Today is Monday, April 19, 2021

  Constitution
Statutes
Executive Issuances
Judicial Issuances
Other Issuances
Jurisprudence
International Legal Resources
AUSL Exclusive

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 239273, March 02, 2020 ]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JUAN FULE AND DELIA O. FULE, RESPONDENT

DECISION

DELOS SANTOS, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 d
September 2017 and Resolution dated 8 May 20183 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 105351 which a
Order4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, Branch 57, in Misc. Case No. 2012-105, granting the petitio
reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. T-1929(464) filed by respondents spouses Juan Fule and Delia
(respondents).

FACTS

On 28 June 2012, respondents filed before the RTC a Petition for Reconstitution of OCT No. T-1929(464) covering a
land described as follows:

A parcel of land (Lot 1204 of the Cadastral Survey of Lucena), with improvements thereon, situated in the Municipalit
Bounded on the NE. by Mamaboy Creek; on the SE., by Lot No. 672; on the SW., and NW. by Lot No. 671 x x x Cont
area of Two Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Eight (2,628) Square Meters, more or less.5

In their petition, respondents alleged that OCT No. T-1929(464) was issued in the name of Isabel Zarsadias based on
No. 130359 issued by the then Court of First Instance, Province of Tayabas, dated 5 December 1922; that OCT No. T
was on file with the Register of Deeds of Lucena City and was among those presumed burned during the fire that raz
Hall building of Lucena City on 30 August 1983; that Isabel was married to Perfecto Pabillorin; that despite Isabel's de
May 1924, Lot 1204 has been declared for taxation purposes in the name of Isabel Zarsadias; that upon her death, th
Isabel Zarsadias possessed and occupied the subject property; that the original owner's copy of OCT No. T-1929(464
in the possession and custody of Antonio Zarsadias Pabillorin, the eldest child of Isabel Zarsadias and Perfecto Pabil
on 3 July 1983, Antonio died; that on 25 July 2011, Antonio's daughter Dorotea Pabillorin, executed an Affidavit of Lo
that the original owner's copy of OCT No. T-1929(464), alongside some other documents which were supposedly in t
possession and custody of her father Antonio, and kept inside a cabinet in their residence at Gomez St., Lucena City
longer be found, that her efforts to locate the same have proved futile, that she considers the same irretrievably lost,
subject property has never been sold, mortgaged, encumbered or in any manner transacted; that on 25 July 2011, th
grandchildren and successors-in-interest of Isabel Zarsadias executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Dee
Absolute Sale in favor of the respondents; that the respondents are now in possession of the subject property; that O
1929(464) on file with the Registry of Deeds of Lucena City has never been reconstituted nor the subject of any previ
reconstitution proceedings and the Owner's copy of said OCT No. T-1929(464) which had been irretrievably lost has
issued any second owner's copy or any co-owner's, mortgagee's or lessee's duplicate, as certified by the Office of the
Deeds of Lucena City; that there is no existing encumbrance over the subject property, it has never been sold, mortg
otherwise encumbered in favor of any person or entity, except in favor of the respondents; that no deeds or other inst
affecting the subject property have been presented for registration; that the subject property has never been subdvide
out or partitioned, and the original area and size as appearing in Decree No. 130359 remain the same; that the prese
and occupants of the adjoining lots of the subject property are – Juan and Delia Fule (Allarey St., Brgy. 8, Lucena Cit
Ong Fule and Charles Ong Fule (Allarey St. Brgy. 8, Lucena City), and Engr. Roberto L. Devero (Brgy. Ilayang Talim,
City); and that to respondents' knowledge, there are no other persons who have interest in the subject property.6

