FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 210446. April 18, 2018.]

ANGELICA G. CRUZ, ANNA MARIE KUDO, ALBERT G. CRUZ and

ARTURO G. CRUZ , petitioners, vs. MARYLOU TOLENTINO and the
Office of the Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City , respondents.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO , ** J : p

This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 of the Decision 2 dated December 17,
2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100370, which a rmed the Decision 3
dated December 27, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City,
Branch 213 in Civil Case No. MC00-1300. The trial court dismissed the case on the
ground of litis pendentia. ATICcS

The Facts

Alfredo S. Cruz (Alfredo) is the registered owner of two parcels of land located in
Barrio Baranca, then Municipality of Mandaluyong, Rizal. The rst lot consisted of 77
square meters (sq. m.), more or less, and was covered by Transfer Certi cate of
Title (TCT) No. 461194 4 of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal. The
second lot consisted of 516 sq. m., more or less, and was covered by TCT No.
461195 5 of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal. On July 10, 1985, Alfredo
executed a special power of attorney 6 (SPA) in favor of his wife, Puri cacion G. Cruz
(Puri cacion), authorizing her to sell, transfer, convey, and/or mortgage the
aforementioned properties. Thereafter, on November 14, 1985, Alfredo passed away. 7
According to the records of the case, the aforesaid properties gured in two
transactions involving herein private respondent Marylou Tolentino (Tolentino). The first
transaction was contained in a Deed of Absolute Sale 8 dated July 9, 1992
purportedly executed and signed by Alfredo and Tolentino. In this instrument, the two
properties were sold to Tolentino for P1,350,000.00. The instrument was not notarized.
The second transaction, on the other hand, was embodied in a Deed of Absolute Sale
9 dated December 1, 1992 ostensibly executed between Alfredo — as represented
by Puri cacion — and Tolentino. Here, the two properties were sold to Tolentino for
P1,400,000.00. The latter instrument was notarized and it speci cally mentioned the
SPA in favor of Purificacion.
On December 2, 1992, TCT Nos. 461194 and 461195 were cancelled and TCT
Nos. 6724 and 6725 were issued in Tolentino's name. 1 0
On October 16, 2000 , herein petitioners Angelica G. Cruz, Auralita C. Matsuura,
1 1 Anna Marie Kudo, Albert G. Cruz, and Arturo G. Cruz (petitioners) led a complaint
1 2 for Annulment of Sale & Title, Damages & Injunction. Docketed as Civil Case No.
MC00-1300 in the RTC of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214 (RTC-Br. 214), the case was
filed against Tolentino, Purificacion, and the Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City.
Petitioners alleged, among others, that they are the children of Alfredo and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Puri cacion. Upon their discovery of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 1,
2002, they orally demanded the cancellation thereof and the reinstatement of TCT No.
461194. The demands, however, went unheeded. Petitioner Angelica Cruz (Angelica)
then caused the annotation of an a davit of adverse claim 1 3 in Tolentino's title.
Petitioners prayed that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 1, 1992 be annulled
as the SPA of Alfredo was rendered ineffectual by his death. They claimed that the sale
was also fraudulent as petitioners were denied of their rights to the subject property.
They further sought the cancellation of TCT No. 6724 and the payment of moral
damages, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.
Respondent Tolentino initially led a motion to dismiss, 1 4 alleging that no
earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made prior to the ling of the
complaint and petitioners were not the real parties in interest as they already sold the
subject property to Elsa Moya, as evidenced by an Extrajudicial Settlement of the
Estate with Absolute Sale. 1 5
Thereafter, Civil Case No. MC00-1300 was re-raffled to the RTC-Br. 210. 1 6
Puri cacion led her Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim , 1 7 alleging that
in 1992 when the subject property was about to be foreclosed by Paquito Lazaro
(Lazaro), she was introduced to Reynaldo Tolentino (Reynaldo). In July 1992, Lazaro
and Reynaldo talked to each other and the latter got hold of the title to the subject
property at the Land Bank of the Philippines on Shaw Boulevard. Reynaldo then asked
Puri cacion to sign a document. Lazaro informed Puri cacion that her debt had been
transferred to Reynaldo, who took the title of the subject property as collateral.
Puri cacion later found out that Reynaldo is Tolentino's father. Reynaldo, Lazaro, and
Tolentino allegedly knew that Alfredo was already dead.
Puri cacion added that she did not voluntarily sign the Deed of Absolute Sale
dated December 1, 1992. The same was allegedly void as the property belonged to
Alfredo and she had no right to dispose of it. She prayed that the Deed of Absolute Sale
be declared void and Tolentino be ordered to pay her moral and exemplary damages
and attorney's fees.
Atty. Federico M. Cas, the Registrar of Deeds of Mandaluyong City, led an
Answer 1 8 to the complaint. He averred that he only assumed o ce in October 1996.
He admitted the existence of TCT No. 461194 and the cancellation thereof by his
predecessor, Cesar S. Gutierrez. In lieu of said title, TCT No. 6724 was issued in
Tolentino's name. He stated that petitioner Angelica caused the annotation of an
A davit of Adverse Claim on TCT No. 6724 and he signed the annotation under Entry
No. 69306.
In an Order 1 9 dated June 19, 2001, the trial court denied Tolentino's motion to
dismiss, ruling that the lack of earnest efforts to reach a compromise was not a
prerequisite to the ling of the complaint since Tolentino was not a member of
petitioners' family. Petitioners also had an interest in the subject property as they stood
to be bene tted or injured by the judgment in the suit. Tolentino led a motion for
reconsideration 2 0 of this denial, but the same was also denied. 2 1 TIADCc

