SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 219638. December 7, 2016.]

MARCELINO REPUELA and CIPRIANO REPUELA, substituted

by CARMELA REPUELA, MERLINDA R. VILLARUEL, WILLIAM
REPUELA, ROSITA P. REPUELA, CRISTINA R. RAMOS,
ORLANDO REPUELA, JUNNE REPUELA, and OSCAR REPUELA,
petitioners, vs. ESTATE OF THE SPOUSES OTILLO LARAWAN
and JULIANA BACUS, represented by NANCY LARAWAN
MANCAO, GALILEO LARAWAN and SOCRATES LARAWAN,
respondents.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J : p

This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court assails the May 29, 2014 Decision 1 and the June 10, 2015 Resolution 2
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 03976, which reversed and
set aside the February 23, 2011 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Seventh Judicial Region, Branch 7, Cebu City, in Civil Case No. CEB-28524, a
case for Annulment of Documents, Quieting of Title, Redemption, Damages,
and Attorneys Fees. HTcADC

The Antecedents
Spouses Lorenzo and Magdalena Repuela owned Lot No. 3357 (subject
property), situated in Lawaan III, Talisay City, Cebu, and covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 5154. After they had passed away, their children
Marcelino Repuela ( Marcelino) and Cipriano Repuela (Cipriano) succeeded
them as owners of the subject property. 4
Cipriano and Marcelino (Repuela brothers) claimed that sometime in
July 1963, after the death of their parents, they went to the house of Otillo
Larawan (Otillo) to borrow P200.00 for Marcelino's fare to Iligan City; that to
secure the loan, the spouses Otillo and Juliana Larawan (Spouses Larawan)
required them to turn over the certificate of title for Lot No. 3357; that they
were made to sign a purported mortgage contract but they were not given a
copy of the said document; that Cipriano affixed his signature while
Marcelino, being illiterate, just placed his thumb mark on the document; that
they remained in possession of the land despite the mortgage and had been
planting bamboos, corn, bananas, and papayas thereon and sharing the
produce between them; and that they also paid the taxes due on the
property. 5
In October 2002, as recalled by Cipriano's daughter, Cristina Repuela
Ramos (Cristina), she went to the City Treasurer's Office of Talisay City, upon
the request of her father, to verify whether Spouses Larawan were paying
the realty taxes on the mortgaged property. She learned that Spouses
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Larawan did not pay the taxes and the tax declaration on the subject
property was already in their names as early as 1964; that in the Registry of
Deeds of Cebu, TCT No. 5154 was already cancelled and a new certificate of
title, TCT No. 10506, had been issued to Otillo; that Spouses Larawan were
able to transfer the certificate of title to their names by virtue of the
Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs and Sale bearing the signature of her father
Cipriano and the thumb mark of her uncle Marcelino; and that her father and
uncle remembered that they were made to sign a blank document.
On January 17, 2003, Cipriano and Marcelino, on account of this
predicament, were compelled to file a complaint before the RTC for the
annulment of the Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs and Sale and the
cancellation of TCT No. 10506. During the trial, Catalina Burlas (Burlas), who
lived next to the subject property, and Alma Abellanosa (Abellanosa), City
Assessor of Talisay City, were also presented as witnesses for the Repuela
brothers. 6
Burlas testified that the Repuela brothers confided in her about
Marcelino's desire to go to Iligan City but they had no money for his fare;
that another neighbor referred the Repuela brothers to Otillo, who could lend
them P200.00 but only upon the signing of a deed of mortgage and the
surrender of the certificate of title as collateral; that Marcelino was able to
leave for Iligan but he came back after three months to help Cipriano in
cultivating the land; that she did not see any other person till the land
except the Repuela brothers; and that she could not recall a time when
Otillo, whom she personally knew, ever visited or cultivated the subject
property. 7 aScITE