In support of their petition, respondents submitted as documentary evidence during the proceedings in the RTC, amo
the Certified Microfilm Copy of the Decree No. 130359 issued by the Land Registration Office, Quezon City; the Certi
the Registry of Deeds of Lucena City dated 10 June 2011 stating that OCT No. T-1929(464) covering Lot No. 1204 re
the name of Isabel Zarsadias is among those titles presumed burned during the fire that razed the City Hall building o
Lucena on 30 August 1983; Tax Declaration of Cadastral Lot 1204 in the name of Isabel Zarsadias and the Receipt e
the issuance thereof; and the Certification dated 20 June 2012 stating that OCT No. T-1929(464) covering Lot No. 12
registered in the name of Isabel Zarsadias is among those titles presumed burned during the fire that razed the City H
of the City of Lucena on 30 August 1983 which then housed the Registry of Deeds and that aforesaid titled has neithe
reconstituted judicially or administratively nor second owner's duplicate certificate has been issued.7

In the same RTC proceedings, the Land Registration Authority (LRA) submitted a Report dated 8 January 2013, whic

REPORT

(1) The present petition seeks the reconstitution of Original Certificate of Title No. T-1929(464) alleged
destroyed and supposedly covering Lot No. 1204 of the Cadastral Survey of Lucena, situated in the M
of Lucena, Province of Tayabas (now Quezon), on the basis of Decree No. 130359.

(2) From Book 23(H) of the "Record Book of Cadastral Lots" on file at the Cadastral Decree Section, t
Authority, it appears that Decree No. 130359 was issued for Lot No. 1204, Lucena (Tayabas) Quezon
on December 5, 1922, in Cadastral Case No. 4, GLRO Cad. Record No. 215. As per copy of decree o
Vault Section, Docket Division, this Authority, it appears it was issued in favor of Isabel Zarsadias.

(3) The technical description of Lot No. 1204 of the Cadastral Survey of Lucena, appearing on the rep
Decree No. 130359 has been examined and verified correct after due computation. Said technical des
when plotted on the Municipal Index Sheet No. 6001, does not appear to overlap previously plotted/de
 properties in the area.8

After considering the evidence presented by respondents and the Report of the LRA, the RTC issued an Order dated
February 2015 finding merit in the petition for reconstitution, the decretal portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is GRANTED, and the Registry of Deeds of Lucena City is hereby o
reconstitute the original copy of Original Certificate of Title No. T-1929(464) registered in the name of Isabel Zarsadia
of Perfecto Pabillorin, covering Lot No. 1204 of the Cadastral Survey of Lucena, entered pursuant to Decree No. 130
Cadastral Case No. 4, GLRO Cadastral Record No. 215, under the same terms and conditions set forth therein, to be
as the original copy of the title for all legal intents and purposes, in lieu of the missing title, which is hereby declared n
upon finality of this Order and payment of the required legal fees.

As to the prayer for issuance of a second owner's copy, with the reconstituted Original Certificate of Title No. T-1929
Section 16 of Republic Act No. 26 will apply which directs the [R]egister of [D]eeds to issue the corresponding owner'

SO ORDERED.9

On 17 March 2015, petitioner Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG
Notice of Appeal and elevated the case before the CA. In their Appeal Brief, the OSG assigned the lone error that the
in granting the Petition for Reconstitution despite respondents' failure to establish the existence of OCT No. T-1929(4
fact that it was lost or destroyed.10

On 22 September 2017, the CA rendered the assailed Decision denying the appeal and affirmed the 11 February Ord
RTC, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Order dated February 11, 2015 issued by
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, Branch 57, in Misc. Case No. 2012-105 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.11

The CA ruled that the respondents were able to prove that Lot 1204 was covered by OCT No. T-1929(464) registered
name of Isabel Zarsadias and that the same was lost or destroyed. The CA ratiocinated as follows:

A careful perusal of the Petition for Reconstitution filed by petitioners-appellees and the records of this case reveal th
requirements of Sections 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26 have been complied with. Furthermore, contrary to the position of
reading of the Certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Lucena City shows that per its records, there is ground
that the original copy of OCT No. T-1929(464) covering Lot 1204 registered in the name of Isabel Zarsadias is one am
burned in the fire that razed the City Hall of Lucena City on 30 August 1983.