Tolentino then led her Answer 2 2 where she speci cally denied the averments
in the complaint relating to the SPA and the death of Alfredo. She claimed that the truth
of the matter relative to the subject property is narrated in the complaint 2 3 she led on
August 26, 1999 for Registration of Deed of Sale Covered by TCT Nos. 461194 and
461195, Mandamus and Damages. This case was docketed as Civil Case No. MC 99-
843 in the RTC-Br. 209. 2 4 Tolentino's causes of action were: (a) to validate the Deed of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Absolute Sale in so far as the 50% and one share of Puri cacion over the property
covered by TCT Nos. 461194 and 461195; and (b) to charge and/or collect from
Puri cacion the amount representing the value of the property also covered by TCT
Nos. 461194 and 461195 belonging to the heirs of Alfredo including the 5% monthly
interest thereon until the amount is paid and/or collected. 2 5 In the aforesaid case,
Tolentino also caused the annotation of a Notice of Lis Pendens 2 6 in TCT Nos. 6724
and 461195.
Tolentino pointed out that the Deed of Absolute Sale subject matter of the
aforesaid case is the same Deed of Absolute Sale involved in the present case.
Moreover, the parties are the same, i.e., Tolentino is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. MC 99-
843, while Puri cacion is the defendant in Civil Case No. MC 99-843. Petitioners, who
are the plaintiffs in the present case, are the heirs of Alfredo. Tolentino argued that the
complaint in Civil Case No. MC00-1300 was dismissible on the grounds of res judicata,
forum shopping, and lack of jurisdiction. She added that the sale of a property by a
surviving spouse cannot be voided insofar as his/her share is concerned. Also, the
share of the heirs is liable to pay for the loan of the deceased especially if the proceeds
of the loan inured to their benefit.
In petitioners' Reply, 2 7 they alleged that Tolentino knew about the SPA in favor of
Puri cacion and the death of Alfredo. They also argued that Civil Case No. MC 99-843
was barred by Civil Case No. SCA No. 247, which was led by Sonia Uykimpang against
Puri cacion and Tolentino for the recovery of the property covered by TCT No. 461195.
In a decision dated June 20, 1994 in said case, the RTC of Pasig ordered the
cancellation of Tolentino's TCT No. 6725 and the reinstatement of TCT No. 461195.
The decision became nal and executory when the Court of Appeals a rmed the same
and Tolentino no longer led a petition before the Supreme Court to assail the ruling. 2 8
Furthermore, as petitioners were not parties to Civil Case No. MC 99-843, said case
cannot affect Civil Case No. MC00-1300.
On April 3, 2002, petitioners led a motion for consolidation 2 9 of Civil Case No.
MC00-1300 with Civil Case No. MC 99-843 that was pending before the RTC-Br. 209.
Petitioners alleged that the two cases involved the same question of fact and of law,
the same subject matter — at least insofar as the property covered by TCT No. 461194
was concerned — and the parties were more or less the same.
In an Order 3 0 dated April 12, 2002, the judge in the RTC-Br. 210 granted the
request for consolidation provided that the judge in Civil Case No. MC 99-843 in the
RTC-Br. 209 had no objection thereto. However, the judge in the RTC-Br. 209 rejected
the consolidation. In an Order 3 1 dated July 28, 2003, the RTC-Br. 209 ordered the
return of the records of Civil Case No. MC00-1300 to the RTC-Br. 210 as petitioners'
motion for intervention in Civil Case No. MC 99-843 was denied.
On December 2, 2003, petitioners again led a motion for consolidation 3 2 as
Civil Case No. MC 99-843 in the RTC-Br. 209 had been ra ed to the RTC-Br. 210. The
motion was denied in an Order 3 3 dated February 20, 2004.
Shortly thereafter, Civil Case No. MC00-1300 was re-raffled to the RTC-Br. 213.
In the trial of the case, Angelica testi ed for the petitioners. She admitted that
Puri cacion is her mother and the latter was made a defendant because she
mortgaged the properties that petitioners inherited from their father. 3 4 Angelica
testi ed, among others, that they talked to Puri cacion when they discovered the sale
of the subject property to Tolentino. Puri cacion said that she sold the property
through Alfredo's SPA in order to cover for the expenses and debts that she incurred. 3 5
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Angelica also presented in court a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 9, 1992, 3 6
which she claimed was only a mortgage document. Petitioners rst came to know
about the deed in 1999 after they learned of the case led by Sonia Uykimpang against
Puri cacion. The latter told them that Tolentino gave her P1,350,000.00 and the two
properties registered in Alfredo's name were the collateral for the amount. Angelica
said that she did not recognize the signature that appeared on the typewritten name of
Alfredo in the deed. 3 7
After said confrontation, Puri cacion showed to petitioners a copy of Tolentino's
complaint in Civil Case No. MC 99-843. Angelica rst got a copy of Tolentino's
complaint in 1999 when petitioners filed an adverse claim with the Register of Deeds as
they wanted to know what the real agreement was between Puri cacion and Tolentino
regarding the subject property. Puri cacion never discussed the mortgage with the
petitioners. 3 8 AIDSTE

