenous Cultural Community of Barangay Buenavista

Coron, Palawan represented by individual respondents filed a petition before the NCIP
against petitioner for “violation of rights to Free and Prior and Informed Consent” (FPIC)
and Unauthorized and Unlawful Intrusion with prayer for the issuance of Preliminary
Injunction(PI) and Temporary Restraining Order(TOR). Thereafter, the NCIP issued an
Order dated October 20, 2016 and directing the issuance and service of summons, and
setting the preliminary conference and initial hearing on the prayer for issuance of a
TOR Order on 2006.

Issue: WON Respondent had prohibited pleading

Ruling: Yes. In this case, respondent’s petition as written, does not mention Ultimate
facts that laed to the conclusion that (1) they are Tagbanua’s and (2) they are the
representatives of n Ultimate Facts showing acts or omissions on the part of petitioners
which constitute a violation of respondents rights.

2. Bucal vs. Bucal GR. No. 206957

Facts: Petitioner Cherith A. Bucal (Cherith) and Manny were married and have a
daughter named Francheska A. Bucal. Cherith filed a petitioner for issuance of a
protection order based on RA 9262 Anti Violence Againts Women and their Children Act
of 2004. She alleged that Manny never shown her love and care of a husband nor
supported her and Francheska financially. Furthermore, due to Manny’s alcoholism, he
was always mad and would even shout hurtful words to her. Manny’s demeanor even
affected her health detrimentally, leading her to suffer dizziness and difficulty in
breathing on one occasion. Manny filed a manifestation and opposition to petition of
Cherith

Issue: Whether or not RTC had authority to grant visitation rights to Manny even if such
was not prayed

Ruling: No. It is well-settled that courts cannot grant a relief not prayed in the pleadings
or in excess of what is being sought by a party to a case. For the same reason, this
protection against surprise granted to defendant should also be available to petitioners.
Verily, both parties to a suit are entitled to due process against unforeseen and arbitrary
judgments.

3. Republic vs. Kenrick Development Corporation GR. No. 149576

Facts: Kenrick built a concrete fence around some parts of the land behind the Civil
Aviation Training Center of the Air Transportation Office (ATO) claiming ownership over
those lands. Its encroachment resulted to t5he dispossession of ATO of some 30,228
square meter of prime land. Kenrick justified its action by presenting TCT’s issued in its
name and which allegedly originated from a TCT registered in the name of Alfonso
Concepcion. While the case was pending, the senate blue ribbon committee on Justice
and Human Rights investigated Kenrick acquisition of Fake Title.

Issue: WON Kenrick failed to file a valid answer on the ground that its pleading was
unsigned by its counsel Atty. Garlitos.

Ruling: Yes. Pursuant to Sec 3 Rule 7, a pleading must be signed by the party or
counsel representing him. The law is clear, and the counsel’s duty and authority to sign
a pleading is personal to him and may not be delegated to just any person. The
signature of the counsel constitutes assurance by him that he has read the pleading
that, tom the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is a good ground to
support it, and that is not interposed for delay. Under the Rules of court, It is counsel
alone by affixing his signature, who can certify to these matter.

4. Altres vs. Empleo GR. No. 180986

Facts: Iligan Mayor Quijano advised CSC of its various carreer positions in the City
Government, of which the latter proceeded its publication. Petitioners and other
applicants submitted their applications for the diffirent positions where the felt qualified
toward the end of his term, Mayor Quijano issued appointments to petitioner,
Sangguniang Panglunsod issued requesting suspension on processing to all vacant
positions until the enacted of new budget. Respondent Cit Accountant Empleo did not
Issue certification as to verification and certification against forum shopping attached to
the petition as it bears the signature of only 11 out of the 59 petitioner.

Issue: WON all petitioners must sign on Verification

Ruling: No. In the present case, the signing of the verification b only 11 out of the 59
petitioners already sufficiently assures the court that the allegation in the pleading are
true and correct and not the product of imagination or a matter of speculation; that the
pleading is filed in good faith; and that signatories are unquestionably real parties in
interest who undoubtedly have sufficient knowledge and belief to sweer to the truth of
the allegations in the petitions.

5. Ortigas & Co Limited Partnership vs. Velasco

Facts: Respondent Epimaco V. Oreta filed complaint against Molina for falsification of
Public Documents before the Office of the City Prosecutor in Quezon City. Oreta
alleged that that The Manila Banking Corporation(TMBC) owns several lands in
Greenmeadows. Molina alleged that several properties of TMBC had overlapped to her
properties. During Trial, CA dismissed Molina petition on Technical grounds. It appears
that petitioner failed to submit the Certified True Copies of the assailed Resolution.

Issue: WON Molina’s failure to comply strictly with the requirements in appearing a
decision is enough to deprive her of her right to appeal.

Ruling: On procedural ground the answer is NO. The failure of the petitioner to comply
with the Rules, that is to append to hid petition copies of the pleading and other
materials portion of the record as would support the petition does not justify the outright
dismissal of the petition. It must be emphasized that the appellate court give certain
leeway to require parties to submit additional documents as may be necessary in the
interest of substantial Justice.

6. Cua vs. Vargas

Facts: A parcel of Residential land with an area of 99 square meter located in San Juan,
Virac Catanduanes was left behind by the late Paulina Vargas. On February 4 1994 a
Notarized Extra-Judicial settlement among heirs was executed by and among Paulina’s
Vargas heirs, out of 9 heirs only 5 signed it. The Extra-Judicial settlement among heirs
was published in the Catanduanes Tribune for three (3) consecutive. Respondent
argued that the said Extra judicial Settlement cannot bing them for it was executed
without their consent and participation.

Issue: WON there was non-joinder of the indidpensable parties , the co-heirs.
Ruling: NO. That there is a non-joinder of indispensable parties, similarly lacks merit. An
indispensable party is a party-in-interest without whom there can be no final
determination of an action and is required to be joined as either plaintiff or defendant. In
relation to this, It must be kept in mind that the complaint filed b respondents ultimately
prayed that they be allowed to redeem the shares in the property sold by their co-heir.
Significantly, the right of the other heirs to sell their undivided share in the property to
petitioner is not in dispute.

IX 1. Villalon vs. Lirio GR. No. 183869

Facts: Lirio and Semicon Intergrated Electronics Corporation(SEMICON) entered into a

contract of lease covering Lirios properties in Pasig City. Villalon, who was then
Semi9con president and chairman of the board represented the Lessee Corporation in
the lease Contract. Prior to the expiration of the Lease, Semicon terminated the
Contract and allegedly left unpaid rentals, damages and interest. Lirio demanded
payment but Semicon and Villalon failed to pay. As a result, Lirio filed on May 178, 2005
a complai9nt for sum of money with prayer for preliminary attachment against Semicon
and Villalon.

Issue: WON Lirio lost his right to appeal.

Ruling: YES. Lirio’s mere invocation of the words “Surreptitiously and Fraudulently”
does not make the allegation particular without specifying the circumstances of
Villalon’s commission and employment of fraud and without delineating why it was
fraudulent for him. The allegations of fraud would have been averred with particularity
had lirio alleged for example, that Villalon removal of the Equipment under the false
pretense that they needed repair and refurbishing but the equipment were never
returned; or that Villalon removed the merchandise because Semicon needed to sell
them in exchange for new supplies but no new supplies were bought. No such
allegations was ever made.

2. Watercradt Venture Corp vs. Wolfe

Facts: Petitioner Watercraft, engaged in the business of building, repair, storing and
maintaining Yachts, Boats, and other pleasure crafts at Subic Bay Freeport Sone, Subic
Zambales, hired respondent Wolfe as its shipyard Manager. During his employment,
wolfe stored the sailboat, knott Gull, within watercraft boats storage facilities but never
paid for the storage fees. After the termination of Wolfe’s employment, he pulled out hid
sailboat from Watercraft’s storage facilities after signing a Boat Pull-out Clearance whre
he allegedly acknowledged the outstanding obligation of more than $ 16T representing
unpaid boat storage pay.
Issue: WON the allegation in the affidavit of concerning fraud are sufficient to warrant
the issuance of a preliminary writ of attachment by trail court in favor of the petitioner.

Ruling: No. After a careful perusal of the foregoing allegations, the court agrees with the
CA that Watercraft failed to state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud,
as required Section 5 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court and that Wolfe’s mere failure to pay
the boat storage fee does not necessarily amount tpo fraud, absent any showing that
such failure was to insidious machinations and intent on his part to defraud watercraft of
the amount due it.

3. La Mallorca vs. Court of Appeals Gr. No. L-20761

Facts: Plaintiff’s, husband and wife, together with their three minor daughters boarded
the Dambusio which is owned by the defendant. About an hour’s trip, Mariano get down
from the bus as it reached Anao. Mariano led his companion to a shaded spot on the
left pedestrian and returned to the bus to get his belonging without noticed that one of
her daughter followed him while getting his bayong from the conductor. The bus
suddenl travel about 10 kilometer. Mariano jumped from the running board without
getting his bayong. At that instant his child was hit by the same Bus.

Issue: WON there is sufficient allegation in the complaint.

Ruling: YES. The allegation in the complaint to the effect that the death of Raquel
Beltran, plaintiff’s daughter was caused by negligence and want of exercise of the
outmost diligence of a very cautious person on the part of the defendants and their
agent s; sufficiently pleads the culpa or negligence upon which the claim was
predicated. This allegation was proved when it established during trial.

4. BP Oil vs. Total Distribution GR. No. 214406

Facts: According to the allegations in the complaint, the defendant entered into Agency
Agreement with BP Singapore on September 30, 1997, whereby it was given the right
to act as the exclusive agent of the latter for the sales and distribution of its industrial
lubricant in the Philippines. When the defendant did not meet its target sales volume for
the first year of the agreement, the plaintiff informed the defendant that it was going to
appoint other didtributor to sell the BP’s Industrial products. The defendant did not
object to the plan of the plaintiff but asked for P10,000,000 as compensation for the
expenses.

Issue: WON Exhibit “J” qualifies as an actionable document that needs to be specifically
denied under oath.

Ruling: No. To the mind if the Court Exhibit “J” is not an actionable document but it is an
evidence that may be admissible and; hence need not to be denied under oath. A
document, therefore is actionable when an action for collection of sum of money arising
from the termination of the agency Agreement with TDLSI. The CA, therefore was
correct when it stated that the petitioner’s cause of action is primarily based on the
alleged non-payment of outstanding debts of respondents as well as the unremitted
collections/payments and unsold, despite demand.