Abellanosa, as City Assessor, stated that based on the records of her

office, Lot No. 3357 was declared for taxation purposes for the first time in
1961 when Tax Declaration No. 12543 was issued in the name of Lorenzo
Repuela; that in 1964, Tax Declaration No. 24112 was issued in the name of
Spouses Larawan on the basis of a deed of sale; and that the subsequent tax
declarations had Spouses Larawan as the owners. 8
For the Estate of Spouses Larawan, on the other hand, the transaction
between the Repuela brothers and Otillo was a sale and not a mortgage of a
parcel of land. The Estate also invoked laches on the part of the Repuela
brothers for failing to file a complaint during the lifetime of Spouses
Larawan. Galileo Larawan (Galileo), son of Spouses Larawan and the sole
witness for the Estate, testified that he knew of the transaction between his
father and the Repuela brothers because his father brought him along to the
office of Atty. Celestino Bacalso (Atty. Bacalso), where the document entitled
Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs and Sale was prepared; that the said
document was signed by Cipriano and thumbmarked by Marcelino which was
witnessed by Hilario Bacalso and Fernando Abellanosa; that he witnessed the
Repuela brothers affix their signature and thumbmark after Atty. Bacalso
read and explained to them the contents of the document in the Cebuano
dialect; that after the document was notarized, his father handed P2,000.00
to the Repuela brothers as consideration for the sale; and that he was only
six (6) years old when these all happened. 9
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Galileo also pointed out that the new certificate of title, TCT No. 10506,
in the name of Spouses Larawan, was issued by the Register of Deeds on
August 20, 1963; that his mother paid the real estate taxes during her
lifetime and, after her death, he himself made the payments; that he
secured the tax declaration for the subject property from the office of the
Talisay City Assessor; that their family had been in possession of the subject
property and they had harvested and enjoyed the produce of the land such
as bamboos, jackfruit and 100 coconut trees; and that there were no other
persons claiming ownership over the land, as the Repuela brothers never
offered to redeem the subject property from their family. 10
The Ruling of the RTC
After the trial, the RTC decided in favor of the Repuela brothers. It held
that the transaction between the parties was not a sale but an equitable
mortgage. The testimony of Galileo for the respondent, who was admittedly
just six (6) years old then, was "likely colored by the lens of adult
perspective and self-interest." It believed the claim of Cipriano, who only had
the benefit of a Grade One education, and the illiterate Marcelino, that they
merely signed a document without knowing its nature. The trial court gave
more credence to the claim of possession of the Repuela brothers because
the same was affirmed by a disinterested person, Burlas, who had been
living in the area since she was small and whose lot adjoined the subject
property. According to her, only Cipriano and Marcelino cultivated the land
and she never saw anyone, not even Otillo, work on the land. 11 HEITAD

Moreover, it was the trial court's opinion that the evidence of

possession weighed more on the side of the Repuela brothers than that of
the Estate of Spouses Larawan. Their assertion of possession was bolstered
by the fact that they too paid taxes on the property, an indication that they
were still in possession of the subject property. Considering that they still
possessed the subject property even after the execution of the sale, in the
concept of an owner and continued paying the land taxes thereon, the RTC
was of the view that the contract, entered into by the Repuela brothers and
Otillo, was an equitable mortgage under Article 1602 of the Civil Code. 12
Thus, the RTC disposed:
Hence, the Court:
1. Declares the sale in the document, "Extrajudicial Declaration of
Heirs and Sale," signed by Cipriano and Marcelino Repuela in favor of
Otillo Larawan and spouse on July 1, 1963, as in effect an equitable
mortgage;
2. Gives Cipriano and Marcelino Repuela thirty (30) days from the
finality of this decision to redeem the property in the amount of Two
Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), with interest at the legal rate computed
from the date of the filing of the Complaint; and
3. Directs defendants to pay plaintiffs:
a. P20,000.00, as attorney's fees, and
b. P20,000.00, as litigation expenses.
Costs are assessed against the defendants.
SO ORDERED. 13
Not in conformity, the Estate of Spouses Larawan appealed the case to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
On May 29, 2014, the CA reversed and set aside the February 23, 2011
Decision of the RTC for the following reasons:
1. The Repuela brothers failed to present any direct and positive
proof to rebut the presumption of the document's due execution.
They failed to prove any factual circumstance to point that the
transaction covered therein was one of mortgage, or at the least, that
such was their intention; ATICcS