On cross-examination, Angelica testi ed that the subject property was already

sold to Elsa Moya. At rst, she denied that she knew anything about this sale, but when
she was shown the document entitled Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale, she
stated that she remembered the same and she admitted her signature therein. 3 9 She
stated that the loan contracted by Purificacion from Tolentino was not yet paid. 4 0
Prior to the rendition of the judgment in Civil Case No. MC00-1300, Puri cacion
died on January 2, 2011. 4 1
The Decision of the RTC

In a Decision dated December 27, 2012 , the RTC-Br. 213 dismissed Civil
Case No. MC00-1300 as the case was related to Civil Case No. MC 99-843 since they
referred to the same parties, the same evidence presented, and the same subject
matter, i.e., TCT No. 461194, now TCT No. 6724.
According to the trial court, it had already issued a Decision dated December
7, 2012 in Civil Case No. MC 99-843, nding that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
December 1, 1992 and the SPA executed by Alfredo in favor of Puri cacion were valid
and effective. In view of the aforesaid decision, the trial court ruled that Civil Case No.
MC00-1300 was already dismissible on the ground of res judicata or, at best, litis
pendentia.
The RTC added that in petitioners' motion for consolidation led on April 3, 2002,
they admitted that the questions of fact and law in both cases involved TCT No.
461194. Also, in Civil Case No. MC 99-843, petitioners offered in evidence the SPA in
favor of Puri cacion, TCT No. 461194, TCT No. 6724, and the Deed of Absolute Sale
dated December 1, 1992.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals

Petitioners appealed 4 2 the judgment of the RTC, but the appeal was denied in
the assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated December 17, 2013. The appellate court
found that res judicata was not applicable to the case as the trial court decision in Civil
Case No. MC 99-843 did not state that the same was already nal and executory. The
appellate court ruled, however, that the elements of litis pendentia were extant in the
case.
As to the identity of parties, the Court of Appeals similarly observed that
Tolentino — a defendant in Civil Case No. MC00-1300 — is the plaintiff in Civil Case No.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 MC 99-843, while Puri cacion — a defendant in Civil Case No. MC00-1300 — is also a
defendant in Civil Case No. MC 99-843. That petitioners were not parties in Civil Case
No. MC 99-843 was found to be immaterial as mere substantial identity of parties was
sufficient.
As to the subject matter, the Court of Appeals found that notwithstanding the
difference in the issues and reliefs prayed for in Civil Case Nos. MC00-1300 and MC 99-
843, both actions pertain to the same issue, which is the validity of the deed of absolute
sale entered into between Tolentino and Puri cacion involving the subject property.
Moreover, some of the pieces of evidence offered in Civil Case No. MC 99-843 were
also presented in Civil Case No. MC00-1300.
The Court of Appeals, thus, opined that the trial court did not err in dismissing
Civil Case No. MC00-1300 on the ground of litis pendentia. This holds true even if the
decision in Civil Case No. 99-843 was not offered in evidence by the parties as,
according to the appellate court, litis pendentia like res judicata cannot be waived by
any party.
The Court of Appeals adjudged that Civil Case No. MC 99-843 should subsist
since it was led ahead and the case was an appropriate vehicle for litigating all the
issues invoked by the parties. The appellate court found no more need to rule on the
other issues raised by the petitioners.
The Arguments of Petitioners

Without moving for a reconsideration of the assailed decision, petitioners led

the instant petition that raised the following issues:
1. Can lis pendens be validly applied to favor the pendency of [C]ivil [C]ase
[N]o. MC 99-843 over that of Civil Case No. MC00-1300?
2. Was there a valid sale of the property covered by TCT No. 461194 to
Marylou Tolentino or was the contract entered into by the parties one of
loan secured by a real estate mortgage?
3. Was the Court of Appeals correct in ruling that there is no necessity to
discuss and pass upon the issue to determine whether the contract
between Puri cacion Cruz and Marylou Tolentino is one of a real estate
mortgage loan or one of sale? 4 3
Petitioners argue that even if Civil Case No. MC 99-843 was led ahead of Civil
Case No. MC00-1300, lis pendens cannot be invoked to dismiss the latter case since
the earlier case did not have a genuine issue for resolution. According to petitioners,
Tolentino's admitted purpose in ling Civil Case No. MC 99-843 was to compel the
registration of the two properties previously owned by Alfredo in her name. AaCTcI

Petitioners stress that the property covered by Alfredo's TCT No. 461195 was
already registered in Tolentino's name under TCT No. 6725, but the title was cancelled
by the RTC of Pasig in SCA Case No. 247 — the case led by Sonia Uykimpang against
Puri cacion. Tolentino appealed the judgment before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 47976, but the same was dismissed with nality. On the other hand, the subject
property remained registered in Tolentino's name under TCT No. 6724 and she need
not register it again through Civil Case No. MC 99-843. Petitioners conclude that the
ling of Civil Case No. MC 99-843 was a sham and, therefore, the same should be
dismissed, not Civil Case No. MC00-1300.
Petitioners also faulted the Court of Appeals for failing to rule on the true nature
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 of the contract between Puri cacion and Tolentino as a contract of loan with an
exorbitant interest of 5% per month. Petitioners prayed for a judgment reversing of the
assailed Court of Appeals decision, declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
December 1, 1992 null and void, and reducing the allegedly usurious interest rate of the
loan to the legal rate.
The Arguments of Respondent Tolentino

Tolentino argues that the Court of Appeals did not err when it upheld the ruling of
the trial court. She avers that absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or
capriciousness on the part of the trial court, its ndings of fact are binding and
conclusive upon the Court especially when a rmed by the Court of Appeals. Tolentino
maintains that there is nothing in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 1, 1992
that would justify the petitioners' claim that the same was actually a loan contract.
The Ruling of the Court

The petition lacks merit.