As it stands, We find no reversible error on the part of the RTC in finding that petitioners-appellees were able to prove
subject property was registered in the name of Isabel Zarsadias and was covered by OCT No. T-1929(464). This is c
with the fact that petitioners appellees were able to produce a certified microfilm copy of Decree No. 130359 dated D
1922, issued by the Court of First Instance, Province of Tayabas, which ordered the registration in the name of Isabe
of Lot No. 1204.12

The petitioner moved for reconsideration of the above Decision but the same was denied in the assailed CA Resoluti
May 2018.13

Hence, the instant petition.

I. THE CA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE RTC'S 11 FEBRUARY 2015 OR

II. THE CA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING THE RTC'S 11 FEBRUARY 2015 O
GRANTING THE PETITION FOR RECONSTITUTION DESPITE RESPONDENTS' FAILURE TO PRO
EXISTENCE OF OCT. NO. T-1929(464).14

The OSG contends that the CA erred in affirming the order of the RTC granting the petition for reconstitution conside
respondents were not able to prove the issuance and prior existence of OCT No. T-1929(464) under the name of Isab
Zarsadias which is a condition precedent in a petition for reconstitution of lost or destroyed original certificate of title.1
explains that while respondents presented a certified microfilm copy of Decree No. 130359, the same, however, does
that OCT No. T-1929(464) was issued pursuant to said decree.16 The OSG also asserts that the certification of the R
Deeds of Lucena City does not establish that the original copy of OCT No. T-1929(464) was issued and kept or was p
records. The certification merely stated that OCT No. T-1929(464) "is one among those titles presumed burned durin
that razed the City Hall building of the City of Lucena".17 Far from proving the existence of OCT No. T-1929(464), the
opines that the said certification would only establish that the Register of Deeds of Lucena City has no record of OCT
1929(464) registered in the name of Isabel Zarsadias.18 The OSG further avers that the tax declaration for the asses
1995 presented by the respondents is not a reliable source to prove the existence of OCT No. T-1929(464).19

On their part, respondents pray for the outright dismissal of the instant petition on procedural grounds. They expound
petitioner raised questions of fact, which are beyond the purview of a Rule 45 Petition.20 Further, respondents aver t
petitioner also failed to attach in its petition the material portions of the record of the case, in violation of Section 4, Ru
Rules of Court. This include the material evidence cited in the petition such as the certified microfilm of Decree No. 13
the Certification dated 10 June 2011 issued by the Register of Deeds of Lucena City.21

Without waiving the above-said procedural objections, respondents further argue that the CA did not commit reversib
assailed Decision and Resolution. Respondents posit that they were able to present sufficient evidence that OCT No.
1929(464) was duly issued. They rely on the Certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Lucena City stating that
1929(464) registered in the name of Isabel Zarsadias is presumed to be among those titles burned during the fire tha
City Hall of Lucena City on 30 August 1983. According to respondents, the Certification was based on the records on
Register of Deeds of Lucena and by its plain and literal wording, the said Certification confirms that OCT No. T-1929(
issued but the original copy thereof was subsequently lost and destroyed by a fire. Moreover, the Certification issued
Register of Deeds was corroborated by the certified microfilm copy of Decree No. 130359, by the LRA Report dated 8
2013, and by the testimony of Dorotea Pabillorin, the granddaughter of Isabel Zarsadias, which pieces of evidence, w
together, would sufficiently prove that OCT No. TCT-1929(464) was issued and that it was lost or destroyed.

RULING

The petition is meritorious.

At the outset, the Court rejects the argument of respondents concerning the purported procedural defects of the pres

Contrary to the position of respondents, the petition raises a question of law, and not a question of fact.