2. The Repuela brothers had not proven continued possession of

the subject property which would have given the impression that it
was not sold but merely mortgaged;
3. None of the enumerated circumstances in Article 1602 of the
Civil Code was present in order for the presumption of equitable
mortgage to apply. Contrary to the factual finding of the trial court,
the evidence did not show that they were still in possession of the
property even after the execution of the document and that they
continued paying the taxes on the property immediately after the
execution of the deed; and,
4. Granting arguendo that the transaction was a mortgage, their
cause of action was already barred by laches as 39 years had already
elapsed before they asserted their rights over the subject property. 14
The decretal portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is
GRANTED. The February 23, 2011 Decision of the RTC Branch 7 of
Cebu City in Civil Case No. CEB-28524 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE
and the complaint for Annulment of Documents, Quieting of Title,
Redemption, Damages and Attorney's Fees is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 15

After their motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its

Resolution, dated June 10, 2015, the heirs of the Repuela brothers
(petitioners) filed the subject petition.

Issue

Whether the Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs

and Sale amounted to an equitable mortgage.

Petitioners explain that the Repuela brothers only filed the case in
2003 because they found no urgency to file it as there were no indications
that their title and possession over the subject property were threatened.
They claim that their predecessors-in-interest were in peaceful, open,
continuous, and public possession as owners of the subject property from
the time of the transaction in 1963 until the time when they decided to
partition their property and learned, in the process, that the tax declaration
and title of their lot were already transferred in the name of Spouses
Larawan. They argue that considering that they, who were claiming to be the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 owners thereof, were in actual possession of the property, their right to seek
reconveyance, which in effect sought to quiet the title to the property, never
prescribed. 16
Petitioners further argue that the existence of the Extrajudicial
Declaration of Heirs and Sale was not enough proof that the Repuela
brothers really intended to sell the property, and that the stipulations in the
contract should be construed together with the parties' contemporaneous
and subsequent acts as regards the execution of the contract. The same was
true with the issuance of a new owner's TCT in favor of Spouses Larawan. It
neither imports conclusive evidence of ownership nor proves that the
agreement between the parties was one of sale. A conveyance by
registration in the name of the transferee and the issuance of a new
certificate is not secured from the operation of the equitable doctrine, to the
effect that any conveyance intended as security for a debt would be held in
effect to be a mortgage, than most informal conveyance that could be
devised. 17 TIADCc

The CA, according to petitioners, should have given more credence to

the testimonies of the Repuela brothers, as corroborated and affirmed by the
disinterested witness, Burlas, over that of Galileo, the lone witness for the
respondent. As correctly observed by the trial court, Galileo was just six (6)
years old when he supposedly witnessed the alleged transaction in the office
of Atty. Bacalso, and so he could not have possibly known the nature of the
executed contract. Echoing the RTC, they pointed out that a six-year-old
boy's curiosity and concerns could not have extended to things of this nature
and that his recollection of events was likely colored by the lens of adult
perspective and self-interest, as Galileo himself admitted that he did not
read the document. 18
Finally, they stress that the Repuela brothers remained in possession
of the subject property even after the transaction and they also paid the
taxes thereon for the years 1985 to 2002 on December 18, 2002. These
circumstances surrounding the transaction entered into by and between the
Repuela brothers and Otillo would naturally lead anyone to infer that this
instance was espoused in Article 1602 of the Civil Code. This is in line with
jurisprudence consistently holding that the presence of one, and not the
confluence of several circumstances, is sufficient to prove that a contract of
sale is one of an equitable mortgage. 19
The Position of Respondent
In its Comment, 20 dated December 28, 2015, respondent Estate of
Spouses Larawan (respondent) averred that the extrajudicial settlement and
sale executed by the parties could not be presumed as an equitable
mortgage. First, the said contract was "not a sale with right to repurchase"
and the price of the sale was not unusually inadequate. Second, there is no
documentary evidence that would support the claim of possession by the
Repuela brothers, as lessee or otherwise, continuously from the execution of
the document of sale until the filing of the case. Third, the third situation
(when upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase, another
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 instrument extending the period of redemption or granting a new period was
executed) wherein a contract shall be presumed to be an equitable
mortgage is not applicable in the instant case. The Extrajudicial Declaration
of Heirs and Sale did not provide for a right to repurchase. As such, there
was no period of redemption to be extended or a new period to be executed.
Fourth, there was no showing that Otillo, as purchaser, retained for himself a
part of the purchase price. He paid the amount of P2,000.00 as sale
consideration to the Repuela brothers. 21 Fifth, there was no agreement in
the contract of sale that the Repuela brothers, as vendors, bound
themselves to pay the taxes on the thing sold. And finally, the Extrajudicial
Declaration of Heirs and Sale was quite clear and specific that what was
involved was a sale of the subject property. From the terms of the contract,
no inference could be made that the real intention of the parties was to
secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation. AIDSTE