Litis pendentia is a Latin term that literally means "a pending suit" and is variously
referred to as lis pendens and auter action pendant. As a ground for dismissing a civil
action, it refers to the situation where two actions are pending between the same
parties for the same cause of action, so that one of them becomes unnecessary and
vexatious. It is based on the policy against multiplicity of suits. 4 4
As held in City of Makati v. Municipality (now City) of Taguig , 45 the following
requirements must concur before litis pendentia may be invoked:
(a) identity of parties or at least such as represent the same interest
in both actions;
(b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the reliefs being
founded on the same facts; and
(c) the identity in the two cases should be such that the judgment
that may be rendered in one would, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the other. (Citation omitted.)
In this case, it is indubitably clear that litis pendentia exists.
As to the rst requisite of identity of parties, the Court agrees with the ruling of
the Court of Appeals that the same is present as only substantial identity of parties is
required for litis pendentia to apply. Tolentino and Puri cacion — the defendants in Civil
Case No. MC00-1300 — are the plaintiff and defendant, respectively, in Civil Case No.
MC 99-843. On the other hand, petitioners — the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. MC00-1300
— were originally not parties to Case No. MC 99-843, but they later substituted
Puri cacion in said case after she died. 4 6 More importantly, petitioners had a
community of interest with Puri cacion since they were one in disputing the validity of
the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 1, 1992 in both cases.
Anent the second requisite of identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for,
the same is likewise extant in the case. A reading of Tolentino's complaint for
Registration of Deed of Sale Covered by TCT Nos. 461194 and 461195, Mandamus
with Damages in Civil Case No. MC 99-843 readily reveals that the principal relief
prayed for therein is for judgment to be rendered (1) declaring the validity of the Deed
of Absolute Sale dated December 1, 1992, insofar as the share of Puri cacion over the
properties covered by TCT Nos. 461194 and 461195 is concerned, and (2) ordering the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Register of Deeds of Mandaluyong City to register in Tolentino's name the aforesaid
share of Puri cacion over the properties covered by TCT Nos. 461194 and 461195. On
the other hand, in petitioners' complaint for Annulment of Sale & Title, Damages &
Injunction in Civil Case No. MC00-1300, they primarily seek the nulli cation of the Deed
of Absolute Sale dated December 1, 1992 due to its allegedly fraudulent execution in
favor of Tolentino.
The records of the case also reveal that the following pieces of documentary
evidence were offered by the parties in both cases: (1) the complaint in Civil Case No.
MC 99-843; (2) the SPA in favor of Puri cacion; (3) the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
July 9, 1992; (4) the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 1, 1992; (5) TCT No.
461194; (6) TCT No. 461195; and (7) TCT No. 6724. EcTCAD

Obviously, the resolution of both Civil Case No. MC 99-843 and Civil Case No.
MC00-1300 hinge on the determination of the issue of whether or not the Deed of
Absolute Sale dated December 1, 1992 in favor of Tolentino was valid and legal. As
such, the judgment that may be rendered in either case regarding the validity of said
deed would amount to res judicata in the other case, regardless of which party is
successful.
As it turns out, the above issue had already been decided with finality in Civil Case
No. MC 99-843. Thus, the principle of res judicata applies.
For res judicata to serve as a bar to a subsequent action, the following elements
must be present: (1) the judgment sought to bar the new action must be nal; (2) the
decision must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a judgment on the merits; and
(4) there must be as between the rst and second action, identity of parties, subject
matter, and causes of action. Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action be shown in the two cases, res judicata in its aspect as a "bar by prior judgment"
would apply. If as between the two cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not
identical causes of action, then res judicata as "conclusiveness of judgment" applies. 4 7
In this case, the elements of res judicata, as a bar by prior judgment, are present.
In the Decision dated December 7, 2012 in Civil Case No. MC 99-843, the trial
court already decreed that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 1, 1992
was valid and legal . 4 8 Petitioners, as substitute appellants in lieu of the deceased
Puri cacion, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals. On February 28, 2017, the
appellate court rendered a Decision 4 9 in CA-G.R. CV No. 101028 that a rmed the trial
court's ruling. Furthermore, the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that petitioners
elevated the judgment of the appellate court to this Court via a petition for review on
certiorari, which was docketed as G.R. No. 230297. In a Resolution dated June 28,
2017, the petition was denied. 5 0 Petitioners' motion for reconsideration thereon was
likewise denied in a Resolution 5 1 dated October 11, 2017 and the Court's ruling had
since become final . 5 2
Also, as heretofore discussed, Civil Case No. MC00-1300 and Civil Case No. MC
99-843 involve a substantial identity of parties and the same Deed of Absolute Sale
dated December 1, 1992 the validity of which is the bone of contention in both cases.
Notably, we observe that petitioners do not even argue the absence of any or all
of the aforesaid elements of litis pendentia in this case. Instead, petitioners contend
that between Civil Case No. MC00-1300 and Civil Case No. MC 99-843, the latter should
be dismissed given that the complaint thereon was a sham for it allegedly lacked a
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 genuine issue for resolution. In other words, petitioners would have the Court delve into
the merits of Civil Case No. MC 99-843 and the trial court's ruling thereon.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court is already precluded from
scrutinizing the merits of Civil Case No. MC 99-843. Any attempt to relitigate the same
would run afoul the doctrine of res judicata.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The Decision dated December 17, 2013 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 100370 is hereby AFFIRMED . Costs against
petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Del Castillo, Jardeleza and Martires, *** JJ., concur.
Sereno, * C.J., is on leave.

Footnotes
* On leave.
** Per Special Order No. 2540 dated February 28, 2018.
*** Per Raffle dated January 22, 2018.
1. Rollo, pp. 8-37.
2. Id. at 41-55; penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla with Associate
Justices Noel G. Tijam (now a member of this Court) and Agnes Reyes Carpio
concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 22-44; penned by Judge Carlos A. Valenzuela.
4. Records, Vol. II, pp. 629-630.

5. Records, Vol. I, pp. 216-217.

6. Records, Vol. II, pp. 633-635.
7. Records, Vol. I, p. 16.
8. Records, Vol. II, pp. 540-542.

9. Id. at 534-535.
10. Id. at 631-632; records, Vol. I, pp. 226-227.
11. Auralita C. Matsuura was later substituted by her two minor children who were then
represented by their guardian ad litem, Angelica G. Cruz.
12. Records, Vol. I, pp. 2-8.
13. Records, Vol. II, pp. 538-539.
14. Records, Vol. I, pp. 34-39.

15. Id. at 40-43.

16. Id. at 55, 82.
17. Id. at 72-73.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 18. Id. at 167-170.
19. Id. at 105.
20. Id. at 148-152.

21. Id. at 183.

22. Id. at 196-200.
23. Id. at 201-212.
24. Civil Case No. MC 99-843 was eventually re-raffled to the RTC-Br. 213.
25. Records, Vol. I, p. 207.

26. Id. at 232.

27. Id. at 295-297.
28. Id. at 301.
29. Id. at 342-344.

30. Id. at 346.

31. Id. at 356-357.
32. Id. at 388-390.
33. Id. at 394.
34. TSN, April 23, 2007, pp. 6-7.

35. Id. at 15-16.

36. Records, Vol. II, pp. 540-542.
37. TSN, June 8, 2007, pp. 5-12.
38. Id. at 8-14.
39. TSN, October 15, 2007, pp. 4-7.

40. Id. at 24.

41. See CA rollo, p. 134.
42. Id. at 19-20.
43. Rollo, p. 161.

44. Benavidez v. Salvador, 723 Phil. 332, 342 (2013).

45. 578 Phil. 773, 783 (2008).
46. CA rollo, pp. 131-133.
47. P.L. Uy Realty Corporation v. ALS Management and Development Corporation, 698
Phil. 47, 59-60 (2012), citing Social Security Commission v. Rizal Poultry and Livestock
Association, Inc., 665 Phil. 198, 206 (2011).
48. CA rollo, p. 130.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 49. Rollo, pp. 120-142; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando with
Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Stephen C. Cruz concurring.

50. Rollo (G.R. No. 230297), pp. 355-356.

51. Id. at 376-377.
52. Id. at 378.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com