When the petitioner asks for a review of the decisions made by a lower court based on the evidence presented, witho
into their probative value but simply on their sufficiency to support the legal conclusions made, then a question of law
In this petition, petitioner simply takes issue against the conclusions made by the CA regarding the prior existence OC
1929(464) based on the evidence on record, particularly, the certified microfilm of Decree No. 130359 and the certific
by the Register of Deeds of Lucena City. Petitioner is not calling for an examination of the probative value or truthfuln
aforesaid evidence. It, however, questions whether the said evidence is sufficient to support the RTC and CA's conclu
OCT No. T-1929(464) actually existed and got lost or destroyed which is a condition precedent to the granting of a pe
reconstitution. Accordingly, petitioner raises the issue on whether or not the RTC and the CA, considering the docum
evidence presented by respondents in the reconstitution proceedings, are justified under the law and jurisprudence in
findings that the subject OCT actually existed and was subsequently lost or destroyed. Undoubtedly, this is a pure qu
law, which calls for a resolution of what is the correct and applicable law to a given set of facts.

Moving on, petitioner's failure to attach to the instant petition the copies of the certified microfilm of Decree No. 13035
certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Lucena City is not a fatal mistake, which merits the immediate dismiss
45 Petition. The requirement that a petition for review on certiorari should be accompanied by "such material portions
record as would support the petition" is left to the discretion of the party filing the petition. Except for the duplicate orig
certified true copy of the judgment sought to be appealed from, there are no other records from the court a quo that m
perforce be attached before the Court can take cognizance of a Rule 45 petition.23 In the end, it is the Court, in finall
the merits of the suit that will ultimately decide whether the material portions of the records attached are sufficient to s
Petition.24

In this case, the Court finds that the documents (the CA decision and resolution) submitted by petitioner sufficiently s
allegations in its petition. As noted earlier, petitioner assails the correctness of the CA conclusion in its decision vis-à-
evidence presented by respondents. The assailed decision and resolution already contain the undisputed factual find
legal basis of the CA in affirming the RTC's order granting the petition for reconstitution. Certainly, by reading and exa
assailed decision and resolution, the Court could judiciously determine the merits of the petition.

Going now to the substantial merits of the petition, the Court finds that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's order gran
petition for reconstitution considering that the evidence on record failed to sufficiently support the legal conclusion tha
T-1929(464) existed or was actually issued and that it was subsequently lost or destroyed. This will be explained belo

The reconstitution of a certificate of title denotes restoration in the original form and condition of a lost or destroyed in
attesting the title of a person to a piece of land. The purpose of the reconstitution of title is to have, after observing the
procedures prescribed by law, the title reproduced in exactly the same way it has been when the loss or destruction
occurred25 As such, a petition for reconstitution of lost or destroyed OCT requires, as a condition precedent, that an
indeed been issued.26 For this purpose, Republic Act (RA) No. 2627 governs the process by which a judicial reconst
Torrens Certificates of Title may be done. Specifically, Section 2 of the said law enumerates in the following order the
and exclusive sources from which reconstitution of an OCT may be based, viz.:

Section 2. Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may b
in the following order:

(a) The owner's duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owner's, mortgagee's, or lessee's duplicate of the certificate of title;

(c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal cus
thereof;

(d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be, pursuant to whi
original certificate of title was issued;
 (e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the description of which is give
document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing
original had been registered; and

(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstitu
or destroyed certificate of title.

Here, respondents' petition for reconstitution is based on Section 2(d), an authenticated copy of the decree of registra
pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued. Hence, respondents presented an LRA certified microfilm
Decree No. 130359 dated 5 December 1922 issued by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tayabas, orderin
1204 of the Cadastral Survey of Lucena be registered in the name of Isabel Zarsadias. However, as mentioned by th
Decree No. 130359 merely ordered for the registration of Lot 1204 in the name of Isabel Zarsadias. That means there
act of registration to follow or to be complied with to bring the subject lot under the provisions of the Torrens System a
consequently, the issuance of a certificate of title. Also, the decree does not cite or mention that it was issued to supp
issuance of an existing original certificate of title, in particular, the OCT No. T-1929(464) in the name of Isabel Zarsad
foregoing considered, there is a need, therefore, for the respondents to submit supporting evidence to prove that Lot
subsequently registered and covered by Original Certificate of Title in the name of Isabel Zarsadias in compliance wit
pursuant to Decree No. 130359. The respondents failed to do this.