The Court's Ruling

The Court finds merit in the petition.

An equitable mortgage is one which, although lacking in some
formality, or form, or words, or other requisites demanded by a statute,
reveals the intention of the parties to charge real property as security for a
debt, and contains nothing impossible or contrary to law. 22
For a presumption of an equitable mortgage to arise, two requisites
must first be satisfied, namely: that the parties entered into a contract
denominated as a contract of sale and that their intention was to secure an
existing debt by way of mortgage. 23 There is no single conclusive test to
determine whether a deed of sale, absolute on its face, is really a simple
loan accommodation secured by a mortgage. Article 1602, in relation to
Article 1604 of the Civil Code, however, enumerates several instances when
a contract, purporting to be, and in fact styled as, an absolute sale, is
presumed to be an equitable mortgage. Thus:
ART. 1602. The contract shall be presumed to be an
equitable mortgage, in any of the following cases:
(1) When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is
unusually inadequate;
(2) When the vendor remains in possession as lessee
or otherwise;
(3) When upon or after the expiration of the right to
repurchase another instrument extending the period of
redemption or granting a new period is executed;
(4) When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the
purchase price;
(5) When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the
thing sold;
(6) In any other case where it may be fairly inferred
that the real intention of the parties is that the
transaction shall secure the payment of a debt or
the performance of any other obligation.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 In any of the foregoing case, any money, fruits, or other benefit
to be received by the vendee as rent or otherwise shall be considered
as interest which shall be subject to the usury laws.
xxx xxx xxx
ART. 1604. The provisions of Article 1602 shall also
apply to a contract purporting to be an absolute sale.
[Emphases and underscoring supplied] AaCTcI

Evident from Article 1602, the presence of any of the circumstances set
forth therein suffices for a contract to be deemed an equitable mortgage. No
concurrence or an overwhelming number is needed. 24 In other words, the
fact that some or most of the circumstances mentioned are absent in a case
will not negate the existence of an equitable mortgage.
In this case, it appears that two (2) instances enumerated in Article
1602 — possession of the subject property and inference that the transaction
was in fact a mortgage attended the assailed transaction.
Possession as Lessee or
otherwise
Article 1602 (2) of the Civil Code provides that when the supposed
vendor remains in possession of the property even after the conclusion of
the transaction, the purported contract of sale is presumed to be an
equitable mortgage. In general terms, possession is the holding of a thing or
the enjoyment of a right, whether by material occupation or by the fact that
the right is subjected to the will of the claimant. The gathering of the
products of and the act of planting on the land constitute occupation,
possession and cultivation. 25
In this case, petitioners insist that the Repuela brothers remained in
possession of the subject property after the transaction, as was corroborated
by a disinterested person, Burlas, who lived in the adjoining lot from the time
she was a child. According to her, it was only the Repuela brothers who tilled
the land and planted corn, bananas and camote. She never saw Otillo, whom
she also knew, till or work on the land.
The respondent's claim of possession, as supported by a transfer
certificate of title and tax declaration of the subject property, both in the
name of Spouses Larawan is, to the Court's mind, not persuasive. These
documents do not prove actual possession. They do not rebut the
overwhelming evidence of the Repuela brothers that they were in actual
possession. The fact of registration in the name of Spouses Larawan does
not change the picture. A conveyance of land, accompanied by registration
in the name of the transferee and the issuance of a new certificate, is no
more secured from the operation of this equitable doctrine than the most
informal conveyance that could be devised. In an equitable mortgage, title
to the property in issue, which has been transferred to the respondents
actually remains or is transferred back to the petitioner as owner-mortgagor,
conformably to the well-established doctrine that the mortgagee does not
become the owner of the mortgaged property because the ownership
remains with the mortgagor pursuant to Article 2088, of the Civil Code. 26
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Inference can be made
that the transaction was
an equitable mortgage EcTCAD

From the attending circumstances of the case, it can be inferred that

the real intention of the Repuela brothers was to secure their indebtedness
from Spouses Larawan. They needed money for Marcelino's fare so they
went to the house of Otillo to borrow P200.00. Considering that Spouses
Larawan would only agree to extend the loan if they would surrender their
certificate of title over the subject property, they obliged in the belief that its
purpose was only to secure their loan. In other words, they surrendered the
title to Spouses Larawan as security to obtain the much needed loan. It was
never their intention to sell the subject property.
As held in Banga v. Sps. Bello, 27 in determining whether a deed,
absolute in form, is a mortgage, the court is not limited to the written
memorials of the transaction. "The decisive factor in evaluating such
agreement is the intention of the parties, as shown not necessarily by the
terminology used in the contract but by all the surrounding circumstances,
such as the relative situation of the parties at that time, the attitude, acts,
conduct, declarations of the parties, the negotiations between them leading
to the deed, and generally, all pertinent facts having a tendency to fix and
determine the real nature of their design and understanding." 28
There is a presumption of
mistake
Granting that indeed Cipriano and Marcelino, signed and
thumbmarked, respectively, the Extrajudicial Declaration of Heirs and Sale,
there is still reason to believe that they did so without understanding the real
nature, effects and consequences of what they did as they were never
explained to them. Cipriano, who only finished Grade One, and Marcelino, an
illiterate, were in dire need of money. As such, the possibility that they
affixed their conformity to the onerous contract to their detriment just to get
the loan was not remote. In dire need as they were, they signed a document
despite knowing that it did not express their real intention. "Necessitous
men are not, truly speaking, free men; but to answer a present emergency,
will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose upon them." 29 For this
reason, the Repuela brothers should be given the protection afforded by the
Civil Code provisions on equitable mortgage.
As aptly explained in Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 30 the Court held:
Vendors covered by Art. 1602 usually find themselves in an
unequal position when bargaining with the vendees, and will readily
sign onerous contracts to get the money they need. Necessitous men
are not really free men in the sense that to answer a pressing
emergency they will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose
on them. This is precisely the evil that Art. 1602 seeks to guard
against. The evident intent of the provision is to give the supposed
vendor maximum safeguards for the protection of his legal rights
under the true agreement of the parties. 31
HSAcaE

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 Besides, where a party is unable to read or when the contract is in a
language not understood by a party and mistake or fraud is alleged, the
obligation to show that the terms of the contract had been fully explained to
the said party who is unable to read or understand the language of the
contract devolves on the party seeking to enforce it. Indeed, that burden to
show that the other party fully understood the contents of the document
rests upon the party who seeks to enforce the contract. If he fails to
discharge this burden, the presumption of mistake, if not, fraud, stands
unrebutted and controlling. 32 Respondent failed to overcome this burden.
In the case at bench, Galileo's testimony that he had witnessed the
Repuela brothers affix their conformity after Atty. Bacalso read and
explained to them the contents of the document in the Cebuano dialect, fail
to convince this Court. As keenly observed by the RTC, Galileo was just six
(6) years old when he witnessed the transaction in the office of Atty.
Bacalso. To the Court's mind, Galileo could not have possibly known the
nature of the purported contract, much less, perceived with certainty if the
Repuela brothers were indeed apprised of the true nature of the said
contract before they were made to sign and thumbmark it. For this reason,
the presumption of mistake, if not fraud, shall remain.
Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the law accords the equitable-
mortgage presumption in situations when doubt exists as to the true intent
of the parties to the contract, 33 as in this case. Courts are generally inclined
to construe one purporting to be a sale as an equitable mortgage, which
involves a lesser transmission of rights and interests over the property in
controversy. 34
There was no prescription
or laches
Contrary to the findings of the CA that petitioners' cause of action was
already barred by laches because of the 39 years that had already lapsed
before they asserted their rights over the property, the Court holds
otherwise. In Inamarga v. Alano, 35 the Court considered the deed of sale as
equitable mortgage and wrote:
xxx Where there is no consent given by one party in a
purported contract, such contract was not perfected; therefore, there
is no contract to speak of. The deed of sale relied upon by petitioner
is deemed a void contract. This being so, the action based on said
deed of sale shall not prescribe in accordance with Article 1410 of
the Civil Code. 36 [Emphasis supplied]
Legal Interest
In the case of Muñoz v. Ramirez , 37 the Court stated that where it was
established that the reciprocal obligations of the parties were under an
equitable mortgage, reconveyance of the property should be ordered to the
rightful owner therein upon the payment of the loan within 90 days from the
finality of that decision. 38 HESIcT

In the case at bench, the RTC ordered the Repuela brothers to pay their
loan amounting to P2,000.00 with interest at the legal rate computed from
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the date of the filing of the complaint in order for them to repair the
property.
In determining the legal rate applicable in this case, Circular No. 799,
series of 2013, issued by the Office of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas on June 21, 2013, which was the basis of the Court in Nacar v.
Gallery Frames, 39 provides that effective July 1, 2013, the rate of interest for
the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed
in judgments, in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of
interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum. Applying the foregoing, the
rate of interest of 12% per annum on the obligation of the Repuela brothers
shall apply from the date of the filing of the complaint on January 17, 2003
until June 30, 2013 only. From July 1, 2013 until fully paid, the legal rate of
6% per annum shall be applied to their unpaid obligation.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed May 29, 2014
Decision and the June 10, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CV No. 03976 are SET ASIDE. The February 23, 2011 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Seventh Judicial Region, Branch 7 in Civil
Case No. CEB-28524 is REINSTATED with MODIFICATION in that the 12%
interest per annum shall only apply from January 17, 2003 until June 30,
2013 only, after which date and until fully paid, the mortgage indebtedness
of Cipriano Repuela and Marcelino Repuela shall earn interest at 6% per
annum.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Brion, Del Castillo and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 50-64. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, with
Associate Justices Edgardo L. Delos Santos and Jhosep Y. Lopez,
concurring.
2. Id. at 81-83.

3. Id. at 42-49. Penned by Judge Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr.

4. Id. at 52.
5. Id. at 52-53.
6. Id. at 43.

7. Id.
8. Id. at 43-44.
9. Id. at 44-46.
10. Id. at 45.
11. Id. at 48.

12. Id. at 48-49.

13. Id. at 49.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 14. Id. at 60-63.
15. Id. at 63.
16. Id. at 29-30.
17. Id. at 31.
18. Id. at 34.

19. Id. at 37.

20. Id. at 92-114.
21. Id. at 99.
22. Deheza-Inamarga v. Alano, et al., 595 Phil. 294, 302 (2008).
23. Lustan v. CA , 334 Phil. 609, 615 (1997).

24. Solitarios v. Jaque , G.R. No. 199852, November 12, 2014, 740 SCRA 226, 235-
236.

25. Go v. Bacaron, 509 Phil. 323, 335 (2005).

26. Solitarios v. Jaque, supra note 24, at 250.

27. 508 Phil. 633 (2005).

28. Id. at 635.

29. Labasan v. Lacuesta , 175 Phil. 216, 221-222 (1978).

30. Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 459 Phil. 264 (2003).

31. Id. at 276.

32. Mayor v. Belen, 474 Phil. 630, 639 (2004).

33. Heirs of Soliva v. Severino, et al., G.R. No. 159611, April 22, 2015.

34. Agas v. Sabico, 496 Phil. 729, 741 (2005).

35. 595 Phil. 294 (2008).

36. Id. at 303.

37. 643 Phil. 267 (2010).

38. Id. at 282.

39. 716 Phil. 267, 282 (2013).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com