SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 255239. February 13, 2023.]

SPOUSES TOMAS LIBIRAN AND POTENCIANA FELICIANO

(DECEASED), herein represented by their attorney-in-fact,
RONING SANTOS, petitioners, vs. ELISAN CREDIT
CORPORATION, respondent.

DECISION

J.Y. LOPEZ, J : p

This Court resolves the Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 filed assailing
the Decision 2 and the Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), which
affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision 4 in favor
of Elisan Credit Corporation (Elisan). HTcADC

The Antecedents
On January 8, 2003, Spouses Tomas Libiran and Potenciana Feliciano
(Spouses Libiran) obtained a loan from Elisan in the amount of
PHP200,000.00. This was secured by a promissory note and a real estate
mortgage (mortgage contract) over a parcel of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-405042 (M) (subject property). The mortgage
was annotated on the title. 5 It was stipulated in the mortgage contract that
the property shall stand as security not only for the payment of the loan but
also for all other obligations that they may subsequently incur. 6
On December 9, 2005, Spouses Libiran obtained another loan from
Elisan in the amount of PHP609,000.00 but they were only able to pay
PHP293,000.00. Likewise, the interest due starting December 5, 2006
remained unpaid. 7
Thereafter, on March 9, 2006, Spouses Libiran obtained another loan in
the amount of PHP118,000.00 but they were only able to pay PHP13,500.00.
In addition, interest beginning August 7, 2006 remained unpaid. 8
On June 15, 2006, Spouses Libiran again obtained a loan for
PHP474,000.00 from Elisan but they only paid PHP9,120.00. Interest due
beginning June 11, 2007 was also not settled. 9
Despite repeated demands, Spouses Libiran failed to pay their
obligation totaling PHP885,380.00, as well as the interests and penalties due.
10 As a result, Elisan instituted a complaint for judicial foreclosure under Rule
68 of the Rules of Court with the RTC of Quezon City. 11
In their Answer, 12 Spouses Libiran denied the accusations against
them and insisted that they did not owe Elisan any money. 13 They
contended that the venue of the action has been improperly laid considering
that the subject property is located in Bagong Barrio, Pandi, Bulacan. 14 They
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 claimed that they were made to sign blank documents, making it appear
that they obtained a loan despite not receiving any money from Elisan. 15
They also averred that Elisan was merely holding the owner's duplicate copy
of the subject property in trust for the loan of their daughter, Florentina
Libiran Santos (Florentina), and son-in-law, Roning Santos (Roning), which
was already paid in full. 16 They insisted that they did not mortgage the
subject property to Elisan 17 nor appear before any notary public to
acknowledge the mortgage contract. 18 Spouses Libiran averred that the
mortgage contract, promissory notes, and vouchers were all falsified. 19 By
way of counterclaim, they prayed that they be awarded moral and
exemplary damages. 20 CAIHTE

Then, the RTC rendered its Decision, 21 the dispositive portion of which
states:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff Elisan
Credit Corporation and against defendants Spouses Tomas Libiran
and Potenciana Feliciano. Defendants are hereby ordered to pay the
plaintiff, within a period of 90 to 120 days from the entry of judgment,
the following:
1. [PHP]885,380.00 representing the balance of Defendants'
principal obligation;
2. the sum equivalent to 26% interest per annum plus 2.5%
penalty per month of [PHP]316,000.00 from December 5,
2006, until fully paid;
3. the sum equivalent to 26% interest per annum plus 2.5%
penalty per month of [PHP]104,500.00 from August 7,
2006, until fully paid;
4. the sum equivalent to 26% interest per annum plus 2.5%
penalty per month of [PHP]464,880.00 from June 11, 2007,
until fully paid;
5. [PHP]100,000.00 as attorney's fees.
In the event of default of such payment/s the property covered
by TCT No. T-405042 (M), subject of the Real Estate Mortgage dated
January 8, 2003 shall be sold at public auction to satisfy the judgment
upon motion by the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Defendants['] counter-claims are dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 22