The LRA Report dated 8 January 2013 would not serve to help respondents' Petition for Reconstitution. A cursory rea
LRA's report, which was quoted verbatim in the CA Decision,28 would reveal that the LRA made an admission only a
existence of Decree No. 130359 issued in favor of Isabel Zarsadias. It is worthy to note that the Report did not indica
original certificate of title was subsequently issued pursuant to said decree as well as the number of the original certif
and the date said title was issued. In Republic v. Heirs of Ramos,29 the Court, citing Tahanan Development Corpora
of Appeals,30 held that the absence of any document, private or official, mentioning the number of the certificate of ti
and date when the certificate of title was issued, does not warrant the granting of such petition.

The CA also erred in relying on the Certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Lucena City dated 10 June 2011
RTC's order granting the respondents' Petition for Reconstitution.

In its 22 September 2017 Decision, the CA held:

A careful perusal of the Petition for Reconstitution filed by petitioners-appellees and the records of this case reveal th
requirements of Sections 12 and 13 of R.A. No. 26 have been complied with. Furthermore, contrary to the position of
reading of the Certification issued by the Register of Deeds of Lucena City shows that per its records on file, there is
presume that the original copy of OCT No. T-1929(464) covering Lot 1204 registered in the name of Isabel Zarsadias
among those burned in the fire that razed the City Hall of Lucena City on 30 August 1983.31 (Underscoring supplied)

Very clearly, the CA, after examining the Certification, could only arrive at the finding that the Register of Deeds presu
the original copy of OCT No. T-1929(464) covering Lot 1204 registered in the name of Isabel Zarsadias is one among
burned in a fire that razed the City Hall building of the City of Lucena on 30 August 1983. Certainly, the certification o
Register of Deeds that the subject certificate of title "is one among those titles presumed burned during the fire that ra
City Hall building of the City of Lucena" does not necessarily mean that OCT No. T-1929(464) once formed part of its
The Register of Deeds only presumed that OCT No. T-1929(464) is among the titles burned during the fire without sta
confirming in certain terms that the said certificate of title existed and formed part of its records, in the first place. Con
in the absence of clear and definite finding that OCT No. T-1929(464) once formed part of the records of the Register
Lucena City, the CA erred in affirming the RTC's order granting the petition for reconstitution of lost or destroyed certi
since the fact that the certificate of title sought to be reconstituted actually existed could not be established.

Respondents cited the case of Republic v. Dela Raga32 (Dela Raga) and pointed out that the Court upheld the trial c
of a petition for reconstitution although the certification of the Register of Deeds similarly stated that the title was pres
and destroyed in its records. A reading of the said case, however, reveals that the Court did not merely rely on the ce
the Register of Deeds in affirming the trial court's order granting the petition for reconstitution. In that case, the Court
all the evidence presented before arriving at the conclusion that the lost or destroyed certificate of title actually existe
attention is the fact that in addition to the copy of the decree which was the basis of issuance of the lost OCT, respon
Raga not only presented the Register of Deeds certification that the OCT was presumed lost or destroyed but also a
inventory of original certificates of the Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan which proved that the subject OCT in that cas
and formed part of the records of the concerned office but was destroyed during the World War II. Thus:

From the evidence presented during the ex-parte presentation of evidence before the Branch Clerk of Court, the follo
were proven:

The petitioner is the grandchild of Ignacio Serran, one of the registered owners of the land subject of this petition. The
mother was Aniceta Serran, one of the daughters of Ignacio Serran as evidenced by Exh. "N". The name of the other
Ignacio Serran was Cornelia Serran. Both children have already died including Ignacio Serran.

