SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 137898. December 15, 2000.]

CHINA ROAD AND BRIDGE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT
OF
APPEALS
(Special
Seventh
Division)
and
JADE
PROGRESSIVE SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, respondents.

De Borja Medialdea Bello Guevarra & Gerodias for petitioner.

Atty. Antonio M. Pery and Corpus & Associates for private respondents.
SYNOPSIS
A complaint for collection was led by Jade Progressive Savings and Mortgage Bank
(JADEBANK), herein private respondent, against Hi-Quality Builders and Traders
Inc., and petitioner, a Chinese corporation. The complaint alleged that JADEBANK
granted Hi-Quality a loan secured by a deed of assignment of all its (Hi-Quality)
receivables from petitioner. Petitioner gave Hi-Quality a P5,000,000.00 check which
was then given by Hi-Quality to JADEBANK. When the latter deposited the check the
same was returned for the reason: "stop payment." In dismissing the complaint, the
trial court found that even assuming that all the allegations in the complaint of
JADEBANK were true, it would still not be able to collect from petitioner corporation
because based on the same allegations, petitioner did not have the duty to remit
money to JADEBANK. JADEBANK appealed to the Court of Appeals by way of Rule 41
of the Rules of Court. Petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the
proper mode of appeal is by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
The appellate court denied petitioner's motion, ruling that the appeal involved both
questions of fact and of law. Hence, this petition.
In a motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action the issue is passed upon on
the basis of the allegations in the complaint. However, in a motion to dismiss based
on failure to state a cause of action, the trial court may consider all the pleadings
led including the annexes, motions and evidence on record. However, the trial
court does not rule on the truth or falsity of such documents. It merely includes such
documents in the hypothetical admission. Any review of a nding of lack of cause of
action based on the documents would not involve a calibration of the probative
value of such pieces of evidence but would only limit itself to the inquiry of whether
the law was properly applied. Therefore, only pure questions of law may be raised in
its appeal and the proper mode of appeal is a petition for review on certiorari under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petition granted and the assailed Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals were reversed.
SYLLABUS

1.
REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; APPEALS; WHEN QUESTION OF LAW EXISTS. A
question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a
certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or dierence
arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts, or when the query necessarily invites
calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses,
existence and relevancy of specic surrounding circumstances, their relation to each
other and to the whole and probabilities of the situation.
2.
ID.; EVIDENCE; FINDINGS OF COURT OF APPEALS, GENERALLY UPHELD ON
APPEAL; CASE AT BAR, EXCEPTION. Ordinarily, the determination of whether an
appeal involves only questions of law or both questions of law and fact is best left to
the appellate court, and all doubts as to the correctness of such conclusions will be
resolved in favor of the Court of Appeals. However, in the instant case, we nd that
there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Court of Appeals
hence, we grant the petition.
3.
ID.; ID.; MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION; ONLY
STATEMENTS IN COMPLAINT CONSIDERED. It is well settled that in a motion to
dismiss based on lack of cause of action, the issue is passed upon on the basis of the
allegations assuming them to be true. The court does not inquire into the truth of
the allegations and declare them to be false, otherwise it would be a procedural
error and a denial of due process to the plainti. Only the statements in the
complaint may be properly considered, and the court cannot take cognizance of
external facts or hold preliminary hearings to ascertain their existence. To put it
simply, the test for determining whether a complaint states or does not state a
cause of action against the defendants is whether or not, admitting hypothetically
the truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, the judge may validly
grant the relief demanded in the complaint.
4.
ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; APPEAL FROM DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT BASED THEREON
COULD ONLY RAISE QUESTION OF LAW. In a motion to dismiss based on failure
to state a cause of action, there cannot be any question of fact or "doubt or
dierence as to the truth or falsehood of facts," simply because there are no ndings
of fact in the rst place. What the trial court merely does is to apply the law to the
facts as alleged in the complaint, assuming such allegations to be true. It follows
then that any appeal therefrom could only raise questions of law or "doubt or
controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts." Therefore, a decision
dismissing a complaint based on failure to state a cause of action necessarily
precludes a review of the same decision on questions of fact. One is the legal and
logical opposite of the other.
5.
ID.; ID.; APPEALS; TEST IN DETERMINING WHERE ISSUE RAISED IS ONE OF
FACT OR OF LAW. The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the
appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is
whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or
evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a
question of fact.

6.
ID.; ID.; APPEAL BY PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER RULE 45; ONLY ISSUE IS
PURE QUESTION OF LAW. Applying the test to the instant case, it is clear that
private respondent raises pure questions of law which are not proper in an ordinary
appeal under Rule 41, but should be raised by way of a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45.
7.
ID.; ID.; MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION;
DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED. In a motion to dismiss due to failure to state a cause
of action, the trial court can consider all the pleadings led, including annexes,
motions and the evidence on record. However in so doing, the trial court does not
rule on the truth or falsity of such documents. It merely includes such documents in
the hypothetical admission. Any review of a nding of lack of cause of action based
on these documents would not involve a calibration of the probative value of such
pieces of evidence but would only limit itself to the inquiry of whether the law was
properly applied given the facts and these supporting documents. Therefore, what
would inevitably arise from such a review are pure questions of law, and not
questions of fact.
8.
ID.; ID.; DIFFERENCE WHERE COMPLAINT DOES NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT
CAUSE OF ACTION AND WHERE EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUSTAIN CAUSE OF ACTION
ALLEGED. It is apparent that JADEBANK, as well as respondent appellate court,
confused situations where the complaint does not allege a sucient cause of action
and where the evidence does not sustain the cause of action alleged. The rst is
raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 before a responsive pleading is led and
can be determined only from the allegations in the initiatory pleading and not from
evidentiary or other matter aliunde. The second is raised in a demurrer to evidence
under Rule 33 after the plainti has rested his case and can be resolved only on the
basis of the evidence he has presented in support of his claim. The rst does not
concern itself with the truth and falsity of the allegations while the second arises
precisely because the judge has determined the truth and falsity of the allegations
and has found the evidence wanting.
AHSaTI

9.
ID.; ID.; APPEALS; IMPROPER MODE OF APPEAL TO COURT OF APPEALS
SHOULD BE DISMISSED OUTRIGHT. JADEBANK's appeal having been improperly
brought before the Court of Appeals, it should be dismissed outright pursuant to Sec.
2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
DECISION
BELLOSILLO, J :
p

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
praying for the nullication of the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (Special
Seventh Division) dated 29 October 1998 denying petitioner's Motion to Dismiss
Appeal, and its Resolution dated 5 February 1999, denying reconsideration thereof
and for the dismissal of CA-G.R. CV No. 57375.

CHINA ROAD AND BRIDGE CORPORATION (CRBC), petitioner, is a corporation

organized under the laws of the People's Republic of China duly licensed by the
Securities and Exchange Commission to do business in the Philippines. It was
awarded by the Philippine Government the contract to construct the EDSA Shaw
Boulevard Overpass in Mandaluyong, which it subcontracted to Hi-Quality Builders
and Traders, Inc. (HI-QUALITY), a domestic corporation organized under the laws of
the Philippines.
On 17 October 1996 Helen Ambrosio, President of HI-QUALITY, executed a
Continuing Suretyship in favor of Jade Progressive Savings and Mortgage Bank
(JADEBANK) binding herself to pay the "obligations of the Debtor (Hi-Quality)
arising from all credit accommodations extended by the Bank to the Debtor . . .
presently or hereafter owing to the Bank, as appears in the accounts, books and
records of the Bank whether direct or indirect . . . "
On 10 January 1997, in consideration of a loan of P5,000,000.00, HI-QUALITY
executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of JADEBANK with the approval of CRBC
where it assigned to JADEBANK "(a)ll monthly accomplishment billings, the sums of
money, credit, or receivables assigned, be in the position (sic) of or due or to be due
from China Road and Bridge Corporation, arising from the subcontract agreement in
the construction of the EDSA/Shaw Blvd. Overpass Project . . . " 1

On 17 January 1997 JADEBANK released to HI-QUALITY P500,000.00 as part of the

loan both parties earlier contracted. As security for the loan, HI-QUALITY executed
Promissory Note No. JB BDO 15/97 promising to pay the loan on 3 April 1997. It also
indorsed to JADEBANK Check No. 0000270127 issued by CRBC on 31 March 1997
covering the amount released, drawn on United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB),
Mandaluyong Branch.
On 7 April 1997 JADEBANK released P250,000.00 for which HI-QUALITY executed
Promissory Note No. JB BDO 181/97 payable on 18 April 1997 and indorsed to
JADEBANK Check No. 0000126132 issued by Helen Ambrosio on 18 April 1997
covering the amount released, drawn on Allied Banking Corporation, Shaw
Boulevard Branch (ALLIEDBANK).
SAHaTc

On 21 March 1997 JADEBANK released P250,000.00 for which HI-QUALITY executed

Promissory Note No. JB BDO 150/97 payable on 5 May 1997 and indorsed to
JADEBANK ALLIEDBANK Check No. 0000126131 issued by Ambrosio dated 30 April
1997 for the same amount.
On 25 March 1997 JADEBANK released P400,000.00 for which HI-QUALITY executed
Promissory Note No. JB BDO 162/97 payable on 5 May 1997 and indorsed to
JADEBANK Check No. 214179 issued by Ambrosio dated 30 April 1997 for the same
amount, drawn on Security Bank Corporation, Pateros Branch (SECURITYBANK).
On 7 February 1997 JADEBANK released another P400,000.00 for which HIQUALITY executed Promissory Note No. JB BDO 33/97 payable on 5 May 1997 and

indorsed to JADEBANK UCPB Check No. 270144 issued by CRBC.

On 17 February 1997 JADEBANK released P350,000.00 for which HI-QUALITY
executed Promissory Note No. JB BDO 45/97 payable on 5 May 1997 and indorsed
to JADEBANK UCPB Check No. 270147 issued by CRBC.
Finally, on 21 February 1997 JADEBANK released P250,000.00 for which HIQUALITY executed Promissory Note No. JB BDO 75/97 payable on 5 May 1997 and
indorsed to JADEBANK UCPB Check No. 270551 issued by CRBC.
All the promissory notes executed by HI-QUALITY provided for twenty-ve percent
(25%) interest per annum and a ve percent (5%) penalty per month in case of
default. The amount of each check corresponded to the amount released to HIQUALITY on the day the check was indorsed to JADEBANK.
When JADEBANK deposited the aforementioned checks for payment, they were
returned unpaid. The checks drawn on UCPB were dishonored due to "Stop
Payment" orders from the drawer. The ALLIEDBANK checks were dishonored
because the account was closed on 19 February 1997. The SECURITYBANK check
was dishonored because the account had been closed since the second quarter of
1996.
On 9 June 1997, after repeated demands for payment which were unheeded,
JADEBANK led a case for collection against HI-QUALITY, Helen Ambrosio and CRBC,
with an application for a writ of attachment against their properties. The Complaint
included as cause of action the rst four (4) checks indorsed by HI-QUALITY to
JADEBANK and alleging among others that the defendants conspired to commit
fraudulent acts in order to induce JADEBANK to grant the loans to HI-QUALITY.
Firstly, CRBC issued to HI-QUALITY the UCPB check for P500,000.00 dated 31 March
1997 without any intention of honoring the check. JADEBANK alleged that CRBC
knew fully well that the check was to be used by HI-QUALITY as security for the loan
from JADEBANK. However, in violation of the Deed of Assignment, CRBC gave to HIQUALITY sums of money without notice to or the consent of JADEBANK, thereby
releasing funds supposedly already assigned to JADEBANK for the payment of HIQUALITY's loans. Secondly, Helen Ambrosio, as President of HI-QUALITY, issued the
checks drawn on SECURITYBANK and ALLIEDBANK after her accounts with these
banks were closed, thus revealing a fraudulent intention not to honor her
obligations even from their inception. She also executed the Suretyship Agreement
in favor of JADEBANK without any intention of fulfilling her obligations.
On 17 June 1997 the trial court 2 issued a Writ of Preliminary Attachment . On the
same day, a Notice of Garnishment was served on UCPB garnishing all the moneys
of CRBC in the bank. On 23 June 1997 CRBC led a Motion for Discharge of
Attachment. On the same day a Notice of Levy on Attachment was also served on
CRBC. On 27 June 1997 the preliminary attachment was discharged after CRBC
posted a counter-bond in the amount of P1,962,458.00. On 30 June 1997
JADEBANK filed an Amended Complaint to include the loans contracted on 7, 17 and
21 February 1997 increasing the total amount collectible to P3,437,424.42.

On 28 July 1997 CRBC led a Motion to Dismiss the 30 May 1997 Complaint on the
ground of lack of cause of action. According to CRBC, the Deed of Assignment upon
which JADEBANK based its cause of action against CRBC, was subject to the SubContracting Agreement between CRBC and HI-QUALITY
Under these circumstances, until such time as Hi Quality is able to perform
its obligations pursuant to the Sub-Contract Agreement thereby entitling it to
payment for services rendered, China Road has no liability whatsoever in HiQuality's favor. Corollarily, until its happens, Hi-Quality has nothing to assign
in favor of the plaintiff in the form of collectibles/receivables from China Road
pursuant to the Deed of Assignment. 3
cDTaSH

CRBC also denied that the issuance of the checks to HI-QUALITY was for the purpose
of facilitating the loans in favor of the latter, claiming that the checks were for the
use of HI-QUALITY alone, and not for any other purpose. In support of this claim,
CRBC asserted that "(n)owhere on the face of the said check does the name of the
plainti appear. Neither is it accompanied by any document whatsoever specically
evincing that the same was intended for delivery to plainti." CRBC also denied
that it had been releasing money to HI-QUALITY, claiming that the latter had failed
to comply with its obligations to CRBC.
On 27 August 1997 the lower court granted the Motion to Dismiss the complaint
with respect to CRBC. Its Motion for Reconsideration having been denied on 31 June
1997 JADEBANK appealed to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41 of the Rules of
Court. On 12 August 1997 CRBC led with the Court of Appeals a Motion to Dismiss
Appeal asserting that "the determination of whether the ultimate facts in a
Complaint state a cause of action against the defendant is a pure question of law
and does not involve any question of fact." 4 According to CRBC, the proper mode of
appeal was not by way of ordinary appeal under Rule 41 but rather by way of a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
On 29 October 1998 the Court of Appeals (Special Seventh Division) issued the
assailed Resolution denying CRBC's Motion to Dismiss, nding the appeal involved
both questions of fact and of law. On 5 February 1999 the appellate court denied
reconsideration; hence, this petition.
The only issue that needs to be resolved is whether the Court of Appeals committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying
petitioner's Motion to Dismiss. In resolving the issue it is necessary to determine
only if private respondent's appeal to the Court of Appeals involved purely questions
of law, in which case the proper mode of appeal would be a petition for review on
certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45; 5 or questions of fact or mixed
questions of fact and law, in which case the proper mode would be by ordinary
appeal under Rule 41.
A question of law exists when there is doubt or controversy as to what the law is on
a certain state of facts, and there is a question of fact when the doubt or dierence
arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts, 6 or when the query necessarily invites
calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of witnesses,

existence and relevancy of specic surrounding circumstances, their relation to each

other and to the whole and probabilities of the situation. 7 Ordinarily, the
determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law or both
questions of law and fact is best left to the appellate court, 8 and all doubts as to the
correctness of such conclusions will be resolved in favor of the Court of Appeals. 9
However, in the instant case, we nd that there was grave abuse of discretion on
the part of respondent Court of Appeals, hence, we grant the petition.
The ground for dismissal invoked by petitioner is that the complaint of JADEBANK
before the trial court stated no cause of action, under Sec. 1, par. (g), Rule 16, the
1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure . It is well settled that in a motion to dismiss
based on lack of cause of action, the issue is passed upon on the basis of the
allegations assuming them to be true. 10 The court does not inquire into the truth of
the allegations and declare them to be false, otherwise it would be a procedural
error and a denial of due process to the plainti. Only the statements in the
complaint may be properly considered, and the court cannot take cognizance of
external facts or hold preliminary hearings to ascertain their existence. 11 To put it
simply, the test for determining whether a complaint states or does not state a
cause of action against the defendants is whether or not, admitting hypothetically
the truth of the allegations of fact made in the complaint, the judge may validly
grant the relief demanded in the complaint. 12
In a motion to dismiss based on failure to state a cause of action, there cannot be
any question of fact or "doubt or dierence as to the truth or falsehood of facts,"
simply because there are no ndings of fact in the rst place. What the trial court
merely does is to apply the law to the facts as alleged in the complaint, assuming
such allegations to be true. It follows then that any appeal therefrom could only
raise questions of law or "doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain
state of facts." Therefore, a decision dismissing a complaint based on failure to state
a cause of action necessarily precludes a review of the same decision on questions of
fact. One is the legal and logical opposite of the other.
EaHcDS

In resolving the Motion to Dismiss, the lower court ruled

As alleged in the complaint, the plainti granted a loan to Hi-Quality Builders
and Traders, Inc. (HQ); that as security of the payment of the loan, HQ
assigned all its receivables from China; that China gave HQ a check for
P5,000,000.00 payable to HQ; that in turn HQ gave the check to plainti;
and that plainti deposited said check which was returned for the reason:
"stop payment."
It is clear from the foregoing that there is no cause of action of plainti
against China. While there is a "delict" or "wrong" committed, it was not
committed against the rights of plainti because it alleged none but against
HQ. Therefore, the one that has a cause of action against China is HQ. 13

The Motion for Reconsideration led by JADEBANK was resolved by the trial court
thuswise

(T)he plainti has a right in the collection of the loan it granted to Hi-Quality
Builders but there is no corresponding allegation the (sic) China Road has an
obligation to pay such loan. All that is alleged is that China Road agreed that
Hi-Quality Builders will assign its receivables from China Road and for that
purpose appointed plaintiff as Attorney-in-fact.
Had there been allegation to the eect that plainti, as Attorney-in-fact, of
Hi-Quality Builders collected from China Road and that China Road refused
to deliver the money due Hi-Quality Builders then a cause of action would
have arisen. 14

It is clear from the foregoing that the lower court did not make any nding of fact;
rather, as was proper in a motion to dismiss for this particular ground, it merely
assumed the plainti's allegations to be true. It did not evaluate the evidence of the
plainti nor did it pass upon the truth or falsity of the plainti's allegations. What
the lower court did was simply to apply the law as to the facts borne out by the
allegations in the complaint. And it found that even assuming that all the
allegations of JADEBANK were true, it would still not be able to collect from CRBC
because based on the same allegations, CRBC did not have any duty whatsoever to
remit money to JADEBANK. Whether this conclusion is correct or not is a totally
separate issue and is not before us for review at this time. What is evident,
however, is that such a conclusion could only raise pure questions of law. It is
perplexing to this Court then why respondent appellate court found that there were
questions of fact to be answered in the appeal. It taxes the imagination how a
question of fact can arise from a controversy that does not involve findings of fact.
JADEBANK in its Appellant's Brief raised the following questions, which it
erroneously designated as questions of fact, in an attempt to place its appeal within
the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals:
4.1.1. Whether or not the amended complaint together with the Annexes
attached and forming an integral part thereof, states a sucient cause of
action against the defendant-appellee;
4.1.2. Whether or not there was an unwarranted reversal of the Honorable
Regional Trial Court's Orders stating that the complaint states a sucient
cause of action;
4.2.1. Whether or not the Motion to Dismiss the complaint can be
considered also as a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. 15

We fail to see how these issues raised by JADEBANK could be properly denominated
questions of fact. The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the
appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is
whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or
evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a
question of fact. 16 Applying the test to the instant case, it is clear that private
respondent raises pure questions of law which are not proper in an ordinary appeal
under Rule 41, but should be raised by way of a petition for review on certiorari
under Rule 45.
SEDIaH

We agree with private respondent that in a motion to dismiss due to failure to state
a cause of action, the trial court can consider all the pleadings led, including
annexes, motions and the evidence on record. 17 However in so doing, the trial court
does not rule on the truth or falsity of such documents. It merely includes such
documents in the hypothetical admission. Any review of a nding of lack of cause of
action based on these documents would not involve a calibration of the probative
value of such pieces of evidence but would only limit itself to the inquiry of whether
the law was properly applied given the facts and these supporting documents.
Therefore, what would inevitably arise from such a review are pure questions of
law, and not questions of fact.
It is apparent that JADEBANK, as well as respondent appellate court, confused
situations where the complaint does not allege a sucient cause of action and
where the evidence does not sustain the cause of action alleged. The first is raised in
a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 before a responsive pleading is led and can be
determined only from the allegations in the initiatory pleading and not from
evidentiary or other matters aliunde. The second is raised in a demurrer to evidence
under Rule 33 after the plainti has rested his case and can be resolved only on the
basis of the evidence he has presented in support of his claim. 18 The rst does not
concern itself with the truth and falsity of the allegations while the second arises
precisely because the judge has determined the truth and falsity of the allegations
and has found the evidence wanting.
This is not to say that we automatically agree with the trial court that private
respondent failed to allege a sucient cause of action. However, the question of
whether JADEBANK failed to state a sucient cause of action is not before us for
review; it may only be resolved when the appropriate mode of review is availed of.
JADEBANK's appeal having been improperly brought before the Court of Appeals, it
should be dismissed outright pursuant to Sec. 2 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court,
which provides:
Sec. 2. Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals . An appeal
under Rule 41 taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals
raising only questions of law shall be dismissed, issues purely of law not
being reviewable by the said court . . . .

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions of the
Court of Appeals dated 29 October 1998 and 5 February 1999 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the appeal in CA-G.R. CV No. 57375, "Jade Progressive Savings and
Mortgage Bank v. China Road and Bridge Corporation," is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

TSHEIc

Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1.

Rollo, p. 86.

2.

RTC-Br. 46, Manila, with Judge Artemio S. Tipon, presiding.

3.

Rollo, p. 90.

4.

Id., p. 13.

5.

Sec. 2, par. (c), Rule 41, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "Sec. 2.
Modes of Appeal. . . . (c) Appeal by certiorari. In all cases where only questions
of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by petition
for review on certiorari in accordance with Rule 45."

6.

Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co ., No. L-22533, 9 February 1967, 19 SCRA 289;

Pilar Development Corp. v. IAC , G.R. No. 72283, 12 December 1986, 146 SCRA
215.

7.

Bernardo v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 101680, 7 December 1992, 216 SCRA
224.

8.

PNB v. Romillo, G.R. No. 70681, 16 Oct. 1985, 139 SCRA 320.

9.

Pilar Dev. Corp. v. IAC; see Note 6.

10.

Consolidated Bank and Trust Corp. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. Nos. 84588 and
84659, 29 May, 1991, 197 SCRA 663; Rava Development Corporation v. Court of
Appeals , G.R. No. 96825, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 144; Perpetual Savings Bank v.
Fajardo, G.R. No. 79760, 28 June 1993, 223 SCRA 720;

11.

D.C. Crystal Incorporation v. Laya, G.R. No. 53597, 28 February 1989, 170 SCRA
734.

12.

Perpetual Savings Bank v. Fajardo; see Note 10.

13.

Rollo, p. 106.

14.

Id., p. 127.

15.

Id., p. 153.

16.

See Vda. de Arroyo v. El Beaterio del Santissimo Rosario de Molo , No. L-22005, 3
May 1968, 23 SCRA 525 and cases cited therein.

17.

Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 120958, 16
December 1996, 265 SCRA 614; Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Garcia, G.R. No.
55935, 20 July 1986, 143 SCRA 178.

18.

Enojas, Jr. v. Commission on Elections , G.R. No. 129938, 12 December 1997,

283 SCRA 229.