The RTC found that Elisan was able to prove its claim by
preponderance of evidence that Spouses Libiran obtained several loans that
they failed to pay in full. 23 It noted that the evidence presented by Spouses
Libiran pertained to the loans that Roning obtained and the payments he
made to Elisan, and not their own loan obligation. 24
The RTC declared that since the promissory notes clearly set forth
stipulations on interests and penalties, the same shall be applied to the
outstanding obligations of Spouses Libiran. 25
On appeal, the CA rendered its Decision, 26 the dispositive portion of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 which states:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated
January 20, 2017 and Order dated June 2, 2017 of the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 215 in Civil Case No. Q-09-6539 are
hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the interest imposed in
said Decision is hereby reduced to 12% per annum .
SO ORDERED. 27 (Emphasis in the original) aScITE

The CA held that the case was properly filed with the RTC. It reasoned
that since the alternative cause of action involved the collection of a sum of
money, the amount of money sought to be collected was beyond the
jurisdictional threshold set by Section 19 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended, for first level courts in Metro Manila. Likewise, the CA declared
that Quezon City is the exclusive venue for the case as it is the place where
the mortgage contract was executed. 28 It added that the failure to pay the
correct amount of docket fee should not give rise to the dismissal of the
complaint. 29
The CA found that Elisan proved by preponderance of evidence its
claim against Spouses Libiran through the promissory notes, vouchers,
mortgage contract, and the testimony of Joselito Manalac, vice-president of
Elisan. 30 For the CA, the bare denial and self-serving statements of Roning,
the sole witness for Spouses Libiran, paled in comparison with the
evidentiary weight that Elisan's documentary evidence had. 31
On the claim of Spouses Libiran that the notarization of the mortgage
contract was defective, the CA explained that the noted irregularities only
reduced the document into a private document and that it remained on a
higher evidentiary plane than their self-serving allegations. 32
As regards the interest, the CA found the interest rate of 26% per
annum, on top of the stipulated penalty of 2.5% per month, unconscionable.
Thus, it reduced the interest to 12% per annum. 33
In a Resolution, 34 the CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
Spouses Libiran for lack of merit. 35
Aggrieved, Spouses Libiran filed the present Petition raising the
following arguments: (1) the proper venue of an action for foreclosure of real
estate mortgage is in the place where the subject of the mortgage is
situated; 36 (2) the court lacks jurisdiction over the case due to the plaintiff's
failure to allege in the Complaint the assessed value of the subject lot; 37 (3)
non-payment of correct docket fee due to Elisan's failure to state the
assessed value of the subject land should lead to the dismissal of the case
for lack of jurisdiction; 38 (4) they did not apply for a loan and the certificate
of title to the subject property registered in their names is with Elisan as
additional security for the loans Roning obtained and had already paid in full;
39 and (5) the alleged mortgage contract is a void accessory contract
because the Securities and Exchange Commission certified that Elisan does
not have any license nor authority to engage in lending and financing
business. 40

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 Meanwhile, in the Comment 41 filed by Elisan, it maintained that (1) the
filing of the case in Quezon City was proper, and Spouses Libiran cannot
belatedly challenge the propriety of the venue after a decision had already
been rendered by the RTC; 42 (2) the determination of the assessed value of
the subject property is not necessary for the assessment of correct docket
fees as the complaint for judicial foreclosure of mortgage is incapable of
pecuniary estimation, thus falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC; 43 (3) the
bare allegation of Spouses Libiran's lone witness that their loan application
was denied or that they did not obtain any loan cannot overcome the
evidence presented by Elisan; 44 and (4) the Securities and Exchange
Commission issued its September 22, 2017 Decision granting the appeal of
Elisan and imposing only a fine of PHP50,000.00 for operating two
unauthorized branches. 45 DETACa

In addition to what Spouses Libiran already raised in their Petition, they

insisted in their Reply 46 that (1) the issue of improper venue was properly
raised in the affirmative defenses embodied in their Answer and raised again
before the CA; 47 and (2) the venue stipulation in the promissory note
providing that the action should be instituted in Quezon City does not apply
in this case because they did not sign any promissory note 48 and there is no
venue stipulation in the mortgage contract. 49
Issue
The central issue to be resolved in this case is whether the RTC of
Quezon City has jurisdiction over the complaint for judicial foreclosure of
mortgage.
This Court's Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.
A complaint for judicial foreclosure of
mortgage is a real action and the
assessed value of the property
determines the jurisdiction of the court
It is a hornbook doctrine that jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred by law. 50 It is determined through the allegations in the complaint
comprising a concise statement of the ultimate facts of the plaintiff's cause
of action. 51 The defense of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may
be raised at any stage of the proceedings, whether during the trial or on
appeal. 52 Here, Spouses Libiran first raised this argument in their Answer 53
and reiterated it on appeal to the CA and this Court. 54
In determining whether the court has the authority to hear and decide
a case, it is necessary to examine the allegations in the Complaint, the
relevant portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays from this Honorable
Court, as follows:
1. That judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff and
against the Defendants, ordering the latter to pay within the time
prescribed in Section 2, Rule 68 of the New Rules of Civil Procedure,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 the following:
a) The amount of [PHP]885,380.00 representing the balance
of Defendants' principal obligation; HEITAD

b) The sum equivalent to 26% per annum as interest and

2.5% per month as penalties, respectively, on the following amounts:
i. the amount of [PHP]316,000.00, from December 5,
2006, until fully paid;
ii. the amount of [PHP]104,500.00, from August 7,
2006, until fully paid;
iii. the amount of [PHP]464,880.00.00, n from June 11,
2007 until fully paid;
c) The sum of [PHP]100,000.00 as reasonable Attorney's
Fees;
2. That in default of payment of the claims above set forth,
the mortgaged property with all the buildings and improvements
thereon be ordered sold at public auction and the proceeds of the
sale applied to the payment of the total indebtedness due the
plaintiff, and, in case said proceeds should not cover the full amount
of the Defendants' indebtedness, that judgment be further rendered
and execution issued for the deficiency, against any other property
which Defendants may have.
Plaintiff likewise prays for such other measures of relief as may
be just and proper in the premises. 55
This Court recognized in Russell v. Vestil 56 that an action for
foreclosure of mortgage is an action incapable of pecuniary estimation, and
thus, within the jurisdiction of the RTC. 57 This is pursuant to Section 19 (1)
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, which
states:
Section 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. — Regional Trial Courts shall
exercise exclusive original jurisdiction.
(1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation[.]
(Emphasis in the original)
However, in identifying the tribunal with proper jurisdiction over the
case, this Court must also consider that while a foreclosure suit is incapable
of pecuniary estimation, it is also a real action. In Roldan v. Spouses Barrios ,
58 this Court explained that:

. . . Foreclosure is but a necessary consequence of non-payment of

the mortgage indebtedness. In a real estate mortgage[,] when the
principal obligation is not paid when due, the mortgagee has the right
to foreclose the mortgage and to have the property seized and sold
with the view of applying the proceeds to the payment of the
obligation. Therefore, the foreclosure suit is a real action so far as it is
against property, and seeks the judicial recognition of a property
debt, and an order for the sale of the res. 59 (Emphasis supplied;
citations omitted)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 It must be pointed out that in arguing that the Complaint was properly
instituted with the RTC as a foreclosure suit is an action incapable of
pecuniary estimation, Elisan relied on Russell. However, a complete reading
of Russell will show that this Court made a clarification that a foreclosure suit
is a real action and that it is important to allege the assessed value.
Noticeably, in Russell, this Court held that: aDSIHc

In Singsong vs. Isabela Sawmill, we had the occasion to rule that:

[I]n determining whether an action is one the
subject matter of which is not capable of pecuniary
estimation this Court has adopted the criterion of first
ascertaining the nature of the principal action or remedy
sought. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of
money, the claim is considered capable of pecuniary
estimation, and whether jurisdiction is in the municipal
courts or in the courts of first instance would depend on
the amount of the claim. However, where the basic issue
is something other than the right to recover a sum of
money, where the money claim is purely incidental to, or
a consequence of, the principal relief sought, this Court
has considered such actions as cases where the subject of
the litigation may not be estimated in terms of money,
and are cognizable exclusively by courts of first instance
(now Regional Trial Courts).
Examples of actions incapable of pecuniary estimation are
those for specific performance, support, or foreclosure of mortgage or
annulment of judgment; also[,] actions questioning the validity of a
mortgage, annulling a deed of sale or conveyance and to recover the
price paid and for rescession, [sic] which is a counterpart of specific
performance.
While actions under Sec. 33(3) of B.P. 129 are also incapable of
pecuniary estimation, the law specifically mandates that they are
cognizable by the MTC, METC, or MCTC where the assessed value of
the real property involved does exceed [PHP]20,000.00 in Metro
Manila, or [PHP]50,000.00, if located elsewhere. If the value exceeds
[PHP]20,000.00 or [PHP]50,000.00 as the case may be, it is the
Regional Trial Courts which have jurisdiction under Sec. 19(2)[.] 60
(Citations omitted)
In Roldan, this Court underscored the significance of the last paragraph
quoted from the case of Russell in understanding the nature of an action for
judicial foreclosure of mortgage. This Court clarified that:
[W]hile civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein, are also incapable of pecuniary
estimation as it is not for recovery of money, the court's jurisdiction
will be determined by the assessed value of the property involved. 61
As a rule, in real actions, jurisdiction is determined by the assessed
value of the res. 62 In this regard, the provision of the law governing the
jurisdiction of courts over real actions at the time the complaint was
instituted on August 7, 2009 is found in Sections 19 and 33 (3) of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129, 63 as amended by Republic Act No. 7691, 64 which state:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Section 19. Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts in Civil Cases .
— Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of,
real property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value
exceeds Four hundred thousand pesos ([PHP]400,000.00), except for
forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original
jurisdiction over which is conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial
Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts[.] 65 ATICcS

Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil Cases . —
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall exercise:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve
title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where
the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not
exceed Twenty thousand pesos ([PHP]20,000.00) or, in civil actions in
Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty
thousand pesos ([PHP]50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs:
Provided, [t]hat in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes,
the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value
of the adjacent lots. 65 (Emphasis in the original)
From the foregoing, it is clear that in a judicial foreclosure suit, the
assessed value of the subject property must be alleged. The failure to do so
is fatal to the plaintiff's cause. Otherwise, there is no way to determine
which tribunal has original jurisdiction over the case. The failure to aver the
assessed value of the subject property is a violation of the Judiciary
Reorganization Act of 1980, as amended, and gives rise to the dismissal of a
case. 66
It is worthy to point out that the failure to allege the proper valuation of
the real property in litigation is fatal to the plaintiff's cause as there will be
no basis for the computation of docket fees. 67 For the guidance of the
bench and bar, this Court finds it an opportune time to highlight the
prevailing guidelines in the computation of docket fees in cases involving
real actions as outlined in Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular
No. 256-2022. The pertinent portion of OCA Circular No. 256-2022 states:
2. The following are the basis for the ASSESSMENT of the
filing fees in Real Actions with the SECOND LEVEL COURTS:
2.1. Real Actions
(a) Fair Market Value of the Real Property in
litigation stated in the current tax declaration or Current
Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
whichever is higher, or if there is none, the stated
value of the property in litigation as alleged by the party
in the initiatory pleading.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 2.2. Real Actions with Money Claim
(a) Fair Market Value of the Real Property in
litigation stated in the current tax declaration or Current
Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
whichever is higher, or if there is none, the stated
value of the property in litigation as alleged by the party
in the initiatory pleading; and
(b) The Total Sum Claimed, which includes the
amount of claim or demand as stated in the initiatory
pleading, interests, penalties, surcharges, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses
and costs. ETHIDa

3. The following are the basis for the ASSESSMENT of the

filing fees in Real Actions with the FIRST LEVEL COURTS :
3.1. Real Actions other than for Forcible Entry and Unlawful
Detainer
(a) Fair Market Value of the Real Property in
litigation stated in the current tax declaration or Current
Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
whichever is higher, or if there is none, the stated
value of the property in litigation as alleged by the party
in the initiatory pleading.
3.2. Real Actions with Money Claims, other than for Forcible
Entry and Unlawful Detainer
(a) Fair Market Value of the Real Property in
litigation stated in the current tax declaration or Current
Zonal Valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
whichever is higher, or if there is none, the stated
value of the property in litigation as alleged by the party
in the initiatory pleading; and
(b) The Total Sum Claimed, which includes the
amount of claim or demand as stated in the initiatory
pleading, interests, penalties, surcharges, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses
and costs. 69 (Emphasis in the original; citations omitted)
Be that as it may, the ruling of this Court dismissing the case is without
prejudice to the filing of another case in the proper court in accordance with
the Rules of Court and Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
In view of the foregoing, this Court deems it no longer necessary to
discuss the other arguments raised by the parties. TIADCc

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The

Decision dated September 30, 2020 and the Resolution dated January 18,
2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 109587 are SET ASIDE. The
Complaint for judicial foreclosure of mortgage instituted by respondent
Elisan Credit Corporation is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a
separate case in the proper court.
SO ORDERED.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Leonen, Lazaro-Javier, M.V. Lopez and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 25-35.
2. Id. at 44-59. The September 30, 2020 Decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 109587 was
penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, and concurred in by
Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Carlito B. Calpatura of the Special
Fifteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

3. Id. at 61-63. The January 18, 2021 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV No. 109587 was
penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, and concurred in by
Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and Carlito B. Calpatura of the Former
Special Fifteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Id. at 84-99. The January 20, 2017 Decision was penned by Judge Rafael G.
Hipolito of Branch 215, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.
5. Id. at 64-65 & 68-69.
6. Id. at 69.
7. Id. at 45 & 69-70.

8. Id. at 45 & 70.

9. Id. at 45 & 70-71.
10. Id. at 45 & 71.
11. Id. at 68-72.
12. Id. at 76-83.

13. Id. at 76.

14. Id. at 77-78.
15. Id. at 79.
16. Id.

17. Id.
18. Id. at 80.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 81.
21. Id. at 84-99.

22. Id. at 98-99.

23. Id. at 97.
24. Id. at 95-96.
25. Id. at 97-98.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 26. Id. at 44-59.
27. Id. at 59.
28. Id. at 51.
29. Id. at 54-56.

30. Id. at 56.

31. Id. at 57.
32. Id. at 57-58.
33. Id. at 58.
34. Id. at 61-63. Dated January 18, 2021.

35. Id. at 62.

36. Id. at 28-29.
37. Id. at 29-30.
38. Id. at 30-31.

39. Id. at 31-33.

40. Id. at 33-34.
41. Id. at 8-18.
42. Id. at 9-10.
43. Id. at 10-11.

44. Id. at 14-17.

45. Id. at 17.
46. Id. at 259-264.
47. Id. at 259-260.
48. Id. at 260.

49. Id. at 261.

50. Salvador v. Patricia, Inc., 799 Phil. 116, 128 (2016) [Per J. Bersamin, First
Division].
51. Padlan v. Dinglasan , 707 Phil. 83, 91 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
52. Amoguis v. Ballado, 839 Phil. 1, 5 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
53. Rollo, pp. 77-78.
54. Id. at 29-30.

55. Id. at 72.

56. 364 Phil. 392 (1999) [Per J. Kapunan, First Division].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 57. Id. at 397.
58. 830 Phil. 583 (2018) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
59. Id. at 592-593.
60. Supra note 55, at 400-401.
61. Supra note 57, at 593.

62. Id.
63. The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980.
64. Republic Act No. 11576 (2021) further amended Sections 19 and 33 of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 129. Sections 19 and 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as
amended, presently state:
Section 19. Jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts in Civil Cases. — Regional
Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real
property, or any interest therein, where the assessed value exceeds Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), except for forcible entry into and
unlawful detainer of lands or buildings, original jurisdiction over which is
conferred upon the Metropolitan Trial Courts, and Municipal Trial Courts in
Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts;
Section 33. Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts
in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in Civil
Cases. — Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal
Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:

xxx xxx xxx

(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or
possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed
value of the property or any interest therein does not exceed Four hundred
thousand pesos ([PHP]400,000.00) exclusive on interest, damages of
whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That
in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such
property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots.

65. Republic Act No. 7691 (2004), Sec. 1.

65. Republic Act No. 7691 (2004), Sec. 3.

66. Foronda-Crystal v. Son, 821 Phil. 1033, 1045 (2017) [Per J. Reyes, Jr., Second
Division], citing Spouses Cruz v. Spouses Cruz, 616 Phil. 519 (2009) [Per J.
Corona, First Division]; Hilario v. Salvador , 497 Phil. 327, 336 (2005) [Per J.
Callejo, Sr., Second Division].
67. Supra 66.

68. Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document. Missing
Footnote Reference and Footnote Text.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com

 69. OCA Circular No. 256-2022, September 28, 2022.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com