When Ignacio Serran died, he left a property located at Dungon, Sison, Pangasinan.  The same property was covere
1âшphi1

title. However, the office copy of the title was destroyed during the World War II as evidenced by a pre-war inventory
Registry of Deeds of Pangasinan marked as EXH. "O". From such inventory of original certificates of the Registry of D
Pangasinan (Exh. "0-1"), there was an entrv O.C.T. No. 49266 to 49267 - mutilated. In Exh. "O", Original Certificate N
Vol. 162, Page 239 was in the name of Serrao, Ignacio, et. al. A Certification, Exh. "P" was issued by the Registry of
Pangasinan certifying to the effect that the Original Certificate of Title No. 49266 could not be found or located among
the registry, thus it was presumed lost or destroyed. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In the instant case, the respondents, unlike in Dela Raga, did not present clear and convincing evidence to prove tha
T-1929(464) actually existed and formed parts of the records of the Register of Deeds.

Anent the tax declaration presented by respondents, the same is not a reliable source of reconstitution of a certificate
the Court held in Republic of the Philippines v. Santua,33 a tax declaration can only be prima facie evidence of claim
ownership, which, however, is not the issue in a reconstitution proceeding. A reconstitution of title does not pass upon
ownership of land covered by the lost or destroyed title but merely determines whether a re-issuance of such title is p

In sum, the Court finds that the CA erred in affirming the order of the RTC granting the petition for reconstitution of th
destroyed original certificate of title. The evidence presented by respondents is not sufficient to support the RTC and
conclusion that OCT No. T-1929(464) actually existed and got lost or destroyed which is a condition precedent to the
a petition for reconstitution.

All is not lost for the respondents, however. If they remain insistent to have the title of the subject property issued und
names, they can institute the appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and jurisprudence, including the filing o
for the Cancellation and Re-issuance of a Decree of Registration as elucidated in the case of Republic v. Heirs of San
the said case, the Court, following the opinion of then LRA Administrator Benedicta B. Ulep, held that for as long as th
issued in an ordinary or cadastral registration case has not yet been entered, meaning, it has not yet been transcribe
Registration Book of the concerned Registrar of Deeds, such decree has not yet attained finality and therefore may s
subject to cancellation in the same land registration case. Upon cancellation of such decree, the decree owner (adjud
his heirs) may then pray for the issuance of a new decree number and, consequently, pray for the issuance of an Orig
Certificate of Title based on the newly issued decree of registration.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated 22 September 2017 and Resolution dated 8 May 2018
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 105351, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the Petition for
Reconstitution filed by spouses Juan Fule and Delia Fule before the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branch 57,
Misc. Case No. 2012-105, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Perlas-Bernabe, (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Inting, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 11-23.

2 Id. at 26-36.

3 Id. at 37-38.

4 Id. at 204-208.

5 Id. at 27.

6 Id. at 27-28.

7 See id. at 29-30, 93-94, 95, 99, 106, 188-191.

8 Id. at 31. See September 22, 2017 CA Decision, p. 6, quoting in verbatim the contents of the LRA R
January 8, 2013.

9 Id. at 15-16.

10 Id. at 31.

11 Id. at 36.

12 Id. at 34-35.

13 Id. at 37-38.

14 Id. at 16.

15 Id. at 18.

16 Id.

17 Id. at 19.

18 Id.
 19 Id. at 20.

20 Id. at 74-75.

21 Id. at 75-76.

22 See Republic v. Vega, 654 Phil. 511, 518 (2011).

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 Republic v Dagondon, 785 Phil. 210 (2016), citing Republic v. Tuastumban, 604 Phil. 491, 504-505

26 Republic v. Heirs of Sps. Donato Sanchez and Juana Meneses, 749 Phil. 999, 1004 (2014).

27 Entitled "AN ACT PROVIDING A SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR THE RECONSTITUTION OF TOR
CERTIFICATES OF TITLE LOST OR DESTROYED," approved on September 25, 1946.

28 Rollo, p. 31.

29 627 Phil. 123, 138-139 (2010).

30 203 Phil. 652 (1982).

31 Rollo, p. 34.

32 See 613 Phil. 257 (2009).

33 586 Phil. 291 (2008).

34 749 Phil. 999 (2014); see also Republic v. Dagondon, supra note 25.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation