7/7/2016

SorianovsSpsGalit:156295:September23,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.156295.September23,2003]

MARCELO R. SORIANO, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES RICARDO and ROSALINA

GALIT,respondents.
DECISION
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
[1]

Petitioner was issued a writ of possession in Civil Case No. 6643 for Sum of Money by the
RegionalTrialCourtofBalanga,Bataan,Branch1.Thewritofpossessionwas,however,nullifiedby
[2]
theCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.65891 becauseitincludedaparceloflandwhichwasnot
among those explicitly enumerated in the Certificate of Sale issued by the Deputy Sheriff, but on
whichstandtheimmovablescoveredbythesaidCertificate.Petitionercontendsthatthesaleofthese
immovablesnecessarilyencompassesthelandonwhichtheystand.
Dissatisfied,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetitionforreviewoncertiorari.
RespondentRicardoGalitcontractedaloanfrompetitionerMarceloSoriano,inthetotalsumof
P480,000.00,evidencedbyfourpromissorynotesintheamountofP120,000.00eachdatedAugust2,
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
1996 August15,1996 September4,1996 andSeptember14,1996. Thisloanwassecured
[7]
byarealestatemortgageoveraparceloflandcoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.569. After
he failed to pay his obligation, Soriano filed a complaint for sum of money against him with the
[8]
RegionalTrialCourtofBalangaCity,Branch1,whichwasdocketedasCivilCaseNo.6643.
Respondents, the Spouses Ricardo and Rosalina Galit, failed to file their answer. Hence, upon
motionofMarceloSoriano,thetrialcourtdeclaredthespousesindefaultandproceededtoreceive
evidenceforpetitionerSorianoexparte.
[9]

OnJuly7,1997,theRegionalTrialCourtofBalangaCity,Branch1renderedjudgment infavor
ofpetitionerSoriano,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffandagainstthedefendantorderingthe
lattertopay:
1.theplaintifftheamountofP350,000.00plus12%interesttobecomputedfromthedatesofmaturity
ofthepromissorynotesuntilthesamearefullypaid
2.theplaintiffP20,000.00,asattorneysfeesand
3.thecostsofsuit.
[10]

SOORDERED.

Thejudgmentbecamefinalandexecutory.Accordingly,thetrialcourtissuedawritofexecutionin
duecourse,byvirtueofwhich,DeputySheriffRenatoE.Roblesleviedonthefollowingrealproperties
oftheGalitspouses:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/156295.htm

1/9

7/7/2016

SorianovsSpsGalit:156295:September23,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

1.AparceloflandcoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.T569(HomesteadPatentNo.14692)
situatedintheBo.ofTapulac,Orani,Bataan.BoundedontheSW,alongline12byLotNo.3,
Cad.145containinganareaofTHIRTYFIVETHOUSANDSEVENHUNDREDFIFTYNINE
(35,759)SQUAREMETERS,moreorlessxxx
2.STORE/HOUSECONSTRUCTEDonLotNo.1103madeofstrongmaterialsG.I.roofingsituated
atCentroI,Orani,Bataan,xxxcontaininganareaof30sq.meters,moreorlessxxx
(constructedonTCTNo.T40785)
3.BODEGAconstructedonLot1103,madeofstrongmaterials,G.I.roofing,situatedinCentroI,
[11]
Orani,Bataan,xxxwithafloorareaof42.75sq.m.moreorlessxxx.
At the sale of the aboveenumerated properties at public auction held on December 23, 1998,
petitionerwasthehighestandonlybidderwithabidpriceofP483,000.00.Accordingly,onFebruary4,
[12]
1999,DeputySheriffRoblesissuedaCertificateofSaleofExecutionofRealProperty, whichreads:
CERTIFICATEOFSALEONEXECUTIONOFREALPROPERTY
TOALLWHOMAYSEETHESEPRESENTS:
GREETINGS:
IHEREBYthat(sic)byvirtueofthewritofexecutiondatedOctober16,1998,issuedintheaboveentitledcase
bytheHON.BENJAMINT.VIANZON,orderingtheProvincialSheriffofBataanorherauthorizedDeputy
Sherifftocausetobemade(sic)thesumofP350,000.00plus12%interesttobecomputedfromthedateof
maturityofthepromissorynotesuntilthesamearefullypaidP20,000.00asattorneysfeespluslegalexpenses
intheimplementationofthewritofexecution,theundersignedDeputySheriffsoldatpublicauctionon
December23,1998therightsandinterestsofdefendantsSps.RicardoandRosalinaGalit,totheplaintiff
MarceloSoriano,thehighestandonlybidderfortheamountofFOURHNDREDEIGHTYTHREE
THOUSANDPESOS(P483,000.00,PhilippineCurrency),thefollowingrealestatepropertiesmoreparticularly
describedasfollows:
ORIGINALCERTIFICATEOFTITLENO.T569
Aparcelofland(HomesteadPatentNo.14692)situatedintheBo.ofTapulac,Orani,Bataan,xxx.Boundedon
theSW.,alongline12byLotNo.3,Cad.145,containinganareaofTHIRTYFIVETHOUSANDSEVEN
HUNDREDFIFTYNINE(35,759)SQUAREMETERS,moreorlessxxx
TAXDEC.NO.PROPERTYINDEXNO.0180900102
STOREHOUSEconstructedonLot1103,madeofstrongmaterialsG.I.roofingsituatedatCentroI,Orani,
Bataanxxxcontaininganareaof30sq.meters,moreorlessxx(constructedonTCTNo.40785)
TAXDEC.NO.86PROPERTYINDEXNo.0180900102
BODEGAconstructedonLot1103,madeofstrongmaterialsG.I.roofingsituatedinCentroI,Orani,Bataan,x
xxwithafloorareaof42.75sq.m.moreorlessxxx
ITISFURTHERCERTIFIED,thattheaforesaidhighestandlonebidder,MarceloSoriano,beingtheplaintiff
didnotpaytotheProvincialSheriffofBataantheamountofP483,000.00,thesalepriceoftheabovedescribed
propertywhichamountwascreditedtopartial/fullsatisfactionofthejudgmentembodiedinthewritof
execution.
Theperiodofredemptionoftheabovedescribedrealpropertiestogetherwithalltheimprovementsthereonwill
expireOne(1)yearfromandaftertheregistrationofthisCertificateofSalewiththeRegisterofDeeds.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/156295.htm

2/9

7/7/2016

SorianovsSpsGalit:156295:September23,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

ThisCertificateofSheriffsSaleisissuedtothehighestandlonebidder,MarceloSoriano,underguarantees
prescribedbylaw.
Balanga,Bataan,February4,1999.
OnApril23,1999,petitionercausedtheregistrationoftheCertificateofSaleonExecutionofReal
PropertywiththeRegistryofDeeds.
The said Certificate of Sale registered with the Register of Deeds includes at the dorsal portion
thereof the following entry, not found in the Certificate of Sale on file with Deputy Sheriff RenatoE.
Robles:

[13]

ORIGINALCERTIFICATEOFTITLENO.T40785
Aparcelofland(LotNo.1103oftheCadastralSurveyofOrani),withtheimprovementsthereon,situatedin
theMunicipalityofOrani,BoundedontheNEbyCalleP.GomezontheE.byLotNo.1104ontheSEby
CalleWashingtonandontheW.byLot4102,containinganareaofONEHUNDREDTHIRTYNINE(139)
SQUAREMETERS,moreorless.Allpointsreferredtoareindicatedontheplanbearingtruedeclination0
deg.40E.,dateofsurvey,February191March1920.
On February 23, 2001, ten months from the time the Certificate of Sale on Execution was
[14]
registeredwiththeRegistryofDeeds,petitionermoved fortheissuanceofawritofpossession.He
averred that the oneyear period of redemption had elapsed without the respondents having
redeemedthepropertiessoldatpublicauctionthus,thesaleofsaidpropertieshadalreadybecome
final.Healsoarguedthatafterthelapseoftheredemptionperiod,thetitlestothepropertiesshould
beconsidered,foralllegalintentsandpurposes,inhisnameandfavor.

[15]

On June 4, 2001, the Regional Trial Court of Balanga City, Branch 1 granted the motion for
[16]

[17]

issuanceofwritofpossession. Subsequently,onJuly18,2001,awritofpossession
inpetitionersfavorwhichreads:

wasissued

WRITOFPOSSESSION
Mr.RenatoE.Robles
DeputySheriff
RTC,Br.1,BalangaCity
Greetings:
WHEREASonFebruary3,2001,thecounselforplaintifffiledMotionfortheIssuanceofWritofPossession
WHEREASonJune4,2001,thiscourtissuedanordergrantingtheissuanceoftheWritofPossession
WHEREFORE,youareherebycommandedtoplacethehereinplaintiffMarceloSorianoinpossessionofthe
propertyinvolvedinthiscasesituated(sic)moreparticularlydescribedas:
1.STOREHOUSEconstructedonLotNo.1103situatedatCentro1,Orani,BataancoveredbyTCT
No.40785
2.BODEGAconstructedonLotNo.1103withanareaof42.75squaremetersunderTaxDeclaration
No.86situatedatCentro1,Orani,Bataan
3.OriginalCertificateofTitleNo.40785withanareaof134squaremetersknownasLotNo.1103of
theCadastralSurveyofOrani
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/156295.htm

3/9

7/7/2016

SorianovsSpsGalit:156295:September23,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

againstthemortgagor/formerownersSps.RicardoandRosalinda(sic)Galit,her(sic)heirs,successors,assigns
andallpersonsclaimingrightsandinterestsadversetothepetitionerandmakeareturnofthiswriteverythirty
(30)daysfromreceipthereoftogetherwithalltheproceedingsthereonuntilthesamehasbeenfullysatisfied.
WITNESSTHEHONORABLEBENJAMINT.VIANZON,PresidingJudge,this18thdayofJuly2001,at
BalangaCity.
(Sgd)GILBERTS.ARGONZA
OIC
RespondentsfiledapetitionforcertiorariwiththeCourtofAppeals,whichwasdocketedasCA
G.R.SPNo.65891,assailingtheinclusionoftheparceloflandcoveredbyTransferCertificateofTitle
[18]

No.T40785amongthelistofrealpropertiesinthewritofpossession. Respondents argued that

saidpropertywasnotamongthosesoldonexecutionbyDeputySheriffRenatoE.Roblesasreflected
intheCertificateofSaleonExecutionofRealProperty.
In opposition, petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the petition because respondent spouses
failedtomoveforthereconsiderationoftheassailedorderpriortothefilingofthepetition.Moreover,
theproperremedyagainsttheassailedorderofthetrialcourtisanappeal,oramotiontoquashthe
writofpossession.
OnMay13,2002,theCourtofAppealsrenderedjudgmentasfollows:
WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionisherebyGRANTED.Accordingly,thewritofpossessionissuedbythe
RegionalTrialCourtofBalangaCity,Branch1,on18July2001isdeclaredNULLandVOID.
Intheeventthatthequestionedwritofpossessionhasalreadybeenimplemented,theDeputySheriffofthe
RegionalTrialCourtofBalangaCity,Branch1,andprivaterespondentMarceloSorianoareherebyorderedto
causetheredeliveryofTransferCertificateofTitleNo.T40785tothepetitioners.
[19]

SOORDERED.

Aggrieved,petitionernowcomestothisCourtmaintainingthat
1.)THESPECIALCIVILACTIONOFCERTIORARIUNDERRULE65ISNOTTHEPLAIN,
SPEEDYANDADEQUATEREMEDYOFTHERESPONDENTSINASSAILINGTHEWRIT
OFPOSSESSIONISSUEDBYTHELOWERCOURTBUTTHEREWERESTILLOTHER
REMEDIESAVAILABLETOTHEMANDWHICHWERENOTRESORTEDTOLIKETHE
FILINGOFAMOTIONFORRECONSIDERATIONORMOTIONTOQUASHOREVEN
APPEAL.
2.)THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINDECLARAINGTHE
CERTIFICATEOFSALEONEXECUTIONOFREALPROPERTYASNULLANDVOID
ANDSUBSEQUENTLYTHEWRITOFPOSSESSIONBECAUSETHESAMEISAPUBLIC
DOCUMENTWHICHENJOYSTHEPRESUMPTIONOFREGULARITYANDITCANNOT
BEOVERCOMEBYAMERESTRANGEFEELINGTHATSOMETHINGISAMISSONITS
SURFACESIMPLYBECAUSETHETYPEWRITTENWORDSONTHEFRONTPAGEAND
ATTHEDORSALPORTIONTHEREOFISDIFFERENTORTHATITISUNLIKELYFOR
THESHERIFFTOUSETHEDORSALPORTIONOFTHEFIRSTPAGEBECAUSETHE
SECONDPAGEISMERELYHALFFILLEDANDTHENOTATIONONTHEDORSAL
PORTIONCOULDSTILLBEMADEATTHESECONDPAGE.
Onthefirstground,petitionercontendsthatrespondentswerenotwithoutremedybeforethetrial
court.HepointsoutthatrespondentscouldhavefiledamotionforreconsiderationoftheOrderdated
June4,1999,buttheydidnotdoso.Respondentscouldalsohavefiledanappealbutthey,likewise,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/156295.htm

4/9

7/7/2016

SorianovsSpsGalit:156295:September23,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

did not do so. When the writ of possession was issued, respondents could have filed a motion to
quash the writ. Again they did not. Respondents cannot now avail of the special civil action for
certiorari as a substitute for these remedies. They should suffer the consequences for sleeping on
theirrights.
Wedisagree.
Concededly, those who seek to avail of the procedural remedies provided by the rules must
adhere to the requirements thereof, failing which the right to do so is lost. It is, however, equally
settled that the Rules of Court seek to eliminate undue reliance on technical rules and to make
[20]

litigation as inexpensive as practicable and as convenient as can be done. This is in accordance

withtheprimarypurposeofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedureasprovidedinRule1,Section6,which
reads:
Section6.Construction.Theserulesshallbeliberallyconstruedinordertopromotetheirobjectiveofsecuringa
[21]

just,speedyandinexpensivedeterminationofeveryactionandproceeding.

Therulesofprocedurearenottobeappliedinaveryrigid,technicalsenseandareusedonlyto
help secure substantial justice. If a technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim
wouldbedefeated.

[22]

Theyshouldbeliberallyconstruedsothatlitigantscanhaveampleopportunity
[23]

to prove their claims and thus prevent a denial of justice due to technicalities. Thus, in China
[24]
BankingCorporationv. Members of the Board of Trustees of Home Development Mutual Fund, it
washeld:
whilecertiorariasaremedymaynotbeusedasasubstituteforanappeal,especiallyforalostappeal,thisrule
[25]

shouldnotbestrictlyenforcedifthepetitionisgenuinelymeritorious. Ithasbeensaidthatwheretherigid
applicationoftheruleswouldfrustratesubstantialjustice,orbarthevindicationofalegitimategrievance,
[26]

thecourtsarejustifiedinexemptingaparticularcasefromtheoperationoftherules.

(Emphasisours)

Indeed,wellknownistherulethatdeparturesfromproceduremaybeforgivenwheretheydonot
appear to have impaired the substantial rights of the parties.
[28]

CA,

[27]

Aproposin thisregard isCometa v.

wherewesaidthat

Thereisnoquestionthatpetitionerswereremissinattendingwithdispatchtotheprotectionoftheirinterestsas
regardsthesubjectlots,andforthatreasonthecaseinthelowercourtwasdismissedonatechnicalityandno
definitivepronouncementontheinadequacyofthepricepaidfortheleviedpropertieswasevermade.Inthis
regard,itbearsstressingthatproceduralrulesarenottobebelittledordismissedsimplybecausetheirnon
observancemayhaveresultedinprejudicetoapartyssubstantiverightsasinthiscase.Likeallrules,theyare
requiredtobefollowedexceptwhenonlyforthemostpersuasiveofreasonstheymayberelaxedtorelievea
litigantofaninjusticenotcommensuratewiththedegreeofhisthoughtlessnessinnotcomplyingwiththe
[29]

procedureprescribed.

(emphasisanditalicssupplied.)

In short, since rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice,
their strict and rigid application which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than
[30]

promotesubstantialjusticemustalwaysbeavoided. Technicalityshouldnotbeallowedtostandin
[31]
thewayofequitablyandcompletelyresolvingtherightsandobligationsoftheparties.
Eschewing, therefore, the procedural objections raised by petitioner, it behooves us to address
the issue of whether or not the questioned writ of possession is in fact a nullity considering that it
includesrealpropertynotexpresslymentionedintheCertificateofSaleofRealProperty.
Petitioner, in sum, dwells on the general proposition that since the certificate of sale is a public
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/156295.htm

5/9

7/7/2016

SorianovsSpsGalit:156295:September23,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

document,itenjoysthepresumptionofregularityandallentriesthereinarepresumedtobedonein
theperformanceofregularfunctions.
Theargumentisnotpersuasive.
Thereareactuallytwo(2)copiesoftheCertificateofSaleonExecutionofRealPropertiesissued
onFebruary4,1999involved,namely:(a)copywhichisonfilewiththedeputysheriffand(b)copy
registered with the Registry of Deeds. The object of scrutiny, however, is not the copy of the
CertificateofSaleonExecutionofRealPropertiesissuedbythedeputysheriffonFebruary4,1999,
[32]

butthecopythereofsubsequentlyregisteredbypetitionerwiththeRegistryofDeedsonApril23,
[33]
1999, whichincludedanentryonthedorsalportionofthefirstpagethereofdescribingaparcelof
landcoveredbyOCTNo.T40785notfoundintheCertificateofSaleofRealPropertiesonfilewith
thesheriff.
True, public documents by themselves may be adequate to establish the presumption of their
validity. However, their probative weight must be evaluated not in isolation but in conjunction with
other evidence adduced by the parties in the controversy, much more so in this case where the
contentsof a copy thereof subsequently registered for documentation purposes is being contested.
Noreasonhasbeenofferedhowandwhythequestionedentrywassubsequentlyintercalatedinthe
copy of the certificate of sale subsequently registered with the Registry of Deeds. Absent any
satisfactory explanation as to why said entry was belatedly inserted, the surreptitiousness of its
inclusioncoupledwiththefurtivemannerofitsintercalationcastsseriousdoubtontheauthenticityof
petitionerscopyoftheCertificateofSale.Thus,ithasbeenheldthatwhileapublicdocumentlikea
notarized deed of sale is vested with the presumption of regularity, this is not a guarantee of the
[34]

validityofitscontents.

ItmustbepointedoutinthisregardthattheissuanceofaCertificateofSaleisanendresultof
judicial foreclosure where statutory requirements are strictly adhered to where even the slightest
[35]

[36]

deviationstherefromwillinvalidatetheproceeding andthesale. Amongtheserequirementsisan

explicitenumerationandcorrectdescriptionofwhatpropertiesaretobesoldstatedinthenotice.The
stringenceintheobservanceoftheserequirementsissuchthatanincorrecttitlenumbertogetherwith
acorrecttechnicaldescriptionofthepropertytobesoldandviceversaisdeemedasubstantialand
[37]

fatalerrorwhichresultsintheinvalidationofthesale.

The certificate of sale is an accurate record of what properties were actually sold to satisfy the
debt.Thestrictnessintheobservanceofaccuracyandcorrectnessinthedescriptionoftheproperties
renders the enumeration in the certificate exclusive. Thus, subsequently including properties which
havenotbeenexplicitlymentionedthereinforregistrationpurposesundersuspiciouscircumstances
smacks of fraud. The explanation that the land on which the properties sold is necessarily included
and, hence, was belatedly typed on the dorsal portion of the copy of the certificate subsequently
registeredisatbestalameexcuseunworthyofbelief.
Theappellatecourtcorrectlyobservedthattherewasamarkeddifferenceintheappearanceof
thetypewrittenwordsappearingonthefirstpageofthecopyoftheCertificateofSaleregisteredwith
[38]
the Registry of Deeds and those appearing at the dorsal portion thereof. Underscoring the
irregularityoftheintercalationistheclearlydeviousattempttoletsuchaninsertionpassunnoticedby
typingthesameatthebackofthefirstpageinsteadofonthesecondpagewhichwasmerelyhalf
filledandcouldaccommodatetheentrywithroomtospare.
The argument that the land on which the buildings levied upon in execution is necessarily
includedis,likewise,tenuous.Article415oftheCivilCodeprovides:
ART.415.Thefollowingareimmovableproperty:
(1)Land,buildings,roadsandconstructionsofallkindsadheredtothesoil.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/156295.htm

6/9

7/7/2016

SorianovsSpsGalit:156295:September23,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

xxxxxxxxx
(3)Everythingattachedtoanimmovableinafixedmanner,insuchawaythatitcannotbeseparatedtherefrom
withoutbreakingthemmaterialordeteriorationoftheobject
(4)Statues,reliefs,paintingsorotherobjectsforuseorornamentation,placedinbuildingsoronlandsbythe
owneroftheimmovableinsuchamannerthatitrevealstheintentiontoattachthempermanentlytothe
tenements
(5)Machinery,receptacles,instrumentsorimplementsintendedbytheownerofthetenementforanindustryor
workswhichmaybecarriedoninabuildingoronapieceofland,andwhichtenddirectlytomeettheneedsof
thesaidindustryorworks
(6)Animalhouses,pigeonhouses,beehives,fishpondsorbreedingplacesofsimilarnature,incasetheirowner
hasplacedthemorpreservesthemwiththeintentiontohavethempermanentlyattachedtotheland,and
formingapermanentpartofittheanimalsintheseplacesarealsoincluded
xxxxxxxxx
(9)Docksandstructureswhich,thoughfloating,areintendedbytheirnatureandobjecttoremainatafixed
placeonariver,lakeorcoast
xxxxxxxxx.
TheforegoingprovisionoftheCivilCodeenumerateslandandbuildingsseparately.Thiscanonly
[39]

meanthatabuildingis,byitself,consideredimmovable.

Thus,ithasbeenheldthat

...whileitistruethatamortgageoflandnecessarilyincludes,intheabsenceofstipulationofthe
improvementsthereon,buildings,stillabuildingbyitselfmaybemortgagedapartfromthelandonwhichit
hasbeenbuilt.Suchmortgagewouldbestillarealestatemortgageforthebuildingwouldstillbeconsidered
[40]
immovablepropertyevenifdealtwithseparatelyandapartfromtheland. (emphasisanditalicssupplied)
Inthiscase,consideringthatwhatwassoldbyvirtueofthewritofexecutionissuedbythetrial
courtwasmerelythestorehouseandbodegaconstructedontheparceloflandcoveredbyTransfer
CertificateofTitleNo.T40785,whichbythemselvesarerealpropertiesofrespondentsspouses,the
same should be regarded as separate and distinct from the conveyance of the lot on which they
stand.
WHEREFORE,inviewofalltheforegoing,thepetitionisherebyDENIEDforlackofmerit. The
DecisiondatedMay13,2002oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.65891,whichdeclaredthe
writofpossessionissuedbytheRegionalTrialCourtofBalangaCity,Branch1,onJuly18,2001,null
andvoid,isAFFIRMEDintoto.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Vitug,andCarpio,JJ.,concur.
Azcuna,J.,onleave.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

EntitledMarceloR.Sorianov.SpousesRicardoL.GalitandRosalinaGalvez.
EntitledSpousesRicardoandRosalinaGalitv.Hon.BenjaminVianzon,MarceloSoriano,etal.
Record,p.16.
Id.,p.21.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/156295.htm

7/9

7/7/2016

[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

SorianovsSpsGalit:156295:September23,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

Id.,p.26.
Id.,p.32.
Id.,p.20.
Id.,p.9.
Id.,pp.3740.

[10]
[11]

Id.,p.40.

Id.,pp.4142.

[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]

[20]

[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]

[32]
[33]

Id.
Id.,pp.4344.
Id.,p.13.
Id.,p.14.
Id.,p.12.
Id.,p.15.
EntitledSpousesRicardoandRosalinaGalitv.Hon.BenjaminT.Vianzon,MarceloSoriano,etal.
Rollo, p. 37 penned by Associate Justice Perlita J. TriaTirona concurred in by Associate Justices Buenaventura J.
GuerreroandRodrigoV.Cosico.
Francisco V.J., The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. I, 1973 ed., pp. 155156, citing an article of
ProfessorSunderlandintheUniversityofCincinnati.
SeeCasilv.CA,G.R.No.121534,28January1998,285SCRA264.
DirectorofLandsv.CA,363Phil.117[1999].
Cometav.CA,361Phil.383[1999].
366Phil.913(1999).
DelaPazv.Panis,315Phil.238[1995]Vasquezv.HobillaAlinio,337Phil.517[1997].
Nervesv.CSC,342Phil.578[1997].
Mercaderv.DBP(CebuBranch),387Phil.283[2000].
G.R.No.141855,6February2001,351SCRA294,306.
CitingLimpotv.CA,G.R.No.44642,20February1989,170SCRA367.
RCPIv.NLRC,G.R.Nos.10118184,22June1992,210SCRA222.
Casa Filipina Realty Corporation v. Office of the President, 311 Phil. 170 [1995], citing Rapid Manpower Consultants,
Inc.v.NLRC,G.R.No.88683,18October1990,190SCRA747.
Rollo,pp.4142.
Id.,pp.4344.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/156295.htm

8/9

7/7/2016

[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]

[40]

SorianovsSpsGalit:156295:September23,2003:J.YnaresSantiago:FirstDivision

Nazarenov.CA,G.R.No.138842,18October2000,343SCRA637,652.
Tambuntingv.CA,G.R.No.L48278,8November1988,167SCRA16.
Roxasv.CA,G.R.No.100480,11May1993,221SCRA729.
SanJosev.CA,G.R.No.106953,19August1993,225SCRA450,545.
Rollo,pp.4344.
Lopezv.Orosa,G.R.No.L1081718,28February1958AssociatedInc.andSuretyCo.,Inc.v.IsabelIya,G.R.No.L
1083738,30May1958.
Prudential Bank v. Panis, G.R. No. L50008, 31 August 1987, 153 SCRA 390, 396, citing Leung Yee v. Strong
MachineryCo.,37Phil.644[1918].

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/sep2003/156295.htm

9/9